About when did a US/CCCP war become suicidal?

"Carey Sublette" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Carey Sublette" wrote:
:
: :In Stalin's day of course he would have grown radioactive wheat and fed it
: :to the population.
:
: Note that this is what they are doing right now with produce from the
: Chernobyl area.
:
: :It would have saved them from starvation and immediate
: :death, but given them a lifespan much reduced from normal.
:
: People grossly overestimate the effects of radiation. Not so much
: reduced at all. A few years lower on average, at most.
:
:I believe you underestimate how radioactive the wheat would have been in
:fields downwind from a few hundred 400 kt ground bursts. This would be
:1000-10,000 times more contaminated than any from Chernobyl.

Nonsense. The radiation in the fallout zone may initially be that
much worse, but wheat is not going to pick that up in proportion. And
you still seem to be grossly overestimating the effects of radiation.
What do you think the reduction in lifespan is for folks who move into
the fallout zone?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Joe Osman" wrote in message
...

There still there, but now its the radon doing the curing:

http://cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Radon/Index_RadSpas.htm

http://www.outwestnewspaper.com/radon.html

I guess suckers are still being born every minute.

Into the 1920s you could get a delicious radon cocktail to cure what ailed
you.

Weight loss was a simple as eating a tape worm, available by mail order
catalog.

"Carey Sublette" writes:

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...

[Tsar Bomba barely fits in a Bear]

Wouldn't a deployed Tsar Bomba carrier have been a militarized Proton,
aka UR-500 aka 8K82? The space launch version uses only storable
propellants, can put twenty tons into low orbit with the smallest
fairing easily holding a 2 x 8 meter payload, and my references on
the space launch side claim that it was developed with the ICBM role
and the Tsar Bomba payload in mind from the start (1961).

Which was a stupid idea from the start, and so never implemented,
but rather less stupid than trying to send an overladen Bear across
the arctic.

The only references I recall seeing for models that were actually made were
bomb versions. They could have been used against NATO (but this has nothing
to do with MAD).

It seems likely that they investigated the Proton idea since it is the only
way to get it to America. Do you know of any attempts to develop an RV for
this? Can you give me any specific citations?


The one on my desk is _International Reference Guide to Space Launch
Systems_, Steven J. Isakowitz, Joseph P. Hopkins. and Joshia B. Hopkins,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1999.

No mention of RVs, which would be outside Isakowitz's focus, but the
historical section on the Proton includes:

"The Proton launch vehicle was developed by the design bureau of Vladimir
Chelomei. The Proton was designed to serve as both a heavy missile capable
of carrying 100 megaton warheads and as a large space launch vehicle. In
competition with his rival chief designers, Sergei Korolev and Michael
Yangel, Cjhelomei proposed to build the Proton as part of a family of
Universal Rockets of various sizes and functions. The small UR-100
[became the SS-11 ICBM, then SS-19 ICBM, then Rokot and Strela launch
vehicles]. The UR-200 medium ICBM was beaten out by Yangel's R-36
[which became the SS-9 ICBM, then the Tskilon launch vehicle]. Chelomei's
UR-700 ultraheavy-lift launch vehicle design also lost out to Korolev's
N-1 for the role of a manned lunar launcher. However, the UR-500 was
selected as a military heavy-lift launcher in 1961 and was given article
number 8K82.

Because the UR-500 was to serve a military role, it needed storable
propellants and large engines to burn them. Chelomei turned to Valentin
Gushko, who had proposed such engines for Korolev's N-1 booster. Korolev
had rejected them, preferring to use less toxic oxygen/kerosene propulsion,
but the design was suitable for Proton. Engine tests from 1961 to 1965
demonstrated the propulsion system, and Chelomei's designers had considered
a number of configurations for the launch vehicle. By 1965, the first
two-stage UR-500 was completed. By this time its military role had been
dropped. The cost of building silos would have been high, and it is likely
that improvements in missile targeting began to make the Proton's huge
warheads unnecessary. The first space launch was conducted on 16 July 1965"


Only other sources I can find, are probably derived from Isakowitz. But
his work is the bible in the space launch field, so I'm inclined to
believe him. And the timing and technology both fit - right about the
time of the Tsar Bomba test, the Soviets start developing a storable
propellant rocket the right size to loft a Tsar Bomba and RV towards the
United States.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

Am Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:23:56 -0500, schrieb "Kevin Brooks"
:

Not all. SADM and MADM had been withdrawn a little bit earlier in the
eighties (my last active duty company CO had just returned from a three year
tour with the ADM company in Vincenza, Italy). The writing had been on the
wall since at least 1985, when the Engineer School finally stopped making
its new LT's spend a couple of days in a secure compound at Belvoir learning
the very basics of ADM employment and planning. But the arty rounds did not
return stateside until about the same time, or shortly after, the Wall came
down. The last ones were withdrawn from the stockpile in 1992 according to
the Nuclear Weapons Archive. The Pershing II and GLCM were of course
governed by the theater nuclear forces treaty (1988 IIRC); not sure about
the arty rounds being covered by that treaty (would have been hard to
verify).

Could you give in some applications for the SADM? ISTR from childhood
(80s) that there were plans to destroy a lot of bridges and so on with
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
popular there.

Owe
--
My from-adress is valid and being read.
www.owejessen.de

In article , Owe Jessen
wrote:



Could you give in some applications for the SADM? ISTR from childhood
(80s) that there were plans to destroy a lot of bridges and so on with
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
popular there.

Bridges, roads through mountain passes, and other things that took a lot
of explosive to bring down. Even though a bridge might be built with
demolition chambers, for safety reasons, you probably don't want to
leave them loaded (if not primed). ADMs weighing in the hundreds of
pounds (IIRC for the MADM, much less for the SADM) could be brought in
much more easily, when needed, than tons of high explosive.

There was also a Special Operations capability to use the SADM
offensively, against enemy targets such as dams.

Fred J. McCall wrote in message . ..
"Carey Sublette" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Carey Sublette" wrote:
:
: :In Stalin's day of course he would have grown radioactive wheat and fed it
: :to the population.
:
: Note that this is what they are doing right now with produce from the
: Chernobyl area.
:
: :It would have saved them from starvation and immediate
: :death, but given them a lifespan much reduced from normal.
:
: People grossly overestimate the effects of radiation. Not so much
: reduced at all. A few years lower on average, at most.
:
:I believe you underestimate how radioactive the wheat would have been in
:fields downwind from a few hundred 400 kt ground bursts. This would be
:1000-10,000 times more contaminated than any from Chernobyl.

Nonsense. The radiation in the fallout zone may initially be that
much worse, but wheat is not going to pick that up in proportion. And
you still seem to be grossly overestimating the effects of radiation.
What do you think the reduction in lifespan is for folks who move into
the fallout zone?

What part of 1961 did you wander in from?

1962
Silent Spring published; documented the effect of chemicals on the
environment. (more)

Discovered breeding line that could restore fertility to male-sterile
wheat plants.

Library collection of USDA designated as National Agricultural
Library.

Cereal leaf beetle discovered to be established in Michigan.

Purified and structurally identified three soluble ribonucleic acids
(RNAs). (more)

Developed method for built-in permanent creases for wool trousers.

First laboratory test developed to detect bluetongue neutralizing
antibody.

Released four inbred lines that resulted in first commercial
production of hybrid seed of pearl millet.

Developed methods using calcium to remove strontium-90 radioactivity
from wheat and milk.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/timeline/1960chron.htm

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...
"Carey Sublette" writes:

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...

[Tsar Bomba barely fits in a Bear]

Wouldn't a deployed Tsar Bomba carrier have been a militarized Proton,
aka UR-500 aka 8K82? The space launch version uses only storable
propellants, can put twenty tons into low orbit with the smallest
fairing easily holding a 2 x 8 meter payload, and my references on
the space launch side claim that it was developed with the ICBM role
and the Tsar Bomba payload in mind from the start (1961).

Which was a stupid idea from the start, and so never implemented,
but rather less stupid than trying to send an overladen Bear across
the arctic.

The only references I recall seeing for models that were actually made
were
bomb versions. They could have been used against NATO (but this has
nothing
to do with MAD).

It seems likely that they investigated the Proton idea since it is the
only
way to get it to America. Do you know of any attempts to develop an RV
for
this? Can you give me any specific citations?


The one on my desk is _International Reference Guide to Space Launch
Systems_, Steven J. Isakowitz, Joseph P. Hopkins. and Joshia B. Hopkins,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1999.

No mention of RVs, which would be outside Isakowitz's focus, but the
historical section on the Proton includes:

"The Proton launch vehicle was developed by the design bureau of Vladimir
Chelomei. The Proton was designed to serve as both a heavy missile
capable
of carrying 100 megaton warheads and as a large space launch vehicle. In
competition with his rival chief designers, Sergei Korolev and Michael
Yangel, Cjhelomei proposed to build the Proton as part of a family of
Universal Rockets of various sizes and functions. The small UR-100
[became the SS-11 ICBM, then SS-19 ICBM, then Rokot and Strela launch
vehicles]. The UR-200 medium ICBM was beaten out by Yangel's R-36
[which became the SS-9 ICBM, then the Tskilon launch vehicle]. Chelomei's
UR-700 ultraheavy-lift launch vehicle design also lost out to Korolev's
N-1 for the role of a manned lunar launcher. However, the UR-500 was
selected as a military heavy-lift launcher in 1961 and was given article
number 8K82.

Because the UR-500 was to serve a military role, it needed storable
propellants and large engines to burn them. Chelomei turned to Valentin
Gushko, who had proposed such engines for Korolev's N-1 booster. Korolev
had rejected them, preferring to use less toxic oxygen/kerosene
propulsion,
but the design was suitable for Proton. Engine tests from 1961 to 1965
demonstrated the propulsion system, and Chelomei's designers had
considered
a number of configurations for the launch vehicle. By 1965, the first
two-stage UR-500 was completed. By this time its military role had been
dropped. The cost of building silos would have been high, and it is
likely
that improvements in missile targeting began to make the Proton's huge
warheads unnecessary. The first space launch was conducted on 16 July
1965"


Only other sources I can find, are probably derived from Isakowitz. But
his work is the bible in the space launch field, so I'm inclined to
believe him. And the timing and technology both fit - right about the
time of the Tsar Bomba test, the Soviets start developing a storable
propellant rocket the right size to loft a Tsar Bomba and RV towards the
United States.

There discussion of this launcher, and its possible military role in Sergei
Khruschev's "Nikita Khruschev and the Creation of a Superpower" (2000). The
book has a fair amount of discussion of missiles, partly because Sergei was
an engineer for Chelomei. He is quite careful about missile designations,
and given his professional role his comments about Chelomei in particular
have a lot of credibility.

He introduces the UR-500 on pg. 472, in a scene where Chelomei is making a
pitch to Khruschev and the Defense Council for a role in ICBM development
(then assigned to Korolyev) in Feb. 1962:

"After completing his description of the UB [a guided ballistic warhead],
Chelomei began to outline proposals for developing a heavy booster rocket.
Vladimir Nikolayevich wanted to use it to launch space stations. (discussion
of the space station concept omitted). The diagram Chelomei displayed to the
Defense Council showed a space booster capable of lifting twelve tons into
orbit. It was called the UR-500. The booster's launch weight was impressive,
almost seven hundred tons. Other diagram displayed military aspects of the
UR-500. Proposals called for using it as a ballistic missile, with the
thrity megaton warhead which had been tested in the recent past."

On pg. 466 he discusses the Tsar Bomba test:

"... preparations were under way in October to set off a nuclear blast of
fantastic power - fifty megatons. Three such monsters, of thirty, fifty, and
one hundred megatons, had been prepared. It was decided to set off the
middle one. .. The problem was there was no booster rocket able to lift such
a heavy warhead."

I have read elsewhere that lower yield derivatives of the Tsar Bomba were
developed, including one of 30 Mt.

From this it seems that the UR-500 was developed primarily as a booster, but
with a possible military role inspired by the superbomb test in October
1961. From 1962 until some time after 1965 no booster would have been
available for any such large bomb (be it 30 Mt or 100 Mt), and only bomb
delivery existed as an option. By 1965 I think the gargantuanism popular
with Khruschev had fallen out of favor and they were no longer thinking of
deploying a weapon of this size as a warhead

Carey Sublette

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Carey Sublette" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Carey Sublette" wrote:
:
: :In Stalin's day of course he would have grown radioactive wheat and
fed it
: :to the population.
:
: Note that this is what they are doing right now with produce from the
: Chernobyl area.
:
: :It would have saved them from starvation and immediate
: :death, but given them a lifespan much reduced from normal.
:
: People grossly overestimate the effects of radiation. Not so much
: reduced at all. A few years lower on average, at most.
:
:I believe you underestimate how radioactive the wheat would have been in
:fields downwind from a few hundred 400 kt ground bursts. This would be
:1000-10,000 times more contaminated than any from Chernobyl.

Nonsense. The radiation in the fallout zone may initially be that
much worse, but wheat is not going to pick that up in proportion.

Actually it will. Why do you think it wouldn't? As a fraction of the ion
concentration in the root zone the radioactive Sr and Cs is negligible. The
plant will pick up the same proportion of the contaminant whether it is 1
curie per square kilometer or 100,000.

And
you still seem to be grossly overestimating the effects of radiation.
What do you think the reduction in lifespan is for folks who move into
the fallout zone?

For a portion of them, not very much.
For the portion that gets bone cancer, it is considerable.

Owe Jessen wrote:

:Could you give in some applications for the SADM? ISTR from childhood
80s) that there were plans to destroy a lot of bridges and so on with
: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
opular there.

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.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

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
80s) that there were plans to destroy a lot of bridges and so on with
: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
opular there.

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?

Owe
--
My from-adress is valid and being read.
www.owejessen.de