Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
If you need to ask, you can't afford it.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Cobalt Bunker Buster Buster

Tactical nukes made obsolete with a cargo transport full of cobalt or Naf Na Cl plus Charcoal
  (+2, -3)
(+2, -3)
  [vote for,

I read that the US has new language about first strike nuclear weapons I think The use of tactical nuclear missiles as bunker busters has been described

Like the sticky tape radiation tank neutralizer this idea prevents the use of tactical nuclear missiles

a slow lumbering cargo plane full of Cobalt arrives at the predicted target just as the nuclear weapon arrives; this works as even at 1000 Km PH The defender has minutes to figure out which near target area the missile will strike

when the bunker buster missile reaches target plus the cobalt filled cargo plane it creates a huge plume of hyperlethal Co (the doomesday bomb scenario used cobalt bombs) which completely irritates the neighboring countries causing diplomatic fail plus huge fiscal reparations

thus making the tactical nukes Objectively useless If you nuke one county even lightly the neighbors get poisoned ruining decades or centuries of possible diplomacy

A variant on this is to use very cheap sodium fluoride plus sodium chloride plus charcoal This combo when turned to plasma vicinal to a nuclear blast turns to a multiton ozone destroying greenhouse gas hyperemission If the nuke is predictable enough flying the NaFNaClC cargo just above the blast ejects the toxic ions to the stratosphere where they act as Ozone depleters plus greenhouse gases

Now arguably this is only a few dozen tons of of prechlorfluorocarbons per nuke yet the 2004 global output of CFCs was limited to just 70 tons Thus it might be possible to eject a full years worth of banned ozone destroyers per tactrical nuke intercepted They could describe this to defensive use as HalonDefenseShield

again each tactic nuke creates such global irritation as to make it more of an objectibe liability than objective benefit

There is the risk that a multiweapon nuclear war Together with predictable targets each wearing a halondefenseshield could destroy the earths ozone layer plus create severe greenhouse gas effects

Thus deterring even moderate dose nuclear war as MAD

Thus they could like lower taxes n we could spend all that military money on ice cream

beanangel, Oct 04 2009


       Here's an idea for you, [beanangel]: Punctuation.
tatterdemalion, Oct 04 2009

       To irritate the neighbors of the nuked country, you inflict considerably more than irritation to the residents of your own. If there was ever a good example of cutting off your nose to spite your face, this is it.
bungston, Oct 04 2009

       You could also surround it with cars with the catalytic converters removed, which are presumably not supposed to be exported into rich countries, but that would get blasted around the world by the blast. So if the US or Europe nuked the bunker, they'd thereby "export" a banned car into the other and get trade sanctions applied, ruining their automobile export industry.   

       Not as effective as the cobalt I guess though.
caspian, Oct 05 2009

       just a thought; how many nukes, tactical or otherwise, have been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki? -- aside from test blasts, that is.
CaptainClapper, Oct 05 2009

       not a basalt conker buster buster then?
po, Oct 05 2009

       This won't stop bunker busting.   

       I'd simply use progressively larger non-nuclear weapons to disperse your anti-nuke agent(s) then drop the big one anyway. If I wanted the target badly enough, that is.
phoenix, Oct 05 2009

       So that the locals are not affected by the attack, you could sell plastic wrap for people to put on their heads during a double nuke and buster buster attack, used as Plastic Wrap Cobalt Bunker Buster Buster Buster.
pashute, May 06 2010

       This *should* be a really bad idea, but, unfortunately, if this is a bad idea, then so is mingling your military assets with your civilian population. And that tactic seems popular and effective.
mouseposture, May 06 2010

       Cobalt bombs supposedly work because the cobalt is located *at* the nuclear core. Neutron bombardment transmutes it to the radioactive isotope (Co-60 I beleive).   

       Even if you kamikaze'd the cargo plane into the incoming ICMB, *at* the detonation height, I doubt you'd get much transmutation going on.   

       I mean, theoretically, I you managed to encase the bomb with cobalt somehow, you'd get the maximum exposure of cobalt to the neutrons - which may or may not have a big effect. Like a lot of things about nuclear weapon design, I think you're underestimating how much design effort goes into optimising geometry, etc to make it do what you need. I imagine if anyone made a cobalt bomb it'd be se up very differently to a conventional warhead; most of which use a U-238 tamper, the so called fission-fusion-fission design, which I beleive does a good job of using the neutrons and doesn't emit very many at all, compared to a "naked" warhead. Or so I beleive.
Custardguts, May 06 2010

       // completely irritates //
sp. "irradiates"
coprocephalous, May 06 2010


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle