America's Backpack Nuke - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2020, 11:09:49 pm
content: From "Dark Docs"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl3SuH2Ue044b7ACX1syk4A/videosNot that bad of a video on "backpack nukes"More pictures, videos and info that I have seen in one place so far.I know - a lot of unrelated stock footage but still some good info on the actual devices.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2020, 11:33:10 pm
content: yep, watched this a while back, certainly a much more sinister take then the official declassified video I saw floating around some where on line.I wonder which version is true. For some reason I think special forces are smart enough to figure out where to put it and extend the timer so they can get out on time.. making them seem suicidal with fake leaked documents is a good way to terrorize the Soviet military as well..The truth will never be known..The Davey Crockett analysis videos piss me off too, because if its used in a empty field MAYBE its a bad idea, but certainly they can setup a firing point on a elevation, near a rock ledge, etc.. take youtube analysis videos with a grain of salt. Sometimes I think all the field maneuvers they can think of are based on a tiny COD map or something. (the davey crockett uses seem obvious, but I could be wrong)not to mention the trigger circuits and methods and such for this small bomb are probably classified or not even documented and will hopefully be forgotten to history like chemical weapons.He does have a very interesting take on it though.

author: Lord of nothing
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2020, 11:51:21 pm
content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

author: alpher
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2020, 12:08:34 am
content: Jeez, this guy sounds like that thing killed his whole family at least.Butthurt lefties are getting more pathetic than ever.

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2020, 12:31:56 am
content: Always amazing to me that in just 15 or 16 years we were able to miniaturize to the W54.Low yield of course but still the technology for 1960 was pretty impressive. Actually earlier than that if you consider the development.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2020, 01:06:40 pm
content: you need to know RL network! (0:38) ...

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2020, 12:21:58 am
content: Quote from: alpher on May 13, 2020, 12:08:34 amwhen you think about the potential it had as a cheap landscaping tool, energy generator, mineral extractor, before the total hazards of radiation were known, by the people developing it initially, the engineers might be upset too.probably felt alot like they were robbed (maybe they saw possibilities of cleaner bombs) by the government, cut funding, while its good enough to use as a weapon..

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2020, 12:26:46 am
content: Once the Swan-device style of implosion was worked out, it was possible to make a pretty small device. Extremely small devices are really problematic.The issue, even with the Swan-type, was that the Plutonium pit has to be far enough from criticality that minor accidents like plane crashes or fireswould not result in criticality. One way to do this is to make the pit well below critical, and then require a massive chemical implosion to bring it tocritical. But, of course, a massive implosion requires a lot of high explosive material. I think the Davy Crockett was a really dangerous device, very closeto critical, so that it didn't require lots of chemical explosives.The Swan-device pioneeered a 2-point initiation of the spherical implosion, which simplified the original fat man style with many initiators.I think the current lightest nuclear weapon, at least that is publically known, is well over 100 Lbs, and these may also have been removed from service due to safety concerns.Jon

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2020, 12:50:16 am
content: I think the smallest is the one that fits in the smallest artillery shell (I think 155 mm)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W82this one had a 95 pound prototype, which included everything in a artillery shell head, so it was likely pretty light

author: Electro Detective
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2020, 03:01:58 am
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on May 14, 2020, 12:21:58 amWhen the back patting stops and the smoke clears, all those 'geniuses' did was put power into the hands of psychos paying them peanutsRest assured all that stock is still around somewhere, dusted off, updated, and used as leverage to influence 'decisions'Why waste money building new gear when the old stuff still gets it done ?

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2020, 03:28:35 am
content: Quote from: Electro Detective on May 14, 2020, 03:01:58 amthe body count of nuclear weapons is pretty low compared to conventional weapons and tanks etc.If they keep staying unused its great, but no need to make small hard to manage ones. Thats why treaties like START are good, because they keep design of this shit down. Otherwise they would be trying to make slimmer faster missiles all the time that can get past missile defenses.Things could change if they make big fast mobile armies (imagine like mechwarrior or way too many tanks), then they would try to keep costs down by making orbital weapons that are fast and dangerous, tactical weapons deployed near satellite photos of big army concentrations around borders, etc.I think the fact that we can still get away with using old ones means that politicians are doing a good job keeping military proliferation down/reasonable.I think fast ships, things that can cross terrain fast and actually do more occupation then a helicopter (flying tanks), possibly mechs, etc.. could lead to a restart of development , because then it will be very appealing to leave some davey crockett thing laying around some hidden forward outpost in case like 50 tank things show up at a moments notice from a few hundred miles away.Then if space is less safe, the army will trust it less, and feel the need to have rapid deployment stuff to prevent good fortifications from being made (if the enemy is can setup a good defensive position with a invasion force, they will have problems). I think right now they can basically figure out troop movements with satellites and put a counter force in the correct location most of the time, that can fight conventionally, otherwise they need force multipliers. So watch out if someone makes a flying T-14. I think alot of the reasoning behind the tactical weapons in europe was basically to prevent soviets from getting too much stuff in one place too quickly when air superiority was not had. I think thats why they spend so much money on air superiority. I imagine they would setup some kind of "kursk" defense in enemy territory if they had enough stuff that would be impenetrable, making strategic use of weapons necessary, because there probably exist locations that can be fortified to extreme levels if there is enough equipment moved there quickly. I imagine thats what the nuclear demolitions charges were partially meant for, they could figure out where some of these strongpoints would be and leave them mined, or to blow them up before hand to make it unappealing to use and direct them to places where they think they can get away with using planes etc (reduce effect of anti air cover, direct them into mountains where helicopters can hide from line of sight, etc)I can imagine things would get a bit like Albania without the tactical weapons potentially. They wasted like 25% of their economy on building bunkers everywhere. Hopefully we can find a way not to need them again