Bin Laden and his love of aviation terror

[JJ]

1. We know that terror operatives are hiding in the mountains between
Afghanistan and Pakistan

2. It is possible that Bin Laden himself is in this area

3. We are running around like crazy raising alert levels, canx flights etc.

How about this warning from our US Government:

If any terror attack occurs on US soil that results in loss of American
life or damage to American infrastructure from Bin Laden and friends, we
will launch one minuteman nuclear missile into the mountains of
Afghanistan and Pakistan and obliterate 200 square miles for each attack
or loss of life in America.

Missile flight time from Nebraska to Pakistan border is approximately 32
minutes.

You have been warned. Have a nice day.

[Rich Raine]

Perfect!

Rich Raine


"JJ" > wrote in message
...
> 1. We know that terror operatives are hiding in the mountains between
> Afghanistan and Pakistan
>
> 2. It is possible that Bin Laden himself is in this area
>
> 3. We are running around like crazy raising alert levels, canx flights
etc.
>
> How about this warning from our US Government:
>
> If any terror attack occurs on US soil that results in loss of American
> life or damage to American infrastructure from Bin Laden and friends, we
> will launch one minuteman nuclear missile into the mountains of
> Afghanistan and Pakistan and obliterate 200 square miles for each attack
> or loss of life in America.
>
> Missile flight time from Nebraska to Pakistan border is approximately 32
> minutes.
>
> You have been warned. Have a nice day.
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Jj,

Yeah, that would be the mark of a civilized nation, now, would it?

Morons!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jj,
>
> Yeah, that would be the mark of a civilized nation, now, would it?
>
> Morons!
>

And your solution is ... invite them to tea?


Matt

[Mike Rapoport]

Actually that would be rather stupid.

Mike
MU-2


"JJ" > wrote in message
...
> 1. We know that terror operatives are hiding in the mountains between
> Afghanistan and Pakistan
>
> 2. It is possible that Bin Laden himself is in this area
>
> 3. We are running around like crazy raising alert levels, canx flights
etc.
>
> How about this warning from our US Government:
>
> If any terror attack occurs on US soil that results in loss of American
> life or damage to American infrastructure from Bin Laden and friends, we
> will launch one minuteman nuclear missile into the mountains of
> Afghanistan and Pakistan and obliterate 200 square miles for each attack
> or loss of life in America.
>
> Missile flight time from Nebraska to Pakistan border is approximately 32
> minutes.
>
> You have been warned. Have a nice day.
>

[C J Campbell]

Right now the governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan are important US
allies in the fight against terrorism. Both countries have lost more
soldiers in this war than we have. bin Laden and his terrorist networks are
actively trying to overthrow the legitimate governments of these countries
through the use of force.

But you want to threaten our allies with random use of nuclear weapons.
Yeah, that'll convince them to get in line.

[Laurence Doering]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:48:36 -0500, JJ > wrote:
> 1. We know that terror operatives are hiding in the mountains between
> Afghanistan and Pakistan
>
> 2. It is possible that Bin Laden himself is in this area
>
> 3. We are running around like crazy raising alert levels, canx flights etc.
>
> How about this warning from our US Government:
>
> If any terror attack occurs on US soil that results in loss of American
> life or damage to American infrastructure from Bin Laden and friends, we
> will launch one minuteman nuclear missile into the mountains of
> Afghanistan and Pakistan and obliterate 200 square miles for each attack
> or loss of life in America.

Just one small problem. As of November, 2002, the maximum explosive
yield of the nuclear weapons carried on a Minuteman missile was a total
of just over a megaton (3 W-78 warheads with a yield of 375 kilotons
each.)

It would be pretty much impossible to "obliterate 200 square miles" with the
weapons carried on one Minuteman. Let's assume you want at least 5 psi
overpressure (the minimum needed to cause heavy damage to an American-style
wood frame house.) The blast from a 375 kiloton airburst at optimum altitude
(assuming flat terrain in the target area) will give you 5 psi at a maximum
range of about 3.2 miles, covering an area of only about 32 square miles.
Multiply by three, and you're still more than 100 square miles short of your
goal.

For maximum psychological effect, though, you probably want craters and
fallout. To get a decent crater and appreciable fallout, you need to detonate
the warheads at ground level. A 375-kiloton groundburst would give you
5 psi overpressure out to only about 2 miles from ground zero, covering
only about 12.5 square miles. Multiply by three, and you still could easily
leave Osama bin Laden laughing at you from the 162.5 square miles of your
intended target area that you haven't damaged. You would get three
fairly impressive craters about 1,500 feet in diameter and close to 200
feet deep (assuming mostly rock at ground zero instead of loose soil),
but that's it.

Damage would be reduced further by the mountainous terrain and the fact
that most buildings in that part of the world are made of mud brick, stone,
or concrete, which would be far more resistant to blast overpressure than
wood frame construction.


ljd

[Thomas Borchert]

Matthew,

> And your solution is ... invite them to tea?
>

In your world, there is no room between nuking people and having tea
with them? I pity you.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Laurence Doering wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:48:36 -0500, JJ > wrote:
>
>>1. We know that terror operatives are hiding in the mountains between
>>Afghanistan and Pakistan
>>
>>2. It is possible that Bin Laden himself is in this area
>>
>>3. We are running around like crazy raising alert levels, canx flights etc.
>>
>>How about this warning from our US Government:
>>
>>If any terror attack occurs on US soil that results in loss of American
>>life or damage to American infrastructure from Bin Laden and friends, we
>>will launch one minuteman nuclear missile into the mountains of
>>Afghanistan and Pakistan and obliterate 200 square miles for each attack
>>or loss of life in America.
>
>
> Just one small problem. As of November, 2002, the maximum explosive
> yield of the nuclear weapons carried on a Minuteman missile was a total
> of just over a megaton (3 W-78 warheads with a yield of 375 kilotons
> each.)
>
> It would be pretty much impossible to "obliterate 200 square miles" with the
> weapons carried on one Minuteman. Let's assume you want at least 5 psi
> overpressure (the minimum needed to cause heavy damage to an American-style
> wood frame house.) The blast from a 375 kiloton airburst at optimum altitude
> (assuming flat terrain in the target area) will give you 5 psi at a maximum
> range of about 3.2 miles, covering an area of only about 32 square miles.
> Multiply by three, and you're still more than 100 square miles short of your
> goal.

Where do you get your 5 psi figure from? Sounds way high to me. A
30x40' house with even the short side getting hit with a 5 psi
differential would sustain a force of 172,800 lbs (30'x8'x144"/sq.
ftx5psi) or 86.4 tons. I'd be surprised most stud frame houses would
withstand this, and this is ignoring the load on the roof.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matthew,
>
>
>>And your solution is ... invite them to tea?
>>
>
>
> In your world, there is no room between nuking people and having tea
> with them? I pity you.
>

Lots of room, but people who simply dismiss others ideas and offer none
of their own are useless.


Matt

[Dan Luke]

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> ...people who simply dismiss others ideas and offer none
> of their own are useless.

The babblings of idiots and trolls - and the OP is clearly one or both -
are barely worth the effort of dismissal, let alone counter argument.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

Thanks, well put.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matthew,

> Lots of room, but people who simply dismiss others ideas and offer none
> of their own are useless.
>

You consider THAT an "idea"? You gotta be kidding! You want an idea from
me? How about trying NOT to be the bully of this neighborhood called
world?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Laurence Doering]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:01:18 GMT, Matthew S. Whiting > wrote:
> Laurence Doering wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:48:36 -0500, JJ > wrote:
>>
>> It would be pretty much impossible to "obliterate 200 square miles" with the
>> weapons carried on one Minuteman. Let's assume you want at least 5 psi
>> overpressure (the minimum needed to cause heavy damage to an American-style
>> wood frame house.) The blast from a 375 kiloton airburst at optimum altitude
>> (assuming flat terrain in the target area) will give you 5 psi at a maximum
>> range of about 3.2 miles, covering an area of only about 32 square miles.
>> Multiply by three, and you're still more than 100 square miles short of your
>> goal.
>
> Where do you get your 5 psi figure from? Sounds way high to me. A
> 30x40' house with even the short side getting hit with a 5 psi
> differential would sustain a force of 172,800 lbs (30'x8'x144"/sq.
> ftx5psi) or 86.4 tons. I'd be surprised most stud frame houses would
> withstand this, and this is ignoring the load on the roof.

My source is the 1962 edition of _The Effects of Nuclear Weapons_, edited
by Samuel Glasstone.

Chapter 5 describes the effects of a 1953 weapons test on several replicas
of houses constructed at the Nevada Test Site. 5 psi overpressure was enough
to collapse a 2-story wood frame house and severely damage a single-story
"rambler"-style wood frame house. 1.7 psi overpressure left the buildings
standing, but blew out doors and windows and caused moderate damage to roofs.

A later 1955 test subjected a wood frame house that had been reinforced
(based on the results of the 1953 test) to 4 psi overpressure. The
structure remained standing with the roof partially collapsed.

I assumed 5 psi as a ballpark figure for the minimum overpressure needed to
substantially damage or destroy almost everything within a certain radius of
ground zero. The 5 psi radius is also close to the maximum radius where
you'd have a reasonable chance of killing or injuring people or livestock
in the open.

You're not going to find many wood frame buildings in the mountains of
Pakistan, though, and you need overpressures more in the neighborhood of
15-25 psi to severely damage or destroy masonry or concrete buildings.
Sure, you could break windows and scare people over a larger area, but the
original poster wanted to "obliterate" 200 square miles with a single
missile.


ljd

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matthew,
>
>
>>Lots of room, but people who simply dismiss others ideas and offer none
>>of their own are useless.
>>
>
>
> You consider THAT an "idea"? You gotta be kidding! You want an idea from
> me? How about trying NOT to be the bully of this neighborhood called
> world?
>

I never have been, so that is easy.

Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Laurence Doering wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:01:18 GMT, Matthew S. Whiting > wrote:
>
>>Laurence Doering wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:48:36 -0500, JJ > wrote:
>>>
>>>It would be pretty much impossible to "obliterate 200 square miles" with the
>>>weapons carried on one Minuteman. Let's assume you want at least 5 psi
>>>overpressure (the minimum needed to cause heavy damage to an American-style
>>>wood frame house.) The blast from a 375 kiloton airburst at optimum altitude
>>>(assuming flat terrain in the target area) will give you 5 psi at a maximum
>>>range of about 3.2 miles, covering an area of only about 32 square miles.
>>>Multiply by three, and you're still more than 100 square miles short of your
>>>goal.
>>
>>Where do you get your 5 psi figure from? Sounds way high to me. A
>>30x40' house with even the short side getting hit with a 5 psi
>>differential would sustain a force of 172,800 lbs (30'x8'x144"/sq.
>>ftx5psi) or 86.4 tons. I'd be surprised most stud frame houses would
>>withstand this, and this is ignoring the load on the roof.
>
>
> My source is the 1962 edition of _The Effects of Nuclear Weapons_, edited
> by Samuel Glasstone.
>
> Chapter 5 describes the effects of a 1953 weapons test on several replicas
> of houses constructed at the Nevada Test Site. 5 psi overpressure was enough
> to collapse a 2-story wood frame house and severely damage a single-story
> "rambler"-style wood frame house. 1.7 psi overpressure left the buildings
> standing, but blew out doors and windows and caused moderate damage to roofs.
>
> A later 1955 test subjected a wood frame house that had been reinforced
> (based on the results of the 1953 test) to 4 psi overpressure. The
> structure remained standing with the roof partially collapsed.
>
> I assumed 5 psi as a ballpark figure for the minimum overpressure needed to
> substantially damage or destroy almost everything within a certain radius of
> ground zero. The 5 psi radius is also close to the maximum radius where
> you'd have a reasonable chance of killing or injuring people or livestock
> in the open.
>
> You're not going to find many wood frame buildings in the mountains of
> Pakistan, though, and you need overpressures more in the neighborhood of
> 15-25 psi to severely damage or destroy masonry or concrete buildings.
> Sure, you could break windows and scare people over a larger area, but the
> original poster wanted to "obliterate" 200 square miles with a single
> missile.

Getting pretty far off topic here, but any idea if this is the response
to a transient shock wave or a steady state pressure difference as would
exist with a hurricane force wind?

Is any of this resistance to air pressure available online?


Matt

[C J Campbell]

"Laurence Doering" > wrote in message news:bsjruk$cjsrv$1@ID-|
|
| Damage would be reduced further by the mountainous terrain and the fact
| that most buildings in that part of the world are made of mud brick,
stone,
| or concrete, which would be far more resistant to blast overpressure than
| wood frame construction.

I have to wonder about that, given the horrendous damage caused by the
recent earthquake in Iran. These structures do not seem to me to be
particularly well built.

[Andrew Gideon]

C J Campbell wrote:

> I have to wonder about that, given the horrendous damage caused by the
> recent earthquake in Iran. These structures do not seem to me to be
> particularly well built.

That's a very different force. In fact, different earthquakes can apply
different forces depending upon a number of factors (ie. the ground
material).

- Andrew

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Laurence Doering" > wrote in message
news:bsjruk$cjsrv$1@ID-|
> |
> | Damage would be reduced further by the mountainous terrain and the fact
> | that most buildings in that part of the world are made of mud brick,
> stone,
> | or concrete, which would be far more resistant to blast overpressure
than
> | wood frame construction.
>
> I have to wonder about that, given the horrendous damage caused by the
> recent earthquake in Iran. These structures do not seem to me to be
> particularly well built.

The Northridge (CA) earthquake (7.1 ??) Richter killed a "handful" of
people, given the high density of the population. OTOH, _EVERY_ earthquake
in the rest of the world seems to have death tolls in the tens of thousands.

Go figure!

[Steve P]

On 12/28/2003 6:50 AM after considerable forethought, Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Laurence Doering" > wrote in message
>
> news:bsjruk$cjsrv$1@ID-|
>
>>|
>>| Damage would be reduced further by the mountainous terrain and the fact
>>| that most buildings in that part of the world are made of mud brick,
>>stone,
>>| or concrete, which would be far more resistant to blast overpressure
>
> than
>
>>| wood frame construction.
>>
>>I have to wonder about that, given the horrendous damage caused by the
>>recent earthquake in Iran. These structures do not seem to me to be
>>particularly well built.
>
>
> The Northridge (CA) earthquake (7.1 ??) Richter killed a "handful" of
> people, given the high density of the population. OTOH, _EVERY_ earthquake
> in the rest of the world seems to have death tolls in the tens of thousands.
>
> Go figure!
>
>
The Northridge quake was 6.7 and killed 57. The difference is the
building codes which also directly affects the building materials. In
Iran, the majority of the buildings are sun baked bricks/blocks, similar
to adobe with no steel reinforcing. Sun baked adobe comes apart during
strong seismic activity and the weight of the collapsing material
results in loss of life. In So Cal, the majority of the unreinforced
brick buildings that survived the Long Beach EQ in 1933 have at least
been tied together at critical locations to reduce the likelihood of
collapse on the occupants. Northridge proved that the retrofitting of
unreinforced brick buildings work. We have since changed our methods and
materials of construction. If we continued to build to the standards of
ancient civilization, we too would have tens of thousands die as a
result of strong seismic activity.

Steve P (aka eq retro dr)
Engineering buildings when not flying

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Laurence Doering" > wrote in message
>
> news:bsjruk$cjsrv$1@ID-|
>
>>|
>>| Damage would be reduced further by the mountainous terrain and the fact
>>| that most buildings in that part of the world are made of mud brick,
>>stone,
>>| or concrete, which would be far more resistant to blast overpressure
>
> than
>
>>| wood frame construction.
>>
>>I have to wonder about that, given the horrendous damage caused by the
>>recent earthquake in Iran. These structures do not seem to me to be
>>particularly well built.
>
>
> The Northridge (CA) earthquake (7.1 ??) Richter killed a "handful" of
> people, given the high density of the population. OTOH, _EVERY_ earthquake
> in the rest of the world seems to have death tolls in the tens of thousands.
>
> Go figure!
>
>

Most of the rest of the world has no building codes or uniform building
standards.


Matt

[Laurence Doering]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:06:16 GMT, Matthew S. Whiting > wrote:
> Laurence Doering wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> You're not going to find many wood frame buildings in the mountains of
>> Pakistan, though, and you need overpressures more in the neighborhood of
>> 15-25 psi to severely damage or destroy masonry or concrete buildings.
>> Sure, you could break windows and scare people over a larger area, but the
>> original poster wanted to "obliterate" 200 square miles with a single
>> missile.
>
> Getting pretty far off topic here, but any idea if this is the response
> to a transient shock wave or a steady state pressure difference as would
> exist with a hurricane force wind?

Overpressures from the blast wave generated by a nuclear explosion
are transient, lasting on the order of several seconds, not steady
state loads like strong winds would generate.

> Is any of this resistance to air pressure available online?

If you're primarily interested in the effects of nuclear weapons,
the Nuclear Weapons FAQ at

<http://nuclearweaponsarchive.org>

is a good source.

A Google search will turn up a lot of other stuff, for example:

<http://www.eqe.com/publications/revf95/explos.htm>

which is an article about the effects of explosions at chemical
plants and refineries on buildings on the plant grounds, and
how to improve building construction to better protect occupants
from blast and fires.

The bible on standards for various sorts of loads on buildings
seems to be ASCE 7-02, a publication of the American Society
of Civil Engineers. It doesn't seem to be available online,
but if you're really interested it's for sale on their website.


ljd

[[email protected]]

You are a complete asshole

C J Campbell wrote:

> Right now the governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan are important US
> allies in the fight against terrorism. Both countries have lost more
> soldiers in this war than we have. bin Laden and his terrorist networks are
> actively trying to overthrow the legitimate governments of these countries
> through the use of force.
>
> But you want to threaten our allies with random use of nuclear weapons.
> Yeah, that'll convince them to get in line.

[C J Campbell]

> wrote in message
...
| You are a complete asshole
|

No, but I will do until one comes along.