Peace through practical, proved civil defence for credible war deterrence
  • Please see also post linked here, and our summary of the key points in Herman Kahn's much-abused call for credible deterrence, On Thermonuclear War, linked here.

  • Hiroshima's air raid shelters were unoccupied because Japanese Army officers were having breakfast when B29s were detected far away, says Yoshie Oka, the operator of the Hiroshima air raid sirens on 6 August 1945...

  • In 1,881 burns cases in Hiroshima, only 17 (or 0.9 percent) were due to ignited clothing and 15 (or 0.7%) were due to the firestorm flames...

  • Dr Harold L. Brode’s new book, Nuclear Weapons in ...

  • 800 war migrants drowned on 22 April by EU policy:...

  • Photographed fireball shielding by cloud cover in ...

  • Nuclear weapons effects "firestorm" and "nuclear w...

  • Proved 97.5% survival in completely demolished houses ...

    "There has never been a war yet which, if the facts had been put calmly before the ordinary folk, could not have been prevented." - British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, House of Commons Debate on Foreign Affairs, Hansard, 23 November 1945, column 786 (unfortunately secret Cabinet committees called "democracy" for propaganda purposes have not been quite so successful in preventing war). Protection is needed against collateral civilian damage and contamination in conventional, chemical and nuclear attack, with credible low yield clean nuclear deterrence against conventional warfare which, in reality (not science fiction) costs far more lives. Anti scientific media, who promulgate and exploit terrorism for profit, censor (1) vital, effective civil defense knowledge and (2) effective, safe, low yield air burst clean weapons like the Mk54 and W79 which deter conventional warfare and escalation, allowing arms negotiations from a position of strength. This helped end the Cold War in the 1980s. Opposing civil defense and nuclear weapons that really deter conventional war, is complacent and dangerous.

    War and coercion dangers have not stemmed from those who openly attack mainstream mistakes, but from those who camouflage themselves as freedom fighters to ban such free criticism itself, by making the key facts seem taboo, without even a proper debate, let alone financing research into unfashionable alternatives. Research and education in non-mainstream alternatives is needed before an unprejudiced debate, to establish all the basic facts for a real debate. “Wisdom itself cannot flourish, nor even truth be determined, without the give and take of debate and criticism.” – Robert Oppenheimer (quotation from the H-bomb TV debate hosted by Eleanor Roosevelt, 12 February 1950).

    “Apologies for freedom? I can’t handle this! ... Deal from strength or get crushed every time ... Freedom demands liberty everywhere. I’m thinking, you see, it’s not so easy. But we have to stand up tall and answer freedom’s call!” – Freedom Kids

  • Wednesday, March 29, 2006

    Checkmate detonation as seen from another camera


    Above: following on from the first post on this blog, here is another view (looking almost directly upward from near ground zero) of Checkmate, a 7 kilotons burst at 147 km altitude over Johnston Island on 20 October 1962.

    Dr Herman Hoerlin writes in Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-6405, United States High Altitude Test Experiences, p. 1:

    'The prompt thermal effects on the ground were negligible, with the exception of those from the Orange event [this 3.8 Mt burst at only 43 km altitude produced 3.0 cal/cm2 of thermal radiation at ground zero, whereas 3.8 Mt Teak at 77 km altitude only produced 1.0 cal/cm2 at ground zero, and all of the other high altitude detonations produced merely 0.1 cal/cm2 or less at ground zero]. That event could have caused minor damage in the Johnston Island (JI) area in the absence of cloud cover.

    'The eyeburn problem at ground zero and up to large slant distances was severe [for people looking in the direction of the explosion, with a clear view] for all events except Starfish, Checkmate, and Argus. Adequate precautions, such as the selection of JI instead of Bikini as the base in the Pacific, were taken. Two military personnel suffered severe [eye retina] burns, however, due to inadvertent exposure [during the 410 kt Bluegill test at 48 km altitude]. ...

    'The degrading effects of increased ionospheric ionization on commercial and aircraft communications-mainly in the LF, MF, and HF frequency ranges—extended over the whole Pacific Ocean area. They lasted for many days after the three megaton-range [high altitude] explosions [Teak, Orange, and Starfish]. They were less severe—in some cases even beneficial-for VHF and VLF frequencies, thus providing guidance for emergency situations.

    'The formation of an artificial radiation belt of such high electron fluxes and long lifetimes as occurred after the Starfish event was unexpected; so were the damages sustained by three satellites in orbit [the Ariel, Traac, and Transit 4B satellites failed; Cosmos V, Injun I and Telstar suffered only minor degradation, moderate solar cell damage by electrons].

    'However, the vast amount of knowledge gained by the observations of the artificial belts generated by Starfish, Argus, and the Russian high-altitude explosions [notice that America had data on the Russian tests back in 1976, when this report was written] far outweighed the information which would have been gained otherwise. A few extrapolations are made to effects on manned space flight under hypothetical circumstances[page 26 says: 'for a satellite in a polar circular earth orbit, the daily dose would have been at the very least 60 rads in a heavily shielded vehicle at Starfish time plus four months']. Electromagnetic radiation in the radio-frequency portion of the spectrum (EMP) caused brief outages of a street lighting system in Oahu and of several input stages of electronic equipment, though during the Starfish event only. ...

    'The prompt fallout from high-altitude explosions was zero. The residence time in the stratosphere of special tracers—Rh-102 and Cd-109—incorporated into the Orange and Starfish devices was 14 years. The fallout of fission products was similarly delayed and was distributed over the whole globe; thus, the biological effects on humans were reduced per unit energy release in comparison with low-altitude atmospheric explosions. The worldwide observation of the tracers led to the development of matching models of global stratospheric air-mass motions and to a better understanding of mixing processes near the tropopause. In fact, the downward motion of the tracers was most pronounced in the polar areas during local winter. No effect on the natural ozone layer could be ascertained.'

    The burst altitudes and dates given in Table 1 of that report are useful in regard to current conflicting statements over the burst altitudes of Argus tests: three 1.7 kt weapons were detonated at altitudes of 200 km, 240 km, and 540 km, respectively, on 27 and 30 August and 6 September 1958. (These altitudes are taken from R. W. Klib's Mission Research Corporation reports about data from the tests, MRC-R-112 and -176, dated January 1974 and March 1975.)

    Page 16 mentions that research with rhesus monkeys since the tests shows the approximate range at which it would have been safe to watch the 77 km altitude 3.8 Mt Teak nuclear test from the ground in exceptionally clear weather:
    'irreversible [eye retina] damage occurs for a temperature increase of 20 °C, while a 5 °C temperature rise is safe. Applying these criteria to the Teak case, the threshold (20 °C) dose at ground zero would [be] 1 cal/cm2 on the retina and the safe dose 0.2 cal/cm2. Then, taking the postevent source data and assuming an exceptionally clear day, the safe slant distance would have been 450 statute miles.'

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    << Home