![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Owe Jessen
wrote: Am Fri, 27 Feb 2004 03:15:43 GMT, schrieb Fred J. McCall : Owe Jessen wrote: :Could you give in some applications for the SADM? ISTR from childhood ![]() :atomic bombs. Why was it thought necessary to use those instead of :conventional explosives? Aside from the fact that using nuclear :weopons just for the fun in a friendly country might not be overly ![]() Because wiring a modern bridge with sufficient explosives to bring it down is not a quick job. Failure to manage this cost the Germans dearly in WWII. Either we wire them up and leave them that way in peacetime (not real safe) or you take them down fast with nukes in wartime. I guess the folks living next to the bridges were thrilled. Or was the plan to use it only, if nuclear weapons were allready being used? It probably would have been used only after the nuclear threshold had been crossed, but that might not mean much to the people near the bridge. The smaller ADMs were definitely in the subkiloton range. Conventional bombing before precision-guided weapons, even with such advanced things as Barnes Wallace's earthquake bombs, still needed substantial subkiloton yields. If the high explosive, in the multi-ton range, were prepositioned in the bridge, even without primers, is that going to comfort the nearby residents? The reality is that it takes a substantial explosive force to take down a major bridge or mountain road cut. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|