Chinese General Threatens Use of A-Bombs if U.S. Intrudes
-
what about you?Originally posted by the.raven:you are a dumbFuck.
retard? -
US is bound to lose...
All hail the almighty China!
-
shouldn't tat comment be directed to u instead..??Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:what about you?
retard?
-
shouldn't this comment be directed at you instead?Originally posted by Lance_han:shouldn't tat comment be directed to u instead..??
dumbnoob -
Those mainlanders are a bunch of cocky little bastards, aren't they?
Hmmm - let's see. The CEP of the American Peacemaker is 100 metres, while the CEP for the Chinese Ju Lang 2 and Dong Feng 31 missiles is anything up to 300 metres. As a rough measure, you would need 10 Chinese warheads to have the same effect as one American warhead.
Bottom line, losing all cities east of Xian is an estimate so optimistic as to border on manic. Even if the Chinese get the first shot off, a nuclear shootout would mean that all Chinese cities, not just east but west, north and south of Xian are going to be turned to ashtrays. Mind you, that's without factoring the US Navy's SLBM capability into the equation.
As for the issue of shooting down a reentry vehicle, it's a matter of speed. An MIRV travels in excess of 24,000 km/h. The PAC-3 is designed to intercept tactical ballistic missiles travelling at about a quarter of that speed.
That said, the critical factor here is that the missile travels towrads its target instead of chasing after it, so the speed of the PAC-3 is not a deal-breaker here. More importantly, it's the speed at which the trajectory of the missile and target, and the precise point of the PAC-3 warhead's detonation, can be calculated .
The trouble they had with the original Patriot's 24-bit guidance system was that it was about 0.34 seconds slow in making its decisions. However, it is essentially a software problem. It's only a matter of time before they get their algorithms correct and improve the software so that it can intercept an MIRV - with a range of 100 km, the PAC-3 has more than enough range to catch a MIRV reentering the atmosphere. -
The CEP of Chinese missile is 30 metres...aim the cities? aim the earthquake lines I mean the plate tectonics.
Those areas hit with nukes will cause earthquakes beyond scale 10
And maybe can wake up all the volcanos nearby
By the way those lines are mostly in the pacific ocean and good for making tsunamis -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
DonÂ’t mix PAC-3Â’s slant range to its max height range. So far, the PAC-3 only can reach maximum 23000M or so above sea level. In real practice, it will engage the target at much low altitude, ItÂ’s effect to destroy the warhead with Bio or Chem weapon, but not nuke. Because at such low altitude, Nuke still explode with the same or stronger damage than it does on the ground
The trouble they had with the original Patriot's 24-bit guidance system was that it was about 0.34 seconds slow in making its decisions. However, it is essentially a software problem. It's only a matter of time before they get their algorithms correct and improve the software so that it can intercept an MIRV - with a range of 100 km, the PAC-3 has more than enough range to catch a MIRV reentering the atmosphere.[/b] -
Originally posted by coolant:
Well and good, but:
DonÂ’t mix PAC-3Â’s slant range to its max height range. So far, the PAC-3 only can reach maximum 23000M or so above sea level. In real practice, it will engage the target at much low altitude, ItÂ’s effect to destroy the warhead with Bio or Chem weapon, but not nuke. Because at such low altitude, Nuke still explode with the same or stronger damage than it does on the ground[/b]
1) The RV is unlikely to come straight down, but is likely to also follow a sloping path down. If you're on either of the seaboards, chances are that you'll intercept the warhead over the sea. If you're living in middle America, you're screwed anyway
2) Destruction of the warhead will probably not cause detonation unless the warhead is set for high-altitude burst (in which case you're screwed anyway). -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Sigh , ppl with wildest claim, usually is with minimum knowledge.
Well and good, but:
1) The RV is unlikely to come straight down, but is likely to also follow a sloping path down. If you're on either of the seaboards, chances are that you'll intercept the warhead over the sea. If you're living in middle America, you're screwed anyway
1st of all, I politely enough to point out u claimed 100km ceiling range of PAC-3 actually should be slant range. Now I can even more politely to tell you, sorry, you can not use this range on the Tactical Ballistic Missile(TBM), which is interceptable by PAC-3 , For such missile, according to the PAC-3 data, it’s engagement range is much shortened to 30km, for a even higher speed ICBM? You judge how should this range be even shortened again if I also wild minded enough to agree on your “PAC-3 interception ICBM dream.”
For your info, all the US official documents clearly define the PAC-3 is for low tier TBM defense. If you still argue, better apply job in DoD than BS* here2) Destruction of the warhead will probably not cause detonation unless the warhead is set for high-altitude burst (in which case you're screwed anyway).[/b]
Tell me how you hit the warhead with your 75KG HE but don't trigger the Warhead's chemical explosive to explode?
If the Chemical explosive explodes, how could you stop the Nuclear materials compressing or prevent them contacting eachother so you "could not cause detonation" ?
If your answer is YES, please change your name to "Jesus"
If your answer is NO, please wait the warhead exploding over your head with 300000 Tons of TNT -
You wanna cool your jets there, noob? We're having light conversation here, so don't go looking to start a pissing contest, eh?
I'll attend to your second point first. We're talking about nukes in this thread, so your mention of chemical warheads is irrelevant in this context. Do you really believe that 75 kg of a diffuse explosive force from an external source is enough to compress that fissionable material correctly to start a chain reaction?
If you knew anything about demolitions, you would recognise the importance of using correctly-shaped charges in the warhead to compress the nuclear material, as a key part of the process of starting the chain reaction. The force and direction of 75 kg of HE diffusing spherically would not have the effect of the shaped charges within the warhead. So yes, even without my name being Jesus, unless the warhead was already set and ready to detonate at the point of interception, the blast from the Patriot's warhead would destroy the warhead without it detonating.
As for your first point, of course you are correct that the PAC-3 is defined by the DoD as a low tier weapon, but I'm not talking about the PAC-3, am I? Any data or DoD recommendations you raise about the PAC-3 are therefore irrelevant.
What I am talking about is a weapon based upon the Patriot platform, but with improved software. Before you start picking a problem with that, I'm not suggesting any improvements for the software - looking at the changes from PAC-2 to PAC-3, though, who's to say that such improvements are impossible?
I suggest that you act according to your nick, coolant. We're here to relax and throw a couple of ideas around, not to start fights. I'll disagree with your claim that your first post was polite - you're in no position to speak in such an instructive tone as to tell me not to mix this and that. Chill out, take your time to understand what I'm saying, and let's have a good discussion. -
Won't have 2 much too say, the nuclear warhead OF COURSE contains chemical explosive for as you mentioned : detornation purpose, you should get some info on how the Nuclear warhead works before you make any comment.Originally posted by Gedanken:You wanna cool your jets there, noob? We're having light conversation here, so don't go looking to start a pissing contest, eh?
I'll attend to your second point first. We're talking about nukes in this thread, so your mention of chemical warheads is irrelevant in this context. Do you really believe that 75 kg of a diffuse explosive force from an external source is enough to compress that fissionable material correctly to start a chain reaction?
If you knew anything about demolitions, you would recognise the importance of using correctly-shaped charges in the warhead to compress the nuclear material, as a key part of the process of starting the chain reaction. The force and direction of 75 kg of HE diffusing spherically would not have the effect of the shaped charges within the warhead. So yes, even without my name being Jesus, unless the warhead was already set and ready to detonate at the point of interception, the blast from the Patriot's warhead would destroy the warhead without it detonating.
As for your first point, of course you are correct that the PAC-3 is defined by the DoD as a low tier weapon, but I'm not talking about the PAC-3, am I? Any data or DoD recommendations you raise about the PAC-3 are therefore irrelevant.
What I am talking about is a weapon based upon the Patriot platform, but with improved software. Before you start picking a problem with that, I'm not suggesting any improvements for the software - looking at the changes from PAC-2 to PAC-3, though, who's to say that such improvements are impossible?
I suggest that you act according to your nick, coolant. We're here to relax and throw a couple of ideas around, not to start fights. I'll disagree with your claim that your first post was polite - you're in no position to speak in such an instructive tone as to tell me not to mix this and that. Chill out, take your time to understand what I'm saying, and let's have a good discussion. -
wad was i commenting anywae..??Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:shouldn't this comment be directed at you instead?
dumbnoob
hai~...n00b...copy ppl onli..
+1 -
Any SAF soldier with basic demolitions training would see what you have missed. Don't bother arguing about detonators, either - seeing as how you're the resident nuke expert, I don't have to tell you about how they're nowhere as fragile as your garden-variety sort.Originally posted by coolant:Won't have 2 much too say, the nuclear warhead OF COURSE contains chemical explosive for as you mentioned : detornation purpose, you should get some info on how the Nuclear warhead works before you make any comment.
In any case, I said I'm here to chill, shoot the breeze and throw some ideas around, but you just gotta go wetting your pants over something this trivial, don't you? Seriously geeksville, kiddo - you obviously feel like you got something to prove and I ain't got time for that Scrappy-Doo BS because, well, I'm not here to hold your hand while you work on growing up. Me, I've got much cooler people to spend my time on, so you're just going to have to find someone else's time to waste, little guy - all the best! -
Patriot missile used HE to engage MIRV?
Patriot can carry a 10kiloton ERW to engage incoming MIRV.
ERW stands for Enhanced Radiation Warhead or the so called neutron bomb.
It produces a lethal shower of neutrons to deactivate the MIRV.
How? By adding a neutron to Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239 changes the isotopes to a different material unsuitable for nuclear fission to occur. In short by changing the atomic weight it became another element.
Note Plutonium 240 causes premature fission.
Neutrons passing through metals like water. But can be stopped if the MIRV contained a layer of water.
Neutrons got a strange behaviour. -
Originally posted by Gedanken:
1st, Put 72kg H.E in a Ammunition Dump and detonate the H.E, how you going to see?
Any SAF soldier with basic demolitions training would see what you have missed. Don't bother arguing about detonators, either - seeing as how you're the resident nuke expert, I don't have to tell you about how they're nowhere as fragile as your garden-variety sort.
A. my basic demolitions training would enlighten me the Ammunition won't bang as u think.
B. Everything will explode to huge big fireball.
If the answer is B. then follow the post to 2nd portion:
2nd See here :
How the Nuclear Warhead works
Fission bombs derive their power from nuclear fission, where heavy nuclei (uranium or plutonium) split into lighter elements when bombarded by neutrons (producing more neutrons which bombard other nuclei, triggering a nuclear chain reaction). These are historically called atom bombs or A-bombs, though this name is not precise due to the fact that chemical reactions release energy from atomic bonds too, and fusion is no less atomic than fission. Despite this possible confusion, the term atom bomb has still been generally accepted to refer specifically to nuclear weapons, and most commonly to pure fission devices.
In general, fission bombs are powered by using chemical explosives to compress a sub-critical amount of either uranium-235 or plutonium into a dense, super-critical mass, which is then subjected to a source of neutrons. This begins an uncontrollable nuclear chain reaction, and produces a very large amount of energy.
Now touch the topic: If the Interceptor with 72kg HE traveling @ 5M ( PAC3 grade) hits a even much higher speed MIRV @ 20M( 7km/s), what going to happen?
A. The hit and HE explosion wonÂ’t cause the Chemical Explosive in the warhead to explode subsequently.
B. The “deep impact “and high charged explosion will trigger the Chemical explosive in the warhead to explode and subsequently trigger the chain reaction.
If the answer is A, pls go back the point 1, If ur answer is B, then agree on my previous post.
Lucky here still not a chitchat board, your mordancy words only duly portrait what a person u r and what u r good @
In any case, I said I'm here to chill, shoot the breeze and throw some ideas around, but you just gotta go wetting your pants over something this trivial, don't you? Seriously geeksville, kiddo - you obviously feel like you got something to prove and I ain't got time for that Scrappy-Doo BS because, well, I'm not here to hold your hand while you work on growing up. Me, I've got much cooler people to spend my time on, so you're just going to have to find someone else's time to waste, little guy - all the best! . -
Aviation World Aug 2005 of China is talking how
PLA air force attacking a aircraft carrier near Japan with diagrams.
Extract:http://forum.mil.sina.com.cn/cgi-bin/viewone.cgi?gid=71&fid=5170&itemid=3229 -
off-topic.......talking about nuclear weapons.....lets say an American ICBM with nuclear warhead can destroy up to wat area of land
can ani one give an approximate range -
No doubt the Americans can exact much greater devastation. But which will have more persons standing after the war?
-
Depends on the kiloton yield of the warhead.SRAM,SLBM or ICBM?Originally posted by kaka_22:off-topic.......talking about nuclear weapons.....lets say an American ICBM with nuclear warhead can destroy up to wat area of land can ani one give an approximate range -
then if the maximum number kiloton is in the ICBM......?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Depends on the kiloton yield of the warhead.SRAM,SLBM or ICBM? -
At least 1 Megaton...
I heard some nations put 20 to 30 Megaton warheads on their ICBMs
Enough to vapourise singapore Meaning the whole island turn to dust -
sounds to me like a cold war-era soviet-style saber-rattling.
anyway, only one general is making that comment, and he's a hawk, so it's kinda expected of this sort of hardcore hardliner. his comments alone probably doesn't represent the stand the whole Chinese government is taking. Maybe he has a personal grudge against the US. Times are changing n he's still stuck in those ossified cold war thinking. omg. even those foreign ministry officials are not giving comments because they dont want to be associated with him.... lol -
Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:If anything fails , we can always ask LaserLordz to pilot a fighter jet aka
F/A-18 hornet suiciding on alien warship in independence day style , to crash onto the incoming missile
or use the star wars defense system? Whatever little boy.