Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 39827
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2018/11/15 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/15   

2005/9/22-23 [Science/Physics] UID:39827 Activity:high
9/22    What are the downsides to using a nuclear bomb to disperse forming
        Islamic extremists?  I'm pretty sure the cost of the bomb would be
        offset by the money saved in devastation (100+ billion in a major city
        anyone?).
        \_ 9/23 reply: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/rita_wishful_thinking
        \_ if you use a neutron bomb, nothing (well other than a bunch of
           annoying anti-bomb peacenicks protesting in the streets and
           annoying anti-bomb peaceniks protesting in the streets and
           making the morning commute that much worse)
           \_ Does the US even possess neutron weapons anymore?  I thought
              those were only deployed for a brief time during the '80s as
              a buffer against a Russian tank invasion of Europe?
              \_ Possibly.  They have a short shelf life, and we aren't
                 making anymore AFAIK.  We might be refurbishing them
                 though.
              \_ Do you really think the government is dumb enough to
                 get rid of something like the neutron bomb (regardless
                 of what the official peacenik friendly story is)?
              \_ Do you really think the government is dumb enough to get
                 rid of something like the neutron bomb (the official
                 story is probably just a cover to keep the peaceniks
                 happy)
        \_ Assuming this is a serious question, (a) the islamic extremists
           that threaten anyone don't "form" per se, (b) we'd blow up a lot
           of innocent people and their infrastructure which we're at least
           not supposed to do, (c) we have always had a policy since the end
           of WWII of never using nukes first, and (d) nobody would ever ever
           talk to the US again.  Go sit in a corner.  -John
           \_ re (b), best reason to use a neutron bomb, the infrastructure
              remains intact, some collateral human damage will occur, but
              in war that can't be helped.
              re (c), the no first strike policy has been "reviewed" by the
              current admin and may be rescinded if the situation was dire
              enough - therefore this policy is presently not a barrier to
              the use of "nucular" weapons
              re (d), the US is not well liked overseas, it is not likely
              that further degradation of international opinion is a major
              concern to the decision makers - armed retaliation may be a
              concern but currently no nation can field a force sufficient
              to make retaliation a sufficient threat to avoid first strike.
              \_ neutron bombs are still atomic bombs ; they are just optimized
                 for radiation output vs. explosive blast power.  If you want
                 to kill people and not infrastructure biological and chemical
                 weapons are the way to go.  There's significant political
                 costs to their use, however...
                 \_ As opposed to less significant costs for normal atomic
                    bombs?
2018/11/15 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/15   

You may also be interested in these entries...
2010/9/7-30 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:53949 Activity:nil
9/5     "Report: Castro blasts Ahmadinejad as anti-Semitic" - Yahoo! News:
        http://www.csua.org/u/rji
        "HAVANA - Fidel Castro criticized Iranian President Mahmoud
        Ahmadinejad for what he called his anti-Semitic attitudes and
        questioned his own actions during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962
        during interviews with an American journalist he summoned to Havana to
	...
2009/12/2-9 [Science/Physics] UID:53557 Activity:nil
12/2    Looking for a "LHC and Higgs bosom for Dummies" equivalent site.
        I'd like to learn more but most sites out there are just way
        beyond me. Is there a dummy's version for it?
        \_ W = weak force, EM = electromagnetic force, S = strong force,
           G = gravity. They're the four forces, and the holy grail of
           physics is to unify them all in a single theory -- the Grand
	...
2009/11/11-30 [Science/Physics, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:53518 Activity:low
11/11   Watch the History Channel today! It's got Oppenheimer and the atomic
        bomb history. Did you know at one time 10% of the entire electricity
        in the U.S. was used to refine U235 and weapon grade plutonium?
        Holy jesus! I wonder how much energy is used to get plutonium fuel
        that generates today's nuclear powered electric plant
        \_ it talks about the 2 different methods for getting U235. So
	...
2009/10/22-11/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:53464 Activity:nil
10/22   Time to bust out my I Partied With Nick Weaver T-Shirt:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/10/hoisted-from-comments-nicholas-weaver-on-solar-vs-nuclear-myhrvold-dubner-and-levitt.html
	...
2009/8/10-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:53257 Activity:moderate
8/10    James Kunstler is a genius.
        http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/08/the-fog-of-numbers.html
        \_  sarcasm?  or are you really an easily impressed dolt??
            \_ The latter I guess. I had not run across him before, and
               while I think he is hyperbolic, I think he is telling a
               very unpopular truth in a funny and attention getting way.
	...
Cache (3581 bytes)
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/rita_wishful_thinking
AP Scientists Dispute Hurricane Blaster Idea By JOSEPH B VERRENGIA, AP Science Writer 2 hours, 49 minutes ago DENVER - It sounds like a great idea: Let's just blast hurricanes like Ri ta and Katrina out of the sky before they hurt more people. Or, at least weaken the storms and steer them away from cities. Click Here Atmospheric scientists say it's wishful thinking that we could destroy or even influence something as huge and powerful as a hurricane. They aban doned such a quest years ago after more than two decades of inconclusive government-sponsored research. Private companies have conducted tests on a much smaller scale, but have made little progress despite initially claiming to erase storm clouds fr om the atmosphere. "It would be like trying to move a car with a pea shooter," said hydromet eorologist Matthew Kelsch of the National Center for Atmospheric Researc h in Boulder. "The amount of energy involved in a hurricane is far great er that anything we're going to impart to it." The federal government's hurricane modification program was called Projec t Stormfury. The idea was raised during the Eisenhower administration af ter several major storms hit the East Coast in the mid-1950s, killing 74 9 people and causing billions in damages. But it wasn't until 1961 that initial tests were conducted on Hurricane E sther with a Navy plane releasing silver iodide crystals. Some reports i ndicate winds were reduced by 10 percent to 30 percent. During Stormfury, scientists also seeded hurricanes in 1963, 1969 and 197 1 over the open Atlantic Ocean far from land. Researchers dropped silver iodide, a substance that serves as an effectiv e ice nuclei, into clouds just outside of the hurricane's eyewall. The i dea was that a new ring of clouds would form around the artificial ice n uclei. The new clouds were supposed to change rain patterns and form a n ew eyewall that would collapse the old one. The reformed hurricane would spin more slowly and be less dangerous. Hurricane Debbie in 1969 was seeded twice over four days by several aircraft. Researchers noted that its intensity waxed and waned by up to 30 percent. For cloud seeding to be successful, clouds must contain sufficient superc ooled water that is still liquid even though it is below 32 degrees Fahr enheit. Raindrops form when the artificial nuclei and the supercooled wa ter combine. But scientists also learned that hurricanes contain less supercooled wate r than other storm clouds, so seeding was unreliable. And, hurricanes gr ow and dissipate all on their own, even forming new walls of clouds call ed "concentric eyewall circles." This made it impossible to determine whether storm reductions were the re sult of human intervention. Project Stormfury was abandoned in the 1980s after spending hundreds of millions of dollars. Other storm modification methods that have been suggested include cooling the tropical ocean with icebergs and spreading particles or films over the ocean surface to inhibit storms from evaporating heat from the sea. Occasionally, somebody suggests detonating a nuclear weapon to shatter a storm. For example, Hurric ane Rita measures about 400 miles across. According to the center for atmospheric research, the heat energy release d by a hurricane equals 50 to 200 trillion watts or about the same amoun t of energy released by exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 min utes. The informati on contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewr itten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associ ated Press.