Boomers In Large Deep Lakes?

On 8 Jan 2010 19:31:06 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
wrote:

Bill Kambic wrote:

Well, I don't agree that chucking big nukes randomly (or even on some
pattern) into Lake Superior will necessarily "kill" anything but fish,
wildlife, and residents of several lake shore communities. Roil the
water and make a mess, but not necessarily "kill."

It will also create a godawfull noise in the water and shake people and
equipment about quite a lot. Nuclear depth charges are still part of
the TOE, aren't they? Megaton depth charges sure would rattle more than
just the cups and cuttlery on board about.

iI don't know if they are still in the inventory or not. But back
when I was trained to use them (from an S-2 and P-3, and taught others
to do so) they were a "weapon of last resort" (assuming the
Presidential authority to use them was obtained).

They had some serious tactical limits, the details of which probably
ought not to be discussed publically.

For ANY weapon to be effective you have to have a target fix. "Seeding
the ocean (or a lake) with explosives" (nuclear or otherwise) is a
particularly ineffective tactic. And while if you get close you'll
get somebody's attention that's no guarantee that you will, in fact,
cause lethal or even disabling damage.

IMO a "Great Lakes FBM" would pose a practically insoluable problem to
a strategic enemy. It might lack some throw weight and range, but
would be the single most difficult strategic target to neutralize.

The only reason we probably don't have them is the treaty with the
Canadians.