Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Turkey revolts, it will produce nuclear fuel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    For the money and problems associated with a nuclear deterrent, Turkey could build powerful thermobaric weapons stockpiles, delivery systems, a dozen well equpped divisions to use them and still come out way head cost wise. They would also have a much more credible threat, since using TB weapons would not be unprecedented or risk starting a nuclear exchange. It seems foolish to build new nuclear stockpiles at this point in history, they are not usable, they are a huge liability, and they are fabulously expensive.
    sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      What you have ignored is that tac nukes have become useless. There are conventional munitions that now approach in effectiveness without the hoops you have to jump through to get nuclear release. Thermobaric munitions can deliver just as effective punch as a tac nuke and without the radiation.
      Sir,

      What's the weight range and role of those thermobaric bombs? I thought this type of weapon's intended victims are bunkers and large facilities, not field units in the open that tactical nukes were designed to deal with.
      All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
      -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Triple C View Post
        Sir,

        What's the weight range and role of those thermobaric bombs? I thought this type of weapon's intended victims are bunkers and large facilities, not field units in the open that tactical nukes were designed to deal with.
        Field units would be very vulnerable to thermobaric weapons (air fuel weapons), which can range from clustered small sub munitions to giant MOAB types. They create a giant fireball much like a nuke does, though not as insanely hot as a nuke (they won't vaporize steel like a nuke), so deep bunkers would be somewhat more secure against them than exposed troops or buildings. But they consume all the air, so suffocation would come into play inside their footprint.
        sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
        If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
          so deep bunkers would be somewhat more secure against them than exposed troops or buildings. But they consume all the air, so suffocation would come into play inside their footprint.
          Actually no, hardened targets are now extremely vulnerable to FAEs. The key is not any one single munition but a multiple of munitions and penetrators. IE, against a hardened target, first a strike with a penetrator with enough HE just to crack the shelter to be followed by an FAE which will penetrate the cracks before the ignition.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            Actually no, hardened targets are now extremely vulnerable to FAEs. The key is not any one single munition but a multiple of munitions and penetrators. IE, against a hardened target, first a strike with a penetrator with enough HE just to crack the shelter to be followed by an FAE which will penetrate the cracks before the ignition.
            Thank you Sir,
            Am I correct about the effectiveness of TB weapons against troops in the open?
            sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
            If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 1979 View Post
              I had the impression that 340 Kt is barely enough to take out a regiment on the march .
              340 kt is enough to take out a large city. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both under 20 kt.
              I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ArmchairGeneral View Post
                340 kt is enough to take out a large city. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both under 20 kt.
                I concur, 340 kt is a large strategic nuke, modern tactical nukes are in the 0.1-20 kt range. A regiment on the move could be decimated by a 10 kt nuke, OR a well arranged Thermobaric weapon attack, with multiple warheads.

                The TB weapons can cause a precursor shock, which is like some nukes, it drags things back and forth along the ground, using the ground itself to grind them up, it is very nasty, the kt rating of a nuke does not reflect all these weapons effects, and two bombs with the same yeild can have very different effects.
                Last edited by USSWisconsin; 05 Jan 11,, 20:56.
                sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                Comment


                • #23
                  A division during administrative marches occupies a area 25km wide 100 km deep.
                  J'ai en marre.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                    A division during administrative marches occupies a area 25km wide 100 km deep.
                    at what density? 30k men in 2500 km^2 sounds like 12 men per km ^2 - how does a squad hold a km^2?
                    you wouldn't need to kill every man to decimate a division, and many of the men would be more concentrated - picking the right concentrations of troops would be the object. TB weapons could be distributed and hit more concentrations than an equivalent yield and cost in nukes.

                    I do fully understand the prinicples, effects, and operation of the weapons we are discussing, however, our military experts, like OoE, understand the way they would be used far better than I do. I will defer to his expertice in these matters
                    Last edited by USSWisconsin; 05 Jan 11,, 23:08.
                    sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                      A division during administrative marches occupies a area 25km wide 100 km deep.
                      I don't think one would attempt to kill a division with one nuke. You get diminishing returns as you scale up yield, because most of the extra energy goes in the wrong directions. As USSWisconsin points out, the distribution of men would not be even across the area. It'll be lumpy. So, instead of one big nuke, you use a handful of much smaller nukes, and take out 2 or three of the most vital lumps.

                      Of course, I'm just arguing from first principles, I don't have any knowledge of actual doctrine. As Wisconsin said, OoE knows.
                      I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        What we are forgetting is that Nukes have a greater psychological and environmental impact. With Nukes you not only have large amounts of death and destruction but also injuries miles and miles away from the epicentre of the blast which can overwhelm a country. Not to mention that the product of the blast is a useless uninhabited city for years to come.

                        Although the B-61 is generally classified as a tactical nuclear weapon the yield strengths of the Mod 3 and Mod 11 which Turkey has or has had were/are enought to wipe out Moscow.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by denizkuvetleri View Post
                          What we are forgetting is that Nukes have a greater psychological and environmental impact. With Nukes you not only have large amounts of death and destruction but also injuries miles and miles away from the epicenter of the blast which can overwhelm a country. Not to mention that the product of the blast is a useless uninhabited city for years to come.

                          Although the B-61 is generally classified as a tactical nuclear weapon the yield strengths of the Mod 3 and Mod 11 which Turkey has or has had were/are enough to wipe out Moscow.
                          While this is all true, the fact also exists that the nuke would be much harder to use in any event, and couldn't be used in defense of one's home land on home ground for these same reasons. Also the fallout that produces this damage far from the epicenter is very hard to control, and could backfire with a weather change, landing the toxic fallout on friendly forces or neighboring neutral countries. Had Turkey hosted the use of the B-61's on Moscow it probably would have faced complete annihilation in retaliation.
                          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                            While this is all true, the fact also exists that the nuke would be much harder to use in any event, and couldn't be used in defense of one's home land on home ground for these same reasons. Also the fallout that produces this damage far from the epicenter is very hard to control, and could backfire with a weather change, landing the toxic fallout on friendly forces or neighboring neutral countries. Had Turkey hosted the use of the B-61's on Moscow it probably would have faced complete annihilation in retaliation.
                            My statement about Moscow was just an analogy to show how much damage a 340 Kt yield nuke could do.

                            By the way NATO has secondary strike capability courtesy of the USA, UK and France. NATO would not sit back and watch it's Southern flank be "owned" by Russia.
                            Last edited by denizkuvetleri; 06 Jan 11,, 11:01.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                              at what density? 30k men in 2500 km^2 sounds like 12 men per km ^2
                              smaller actually , a Warsaw Pact tank division had around 11.000 men without the reconnaissance element.
                              Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                              - how does a squad hold a km^2?
                              it does not, a administrative march is conducted inside friendly territory.
                              Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                              you wouldn't need to kill every man to decimate a division, and many of the men would be more concentrated - picking the right concentrations of troops would be the object. TB weapons could be distributed and hit more concentrations than an equivalent yield and cost in nukes.
                              Concentration of forces forms around enemy resistance, nuclear targeting around friendly troops must take that into account.
                              Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                              I do fully understand the prinicples, effects, and operation of the weapons we are discussing, however, our military experts, like OoE, understand the way they would be used far better than I do. I will defer to his expertice in these matters
                              I'm looking froward learning from this tread, also.
                              J'ai en marre.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ArmchairGeneral View Post
                                I don't think one would attempt to kill a division with one nuke. You get diminishing returns as you scale up yield, because most of the extra energy goes in the wrong directions. As USSWisconsin points out, the distribution of men would not be even across the area. It'll be lumpy. So, instead of one big nuke, you use a handful of much smaller nukes, and take out 2 or three of the most vital lumps.

                                Of course, I'm just arguing from first principles, I don't have any knowledge of actual doctrine. As Wisconsin said, OoE knows.
                                I do not disagree... however I just wanted to point out the irony of taking out a enemy tactical formation with several " strategic " nukes as denizkuvetleri put it.
                                J'ai en marre.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X