Peace through practical, proved civil defence for credible war deterrence
  • Credible nuclear deterrence of invasions and conventional wars reduce the risk of large nuclear wars occurring through escalation of conventional wars. Contrary to irrational, pseudo-scientific propaganda, the number of nuclear weapons is smaller than the millions of conventional weapons used in large wars and the correct scaling shows that the overall effects are similar, not massively different as often claimed for political propaganda by enemies of peace. Furthermore, the greater time delay of effects from nuclear weapons over the damaged area increases the efficiency of cheap civil defence countermeasures, as compared to conventional weapons. In conclusion, credible nuclear deterrence of conventional war offers a beautiful opportunity to create a peaceful world, free from fear peddling, ranting dictators. The only oppositions you will meet will come from authoritarian obsessed fear peddling myth makers. If they can't tell the truth and face the facts, why listen to them? Please see our post on the need to deter not only direct threats from nuclear attacks but also conventional wars and invasions that can escalate into nuclear wars (as proved by the use of nuclear weapons in WWII, for example, after they were developed during the war itself and did not trigger or provoke the war), linked here, here, here, and here, here, here, and the true scaling law equivalence between a few thousand nuclear weapons and the several million tons of small conventional weapons in a non-nuclear world war as proved by our post summarising key points in Herman Kahn's much-abused call for credible deterrence, On Thermonuclear War, linked here. Peace comes through tested, proved and practical declassified countermeasures against the effects of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and conventional weapons. Credible deterrence to end invasions and wars comes through simple, effective protection against invasions like low yield tactical weapons and walls, and civil defence against collateral damage. Peace comes through discussions of the facts as opposed to inaccurate, misleading lies of the "disarm or be annihilated" political dogma variety, which are designed to exploit fear to close down criticisms of errors in mainstream orthodoxy. In particular, please see the post linked here on EMP results from an actual Russian 300 kt test at 290 km altitude over unwarned civilian infrastructure in Kazakhstan on 22 October 1962, which caused no injuries or deaths whatsoever (contrary to all of Jeremy Corbyn and CND style lying propaganda that any use of nuclear weapons on civilians would automatically kill millions), but shut down the communications and power supply lines! This is not secret, but does not make newspaper headlines to debunk CND style dogmas on the alleged incredibility of nuclear deterrence.

  • 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 a sample of 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 ...

  • Wednesday, May 03, 2006

    Clean nuclear weapons tests worked

    ABOVE: a relatively dirty nuclear fallout situation: the limited reality of fallout gamma doses and dose rates outdoors on an ideal smooth infinite surface, 2 Mt land surface burst with 1 Mt fission yield and a 24 km/hour wind speed. Curves are from Glasstone and Dolan, 1977 which is based on DELFIC, DEfence Land Fallout Interpretative Code; for a discussion of DEFLIC's cloud rise model see Daniel E. Zalewski's report AFIT/GNE/ENP/01M-06, Vincent J. Jodoin's ADA265587, and Karson A. Sandman's report AFIT/GNE/ENP/05-11, and for an analysis of the particle size distribution details, their effect on fallout pattern predictions, and how DELFIC calculates rainout and other weather phenomena effects on fallout, see Eric T. Skaar's report AFIT/GNE/ENP/05-13. For a detailed comparison of DELFIC predictions against measured fallout at six Nevada tests, including subsurface bursts and low air bursts (George, Ess, Zucchini, Priscilla, Smoky and Johnie Boy) see Richard W. Chancellor's report AFIT/GNE/ENP/05-02. You can escape lethal doses the fallout by walking crosswind. You don't need a radiation meter because fallout is visible (see the full discussion in an earlier post, here). For a history of fallout prediction see Jay C. Willis' report ADA079560.

    ABOVE: doses and dose rates from a clean bomb (made by simply replacing the U238 pusher around the lithium deuteride secondary unit with one made from lead or tungsten). The total yield here is 2 megatons, but it is 95 % clean (only 100 kt comes from fission). Dose rates and integrated doses are both 10 times smaller than for the 50 % fission standard weapon fallout shown at the top of the page. Notice that even after 18 hours outside in the open at 30 miles directly downwind, you would not get more than 100 roentgens of gamma exposure, which corresponds to a skin dose equivalent of about 0.93 Sievert.

    In the previous post we discussed the effects on 64 people without any shielding on Rongelap, who received 175 roentgens over a two day period before evacuation after the Bravo test. The chief problem they had were beta radiation burns due to prolonged skin contamination while they were out of doors in the 'snow-like' fallout. It is easy to deal with this since even a single layer of clothing prevented skin burns (most of the damaging skin dose is delivered by 'soft' or low energy beta particles). Washing or staying under cover also prevent skin burns.

    What evidence is there that clean bombs are possible? The 1962 Sedan test of 104 kt total yield only derived 30 kt from fission. The Sedan fallout patterns have been published (DASA-1251-1-EX). Similarly, the Zuni test of 3.53 Mt total yield and 15 % fission and the Navajo test of 4.5 Mt total yield and 5 % fission have been published. Dr Bethe explains the humane case for a clean nuclear weapon to be deployed in another on-line report, while yet another report expands on the political case for clean nuclear deterrence in detail.

    America has declassified the 1958 clean nuclear weapon Handbook for United Nation Observers, Pinion Test, Eniwetok, UCRL-5367. After President Eisenhower publically announced the success of clean bomb test in July 1956, a lot of doubt and suspicion was raised in the media. Test Pinion (which became Poplar) was the idea to prove the practicality of clean weapons to the world, inviting United Nations scientific observers to watch a clean test at Eniwetok Atoll, measuring the total yield by filming the fireball expansion rate and applying Sir G. I. Taylor's shock wave law, and measuring the fission yield from doing a radiochemical analysis of the contents of the radioactive fallout.

    Unfortunately, Dr Mark M. Mills who came up with the idea was killed in a helicopter accident at Eniwetok on 6 April 1958. On 25 April 1958, the United States at the United Nations did actually offer the U. N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation the opportunity to evaluate a clean nuclear test. But with the enthusiastic project leader lost, the energy in the project fizzled out and it was cancelled on 26 July 1958. The weapon to have been tested as Pinion was instead secretly detonated at Bikini Atoll on 12 July 1958 under the codename Poplar (9.3 megatons total yield, only 450 kt fission yield, hence just 4.8 % fission).

    In reviewing the fireball/shock wave mathematical model that report gives, it is interesting to see what was known in 1958 above that of Taylor's 1950 report (G. I. Taylor, Proc. Roy. Soc. v. 2001A, p. 159). I have already given a proof on this blog that Taylor's numerican integration and approximate solution can be replaced entirely by an analytical proof which gives an exact solution for the situation of interest: R = {[75E(g - 1)t2]/(8pro)}1/5.

    Page 4 of the 1958 report expresses this new analytically proved energy formula E = 8proR5/[75(g - 1)t2] as: E = K roR5/t2, where K - which in my proof is simply K = 8p/[75(g - 1)] - is a complicated, numerically computed function from Taylor's long-winded paper, or calculated empirically from nuclear test data: '... K is a dimensionless parameter dependent upon the gamma of the medium inside the fireball. This relation was published by its originator, Sir Geoffrey I. Taylor ... expressed in CGS units [cm, grams, seconds, and ergs for energy] the first determination based on about six shots was K = 1.740. After a few years it appeared that the value K = 1.709 gave a better fit with the radiochemical [yield determination] data. This value continues to be good to this day, when applied to the prescribed portion of the hydrodynamic-growth curve.'

    The handbook then on page 5 points out errors on pages 161 and 162 of Taylor's mathematics, particularly his error of expressing the velocity of sound in air using variable gamma instead of ambient gamma. Taylor also falsely assumed that the ambient air density at the New Mexico Trinity test was 1.25 kg per cubic metre, when it was (according to the handbook) 1.006. (The value of air density is not directly measured before an explosion, but is reliably calculated from the measured temperature, pressure and humidity of the ambient air.) The exact value of gamma is dependent not only upon well-known dissociation of molecules of gases as a result of the high shock wave and fireball temperature, but also due to the effects of nuclear radiation on the air in the fireball region.

    ABOVE: the empirically determined fireball sizes using nuclear test data.

    ABOVE: the previous data plotted to show how the gradual temperature/nuclear radiation induced variation in gamma affects the expansion rate slightly; the assumption of constant K applies to the parts of the curves which are approximately horizontal.

    Fusion efficiency depends on compression of the fusion (lithium deuteride) capsule via the recoil of a heavy metal pusher (surrounding the lithium deuteride) by the recoil from ablation caused by x-rays from the fission primary component. The radiating temperature of a fission bomb (the primary stage) is lower for smaller yields, because the yield variation is greater than the corresponding variation in bomb masses, so a smaller fraction of the energy is initially radiated as x-rays in a very low yield weapon. Although it is possible to partially focus a shock wave (hydrodynamic lensing) to make use of the energy that is in the bomb case shock and not in x-rays, that is more difficuly than focussing x-rays.

    The simplicity of using x-rays is that they exert little pressure directly. Intense pressures are only generated indirectly when x-rays are absorbed sharply. The inside of the outer casing of a nuclear weapon is lined with a layer of plastic foam, to reduce ablative recoil and delay expansion. But the x-rays absorbed in a thin layer of the dense lead, tungsten, or U238 jacket around the lithium deuteride capsule cause ablation which, by way of 'action-produces-an-equal-and-opposite-reaction' physics of Newton's 3rd law, compresses the capsule. The heavy metal layer is called the 'pusher'. The way to combine x-ray and shock wave compression of the fusion charge is called boosting, and is completely different. A mixture of tritium and deuterium gas is placed inside a hollow in the core of a fission device. (However this is no use for a neutron bomb, because most of the neutrons produced by fusion then get shielded by the surrounding layers of material.)


    Post a Comment

    << Home