Need help with my brother

[collegeguy]

Guys, I don't know how many people knew this, but here goes.
Bluestar and I are brothers. He started posting here after reading some woowoo stuff about 2012. Since I already belonged to this site, I showed it to him and he opened an account. He needs to be more skeptical I know. I have helped him for a long time (thanks to this site that helped me to debunk many pesudoscientific theories). But this time, there's nothing I can do, it seems.
I have nobody but myself to blame for this problem. During my research for a paper I had to write on WW2 and nuclear weapons, (I started a thread about it months ago), I ran into info about the so-called "doomsday bomb" of Leo Szilard, you know the cobalt bomb. My brother saw it and I asked him to help me in a thread to discuss in here. We understood the amount of cobalt would have to be in the tons for it to work as a doomsday device and that such weapon had never been known to be built. I thought that had ended the matter.
But going through my research, bluestar read info of fission-fusion-fission bombs that could be salted. The ones that have a final jacket or outer shell of uranium and are commonly used today. The article explained that the cobalt bomb would be of the same kind, only that if would have the outer shell or jacket made of Cobalt 59, a nonfissionable matter which would then be turned into cobalt 60. He read that these weapons had at least been considered during the cold war as "salted bombs". Needless to say he is scared they were built back then. I did some research on current arsenals and things like it to show him none has been known to be built. He checked the weight of warheads and saw some of there weigh tons (especially the ones used by bombers). So he is very scared of it now. I know not how much would the outer shell or jacket of cobalt would weigh, but I doubt it would be as much as 500 pounds for a one ton bomb. Anyway, I have not found info on it. If anybody knew of a source that talked about how much can the final weight of the outer shell or jacket of a fission-fusion-fission bomb may be, I would appreciate it.

I don't know what to do. He's been having nightmares very often and is scared most of the day. Maybe he should get some help, I don't know.

Can you guys give me a source on the fission-fusion-fission bombs outer shell or jacket? could a megaton category bomb have as much as 400 pounds of cobalt in the outer shell?

I heard in a forum all the info we have of those weapons is from models since no one is know to have built one. I don't know if anyone has sources of the models.

I have to think what to do to help him. I need some advice.

[Sam5]

If it's an obsession problem, I think you need to take him to a doctor. Because if you get him over this, he might obsess about something else and worry about something else.

[collegeguy]

If it's an obsession problem, I think you need to take him to a doctor. Because if you get him over this, he might obsess about something else and worry about something else.

I am thinking to get him to a doctor whether I get him over this or not. thanks for the advice, anyway. However, it will be a lot easier to have someone work with him if he is over this, so hopefully I can get some help in this thread (if possible).

[The Supreme Canuck]

From a logical military standpoint, it is unlikely that cobalt bombs of any type were ever constructed in great numbers, if at all. Nuclear strategy during the Cold War was centred around disarming your opponent's nuclear arsenal as well as ensuring that they'd never use it. From this perspective, it seems logical to construct a large number of ICBMs armed with multiple light, small yield (20-30 kilotonne) warheads targeted at enemy nuclear facilities, military installations, economically valuable regions, and populated areas. The threat of utter military, economic, and population destruction was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of forceful disarmament and deterrence. Any attempt to increase the fallout yields of nuclear weapons would be wasted at best, and harmful at worst (the increased weight of such weapons would reduce the number of warheads per missile, or could even make the warhead too heavy for a missile launch).

So, I sincerely doubt that any such salted weapons were constructed at all, and I'm certain that they were not constructed in large numbers.

[collegeguy]

From a logical military standpoint, it is unlikely that cobalt bombs of any type were ever constructed in great numbers, if at all. Nuclear strategy during the Cold War was centred around disarming your opponent's nuclear arsenal as well as ensuring that they'd never use it. From this perspective, it seems logical to construct a large number of ICBMs armed with multiple light, small yield (20-30 kilotonne) warheads targeted at enemy nuclear facilities, military installations, economically valuable regions, and populated areas. The threat of utter military, economic, and population destruction was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of forceful disarmament and deterrence. Any attempt to increase the fallout yields of nuclear weapons would be wasted at best, and harmful at worst (the increased weight of such weapons would reduce the number of warheads per missile, or could even make the warhead too heavy for a missile launch).

So, I sincerely doubt that any such salted weapons were constructed at all, and I'm certain that they were not constructed in large numbers.

You know I agree with this. Also, many warheads were dismantled after the cold war. I think weapons who were not considered to be as indispensable were probably the chosen ones to dismantle. The purpose of salted bombs was to deny a region to an advancing army by means of the high radioactive contamination. They would have been like a wind-deployed minefield. Cobalt would give contaminating fallout of 5.27 years, tantalum and zinc fallout of months, and gold of days.

What bluestar is concerned about, is the possibilty that a megaton-range warhead (I believe the US has up to 20 megatons now), could be salted with as much as 400 pounds of cobalt. If, he says, several dozens of this kind are detonated, this would cause enough fallout to be tons and therefore be deadly everywhere in the world.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Warheads with yields that large are militarily useless. Not only are they difficult to get to the target area (they're pretty big), a number of smaller warheads with the same total yield will result in more destruction. (i.e. one 20 megatonne warhead will do less damage than twenty 1 megatonne warheads). It is doubtful that weapons that large still exist.

Also, the use of salted weapons as area-denial weapons during the Cold War wouldn't work. Any use of nuclear weapons in a direct conflict between NATO nations and Warsaw Pact nations would result in escalation to a full-scale exchange due to the dynamics of Cold War defence policies. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact would respond in kind to any nuclear attack received, and both sides knew this. If one side launched a limited nuclear attack, the other would either respond in kind or escalate dramatically. This is because the only strategically viable defence to a nuclear exchange is to launch a disarming first-strike to destroy the enemy's nuclear capability. This would result is the nation being disarmed launching its missiles to prevent their destruction and to destroy the infrastructure of the other nation. If you're going to die anyway, you may as well take the other guy down with you.

So, deploying area-denial cobalt bombs would be useless, as there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war between superpowers.

[collegeguy]

Warheads with yields that large are militarily useless. Not only are they difficult to get to the target area (they're pretty big), a number of smaller warheads with the same total yield will result in more destruction. (i.e. one 20 megatonne warhead will do less damage than twenty 1 megatonne warheads). It is doubtful that weapons that large still exist.

Also, the use of salted weapons as area-denial weapons during the Cold War wouldn't work. Any use of nuclear weapons in a direct conflict between NATO nations and Warsaw Pact nations would result in escalation to a full-scale exchange due to the dynamics of Cold War defence policies. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact would respond in kind to any nuclear attack received, and both sides knew this. If one side launched a limited nuclear attack, the other would either respond in kind or escalate dramatically. This is because the only strategically viable defence to a nuclear exchange is to launch a disarming first-strike to destroy the enemy's nuclear capability. This would result is the nation being disarmed launching its missiles to prevent their destruction and to destroy the infrastructure of the other nation. If you're going to die anyway, you may as well take the other guy down with you.

So, deploying area-denial cobalt bombs would be useless, as there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war between superpowers.

Does it even seem practical to salt something with 200 pounds? Would the warhead be easy to launch?. I think not.

[Van Rijn]

Warheads with yields that large are militarily useless. Not only are they difficult to get to the target area (they're pretty big), a number of smaller warheads with the same total yield will result in more destruction. (i.e. one 20 megatonne warhead will do less damage than twenty 1 megatonne warheads). It is doubtful that weapons that large still exist.



Exactly. In the early days, when missiles were very inaccurate by today's standards, larger warheads were used to compensate. When they went to MIRVs and had higher accuracy, those were phased out for much smaller yields.

And, of course, there is no point to a cobalt weapon. Along with that, they would suffer from the distribution problem: Properly distributed, an ounce of botulism toxin could kill everyone on earth. But it could never be properly distributed.

[collegeguy]

Bluestar is afraid that some of the nuclear weapons could be 'salted" with as much as 400 pounds of cobalt each. I don't even know if 200 would be practical. I mean can the outer shell or jacket of a fission-fusion-fission bomb be that big? I doubt but I would appreciate any comments.

When he sees this thread, he will totally kill me 8-[

[The Supreme Canuck]

Warheads with yields that large are militarily useless. Not only are they difficult to get to the target area (they're pretty big), a number of smaller warheads with the same total yield will result in more destruction. (i.e. one 20 megatonne warhead will do less damage than twenty 1 megatonne warheads). It is doubtful that weapons that large still exist.

Also, the use of salted weapons as area-denial weapons during the Cold War wouldn't work. Any use of nuclear weapons in a direct conflict between NATO nations and Warsaw Pact nations would result in escalation to a full-scale exchange due to the dynamics of Cold War defence policies. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact would respond in kind to any nuclear attack received, and both sides knew this. If one side launched a limited nuclear attack, the other would either respond in kind or escalate dramatically. This is because the only strategically viable defence to a nuclear exchange is to launch a disarming first-strike to destroy the enemy's nuclear capability. This would result is the nation being disarmed launching its missiles to prevent their destruction and to destroy the infrastructure of the other nation. If you're going to die anyway, you may as well take the other guy down with you.

So, deploying area-denial cobalt bombs would be useless, as there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war between superpowers.

Does it even seem practical to salt something with 200 pounds? Would the warhead be easy to launch?. I think not.

It is doable, but why would you want to? Deploying it as a strategic weapon is out. When the other side sees an ICBM on the way in, it's all over. Besides, strategic weapons are only for use on doomsday. They only get used when you want an all-out exchange, so area-denial isn't a concern.

So that leaves tactical weapons (i.e. nuclear artillery and gravity bombs). 200 lbs of cobalt plus the weight of a warhead seems impractical for a cannon, so a salted artillery shell is out. That leaves tactical gravity bombs. This is very doable, but it again raises the question of whether you want to risk it. As I've mentioned, the use of even a tactical weapon during the Cold War would almost certainly develop into a full-scale exchange. Even a conventional war in Europe was considered to be a probable cause for an all-out exchange. So the use of tactical nuclear weapons is suicide, and as such it is unlikely that area-denial weapons would exist in great numbers.

Of course "normal" tactical devices exist, but only because they are far more deployable than a cobalt bomb, and because the other side had them. It is interesting to note that such weapons actually provided a failsafe; after the use of tactical weapons by one side, the other side is essentially forced to retaliate. If they did not possess tactical weapons, they'd have to use the strategic weapons, and goodbye Charlie. So, while a tactical exchange would almost always mean annihilation, there would be the small chance that both sides would take a breath and back off.

Non-cobalt tactical weapons also have the advantage of being useful in an unrestricted war with a nation that does not possess nuclear weapons. They would allow for the quick destruction of enemy fortifications and formations, allowing conventional troops to storm in. As such, it would be foolhardy to irradiate the region as you want to pass through it yourself. So, again, cobalt bombs are of no use here.

In fact, the only time that a cobalt bomb would be useful is if you want to ensure that an enemy who does not possess nuclear weapons does not occupy a region long after the end of the war. From a military standpoint, this is useless. What do you care about how the enemy uses his land after the war? You'd be focused on how to win the war. And that means conventional troops as well as non-cobalt tactical weapons (they can do anything a cobalt bomb can do except keep the enemy out of his cities after the war, at which point you no longer care what he does with them).

So. Cobalt bombs are useless. Period. Why would anyone want to build one? How likely is it that they did?

Added:

Bluestar is afraid that some of the nuclear weapons could be 'salted" with as much as 400 pounds of cobalt each. I don't even know if 200 would be practical. I mean can the outer shell or jacket of a fission-fusion-fission bomb be that big? I doubt but I would appreciate any comments.


Certainly the physics of the concept are sound, so it is possible. But why would you want to? What good does it do?

You can also build a hydrogen bomb arbitrarily large. So that means you could have a 500 megatonne bomb (given the resources). But that's useless. It doesn't go anywhere. It can't go anywhere. Smaller bombs are more destructive. The cost is prohibitive. And it would be bad for you as well as the enemy. This concept applies to cobalt bombs as well: not useful, non-existent.

[collegeguy]

Warheads with yields that large are militarily useless. Not only are they difficult to get to the target area (they're pretty big), a number of smaller warheads with the same total yield will result in more destruction. (i.e. one 20 megatonne warhead will do less damage than twenty 1 megatonne warheads). It is doubtful that weapons that large still exist.

Also, the use of salted weapons as area-denial weapons during the Cold War wouldn't work. Any use of nuclear weapons in a direct conflict between NATO nations and Warsaw Pact nations would result in escalation to a full-scale exchange due to the dynamics of Cold War defence policies. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact would respond in kind to any nuclear attack received, and both sides knew this. If one side launched a limited nuclear attack, the other would either respond in kind or escalate dramatically. This is because the only strategically viable defence to a nuclear exchange is to launch a disarming first-strike to destroy the enemy's nuclear capability. This would result is the nation being disarmed launching its missiles to prevent their destruction and to destroy the infrastructure of the other nation. If you're going to die anyway, you may as well take the other guy down with you.

So, deploying area-denial cobalt bombs would be useless, as there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war between superpowers.

Does it even seem practical to salt something with 200 pounds? Would the warhead be easy to launch?. I think not.

It is doable, but why would you want to? Deploying it as a strategic weapon is out. When the other side sees an ICBM on the way in, it's all over. Besides, strategic weapons are only for use on doomsday. They only get used when you want an all-out exchange, so area-denial isn't a concern.

So that leaves tactical weapons (i.e. nuclear artillery and gravity bombs). 200 lbs of cobalt plus the weight of a warhead seems impractical for a cannon, so a salted artillery shell is out. That leaves tactical gravity bombs. This is very doable, but it again raises the question of whether you want to risk it. As I've mentioned, the use of even a tactical weapon during the Cold War would almost certainly develop into a full-scale exchange. Even a conventional war in Europe was considered to be a probable cause for an all-out exchange. So the use of tactical nuclear weapons is suicide, and as such it is unlikely that area-denial weapons would exist in great numbers.

Of course "normal" tactical devices exist, but only because they are far more deployable than a cobalt bomb, and because the other side had them. It is interesting to note that such weapons actually provided a failsafe; after the use of tactical weapons by one side, the other side is essentially forced to retaliate. If they did not possess tactical weapons, they'd have to use the strategic weapons, and goodbye Charlie. So, while a tactical exchange would almost always mean annihilation, there would be the small chance that both sides would take a breath and back off.

Non-cobalt tactical weapons also have the advantage of being useful in an unrestricted war with a nation that does not possess nuclear weapons. They would allow for the quick destruction of enemy fortifications and formations, allowing conventional troops to storm in. As such, it would be foolhardy to irradiate the region as you want to pass through it yourself. So, again, cobalt bombs are of no use here.

In fact, the only time that a cobalt bomb would be useful is if you want to ensure that an enemy who does not possess nuclear weapons does not occupy a region long after the end of the war. From a military standpoint, this is useless. What do you care about how the enemy uses his land after the war? You'd be focused on how to win the war. And that means conventional troops as well as non-cobalt tactical weapons (they can do anything a cobalt bomb can do except keep the enemy out of his cities after the war, at which point you no longer care what he does with them).

So. Cobalt bombs are useless. Period. Why would anyone want to build one? How likely is it that they did?

Added:

Bluestar is afraid that some of the nuclear weapons could be 'salted" with as much as 400 pounds of cobalt each. I don't even know if 200 would be practical. I mean can the outer shell or jacket of a fission-fusion-fission bomb be that big? I doubt but I would appreciate any comments.


Certainly the physics of the concept are sound, so it is possible. But why would you want to? What good does it do?

You can also build a hydrogen bomb arbitrarily large. So that means you could have a 500 megatonne bomb (given the resources). But that's useless. It doesn't go anywhere. It can't go anywhere. Smaller bombs are more destructive. The cost is prohibitive. And it would be bad for you as well as the enemy. This concept applies to cobalt bombs as well: not useful, non-existent.

The only thing you can do with them is what the Dr. Strangelove movie showed :lol:

I think that if there were any, they would have been destroyed at the end of the Cold War.

[Van Rijn]

It comes down to this: Are cobalt bombs physically possible? Sure. Do we have any reason to think they are in the inventory and would be used? No. Would a few cobalt bombs make much difference in a full scale nuclear war? No. Is there reason to think a full scale nuclear war is imminent? No.

But if someone wants to believe differently, I doubt I can change their mind.

[gethen]

If it's not too intrusive, how old is your brother? Fears like this might not be so big a deal with a teenager or younger person. If your brother is 25 or so, this obsession with the bomb may be more serious.

[collegeguy]

If it's not too intrusive, how old is your brother? Fears like this might not be so big a deal with a teenager or younger person. If your brother is 25 or so, this obsession with the bomb may be more serious.

He is 22.

[gethen]

So he's old enough to understand the things posted above. I agree that he probably ought to have some professional help to get past this.

[collegeguy]

So he's old enough to understand the things posted above. I agree that he probably ought to have some professional help to get past this.

Yeah, this whole "cobalt bomb' issue has become the monster in the closet, that refuses to go away and is making his life miserable.

[collegeguy]

He saw this article:

http://www.rense.com/general40/dooms.htm

As he saw the 33.6 tons, he concluded that with probably as little as 75 weapons salted with 800 pounds of cobalt and 165 weapons salted with 400 pounds of cobalt would kill everyone on earth. I guess he doesn't consider that this kind of weapon would be used specially for local fallout and that he cannot conclude that the radiation will spread equally.

Now I understand how the BA felt when he said woowoos and conspiracy theorists can really harm people. :evil:

[Maksutov]

He saw this article:

http://www.rense.com/general40/dooms.htm

As he saw the 33.6 tons, he concluded that with probably as little as 75 weapons salted with 800 pounds of cobalt and 165 weapons salted with 400 pounds of cobalt would kill everyone on earth. I guess he doesn't consider that this kind of weapon would be used specially for local fallout and that he cannot conclude that the radiation will spread equally.

Now I understand how the BA felt when he said woowoos and conspiracy theorists can really harm people. :evil:
Anyone reading Rense needs to put their minds in the rinse cycle.

The BA's point is well-taken. Freedom of speech is one thing. Spewing falsehoods that cause panic in groups and individuals is quite another.

BTW, is your brother married? In one of his posts he mentioned that all of this should be taken seriously, and that he definitely was doing so, because he had his family to worry about. If so, as other posters mentioned in that thread, I would be concerned about his family.

Finally the continuity of the overall themes of his posts seems to indicate a focus on anything of this nature, rather than this one particular subject. In this case, since it's apparently disrupting his life and those around him, the reason for this needs to be determined and acted upon before it really gets out of hand.

Best of luck!

[collegeguy]

He saw this article:

http://www.rense.com/general40/dooms.htm

As he saw the 33.6 tons, he concluded that with probably as little as 75 weapons salted with 800 pounds of cobalt and 165 weapons salted with 400 pounds of cobalt would kill everyone on earth. I guess he doesn't consider that this kind of weapon would be used specially for local fallout and that he cannot conclude that the radiation will spread equally.

Now I understand how the BA felt when he said woowoos and conspiracy theorists can really harm people. :evil:
Anyone reading Rense needs to put their minds in the rinse cycle.

The BA's point is well-taken. Freedom of speech is one thing. Spewing falsehoods that cause panic in groups and individuals is quite another.

BTW, is your brother married? In one of his posts he mentioned that all of this should be taken seriously, and that he definitely was doing so, because he had his family to worry about. If so, as other posters mentioned in that thread, I would be concerned about his family.

Finally the continuity of the overall themes of his posts seems to indicate a focus on anything of this nature, rather than this one particular subject. In this case, since it's apparently disrupting his life and those around him, the reason for this needs to be determined and acted upon before it really gets out of hand.

Best of luck!

This is the main topic of the moment. But I want to find a way to solve it. it will be easier to get him help after he gets over this and before he moves on to something else. Yes, he is married.

The difference with this problem is that the other ones were pseudoscience, easy to debunk. But this cobalt bomb is scientifically possible, and I don't know for sure how many would be needed or how big can the outer shell of a fission-fusion-fission bomb be. I don't think the "salted" weapons were developed or if it is possible to make an easy to deliver warhead with 200 pounds of cobalt. Problem is that won't be good enough since it is possible to develop this.

I need to do more research.

[Enzp]

If I may hazard a comment. It sounds like your brother has some issues to sort out, and they won't likely cure themselves. I would disagree with you about waiting until this blows over to seek help. If you go seek help NOW, then there is a prime example of the problem evident and it gives the professional something to react to. Otherwise all he gets are anecdotes after the fact. Besides, TOm Cruise notwithstanding, what if this is in part due to a "chemical imbalance" of some sort? If this comes and goes, it will be measurable now but not later.

[Bluestar]

I can't believe what I am seeing. Collegeguy has come to make a fuss about me in here. Listen guys, of course I am worried about the possibility of cobalt bombs having been built. They would ruin any effort to try to survive a nuclear war. You know our governments would not care about using dirty tactics to attack their opponents. They may have made some of these "tactical" weapons, without thinking of the consequence. How much cobalt would they have used we don't know. I hope they haven't done it but there is no way to know.

[The Supreme Canuck]

But why would they want to? Wouldn't it make more sense to build nuclear weapons that are more militarily useful? It's like the US Air Force building an airplane that drops rubber ducks instead of bombs. Sure they can do it, but why the heck would they want ducks instead of bombs?

[Bluestar]

But why would they want to? Wouldn't it make more sense to build nuclear weapons that are more militarily useful? It's like the US Air Force building an airplane that drops rubber ducks instead of bombs. Sure they can do it, but why the heck would they want ducks instead of bombs?

While I agree their making would be insane, they were considered in the past as salted bombs. We don't know if any built back then could still be in a nation's arsenal. How much cobalt would they have put in each would be other important matter.

[The Supreme Canuck]

But you assume that they were built. Why would they build them? They had the theories and knew that they would work. They also knew that there is no point to such weapons. So, again, why would they build them? What makes you think that they did?

[Bluestar]

But you assume that they were built. Why would they build them? They had the theories and knew that they would work. They also knew that there is no point to such weapons. So, again, why would they build them? What makes you think that they did?

I don't know. I just hope they were not. I am worried, that's all. :(

[genebujold]

Your brother needn't worry.

Nuclear weapons are very expensive, and cobalt as an area denial weapon is very poor (the enemy will just find a different area).

If you use a multi-megatonner to deliver cobalt, the fireball is so hot, so large, it penetrates to the stratosphere, where it's spread worldwide. Thus, it's NOT an area denial weapon! (Unless you're attacking from Mars...)

Using much smaller weapons, such as in the less than 20kt range makes more sense, but for them to effectively deny an area, you've spent FAR more time, effort, and money than if you simply use B-52s or B-1s to carpet-mine the area and back that up with long-range artillary/rockets and combined air assault.

Besides, the latter option is redeployable. The former one is not.

[Bluestar]

Your brother needn't worry.

Nuclear weapons are very expensive, and cobalt as an area denial weapon is very poor (the enemy will just find a different area).

If you use a multi-megatonner to deliver cobalt, the fireball is so hot, so large, it penetrates to the stratosphere, where it's spread worldwide. Thus, it's NOT an area denial weapon! (Unless you're attacking from Mars...)

Using much smaller weapons, such as in the less than 20kt range makes more sense, but for them to effectively deny an area, you've spent FAR more time, effort, and money than if you simply use B-52s or B-1s to carpet-mine the area and back that up with long-range artillary/rockets and combined air assault.

Besides, the latter option is redeployable. The former one is not.

But doesn't the bulk of the radioactivity even if you use megatons stay close to the blast area? I mean, it spreads worlwide but the farther the place, the less it gets. They could use megaton bombs with cobalt and the bulk of the raioactivity would stay close to the blast area, but there could be considerable damage to the rest of the world.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Yes, with any bomb the fallout will largely remain near ground zero. However, when the bomb is large enough to penetrate the stratosphere, fallout distribution becomes more widespread. That said, it would be monumentally stupid to construct a multi-megatonne cobalt bomb. Not only is a cobalt bomb worthless, so is a bomb that large. The most useful type of nuclear weapon is a low-fallout, low-yield weapon.

[Bluestar]

It was mentioned that faalout would mostly stay close to the blast area, decreasing as you get farther away. I've read however that bombs more than 10 kilotons have worlwide consequences. The activity of Co-60 is 1.1 x 10^3 Ci/g, so one micro-gram of Co-60 would have an activity of ~ 1 milli-Curie. 15 Curies/Km^2 was considered grounds for mandatory resettlement in the regions of the Ukraine around. So cobalt 60 could easily have dire consequences worlwide with little amounts.

The majority of nukes these days are at the most of 750 kilotons. Nukes that big could probably carry 400 pounds of cobalt or more.

[Eoanthropus Dawsoni]

Bluestar, there are a lot of bad things that might happen. The world can be a very scary place if one worries about all of the potential disasters, and unfortunately there are quite a few people online and on a certain late night radio show who make a pretty good living be feeding other people's anxiety. Pick a subject, and there will be someone handy with a doomsday scenario. As far as an actual threat, most of these bad things are really not worth worrying about. On the subject of nuclear war, many people in this group have giving you many solid reasons why you need not be worried. However you still are worried.

I think the issue here is anxiety, rather than nukes. I suspect that if you were not worried about a potential nuclear war, you would be just as worried about something else. Find someone competent, and talk to them about your fears. Life is too short to be spent worrying about things that are not worth worrying about.

Good luck.

[Bluestar]

Bluestar, there are a lot of bad things that might happen. The world can be a very scary place if one worries about all of the potential disasters, and unfortunately there are quite a few people online and on a certain late night radio show who make a pretty good living be feeding other people's anxiety. Pick a subject, and there will be someone handy with a doomsday scenario. As far as an actual threat, most of these bad things are really not worth worrying about. On the subject of nuclear war, many people in this group have giving you many solid reasons why you need not be worried. However you still are worried.

I think the issue here is anxiety, rather than nukes. I suspect that if you were not worried about a potential nuclear war, you would be just as worried about something else. Find someone competent, and talk to them about your fears. Life is too short to be spent worrying about things that are not worth worrying about.

Good luck.

The other things were pseudoscience. But this thing is real, it is possible to do. Also, without being disrespectful or encourage anger, can someone point out to me the solid reasons? We think it would be insane to build those things, but many insane things have been built. We can just hope they weren't built. 8-[

[The Supreme Canuck]

The biggest reason is cost. Nukes cost money. Big nukes cost big money. Big cobalt nukes are exorbitant. Why would a government spend money on 5 cobalt bombs when it could build 50 hydrogen bombs for the same price? Especially since the hydrogen bombs are useful and the cobalt bombs aren't?

It isn't logical. No one would build them. It is almost certain that they don't exist.

[Eoanthropus Dawsoni]

Also, without being disrespectful or encourage anger, can someone point out to me the solid reasons? We think it would be insane to build those things, but many insane things have been built. We can just hope they weren't built. 8-[

They have been pointed out to you, numerous times. I do not think going over them again would make any difference. You have an unreasonable fear of nuclear war, so reasonable explanations as to why you don't need to worry are probably not going to help.

Perhaps with time you will learn not to worry as much about nuclear war, or perhaps this worry will be replaced by some other concern. Or you can work on the anxiety issues so that you can enjoy life a bit more. It's up to you.

[collegeguy]

Thanks for all your patience and info guys. I want to post some links, too. Most of the US weapons nowadays are no longer megaton range weapons. A link:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html

Another link:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Nukeforce.html

Sp cobalt bombs in the meagaton range are out of the question. As for the 750 kilotons they are in average, they would need much of the weapon for explosion rather than salting.

[genebujold]

All this sounds like a very dicombobulated attempt at undermining the concept of building nukes in the first place, just because someone's brother has a fit.

If it bothers him that much, he needs to, like, unplug, man! you know - get some R&R?

Follow the white rabbit...

[collegeguy]

All this sounds like a very dicombobulated attempt at undermining the concept of building nukes in the first place, just because someone's brother has a fit.

If it bothers him that much, he needs to, like, unplug, man! you know - get some R&R?

Follow the white rabbit...

I started the thread and was trying to explain some reasonable arguements. As far as I see, everybody has been giving valid facts and arguements and nobody is undermining the concept of building nukes. I am sorry if I have caused an inconvenience to anyone

Anyway, what do you mean?

[Donnie B.]

Bluestar, a question:

If it were actually true that a significant number of cobalt bombs existed (which, like the others here, I think is vanishingly unlikely), what difference would that make to you? Would you try to do something about it, and if so, what? Would you run away to some far corner of the Earth and hide? What?

[collegeguy]

Bluestar, a question:

If it were actually true that a significant number of cobalt bombs existed (which, like the others here, I think is vanishingly unlikely), what difference would that make to you? Would you try to do something about it, and if so, what? Would you run away to some far corner of the Earth and hide? What?

I would say not only vanishing unlikely. it is almost impossible. You can check some reliable links and see that the weapons of megaton range are no longer used. Smaller nukes couldn't be salted with that much cobalt as originally suggested.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html

[Enzp]

Bluestar, I see what your brother has done here not as making a fuss, but expressing a loving and hopefull desire for your wellbeing. He tells us of his concern. Sure it may come off as talking behind your back, but it sounds like a genuine concern.

There are plenty of completely practical things that are totally plausible scientifically. I won't list them since it is a fire I do not wish to feed. But a cobalt bomb is so far down the list even of those things that it is pointless to be concerned.

It is entirely possible to be hit by lightning. other than not playing golf in a thunderstorm, is there a point in letting fear of it control one's life? Obsession can take away the quality of your life.

There are people who worry about germs. Germs are everywhere, but some folks wash their hands over and over. They want to get the germs off, then they worry about maybe there were germs on the soap, and maybe the towell was germ ridden, and so on until they can do nothing but wash all day. Imagine Monk, but worse.

Don't become that person over nuclear bombs.

[genebujold]

All this sounds like a very dicombobulated attempt at undermining the concept of building nukes in the first place, just because someone's brother has a fit.

If it bothers him that much, he needs to, like, unplug, man! you know - get some R&R?

Follow the white rabbit...

I started the thread and was trying to explain some reasonable arguements. As far as I see, everybody has been giving valid facts and arguements and nobody is undermining the concept of building nukes. I am sorry if I have caused an inconvenience to anyone

Anyway, what do you mean?

It's a quote from The Matrix.

[collegeguy]

All this sounds like a very dicombobulated attempt at undermining the concept of building nukes in the first place, just because someone's brother has a fit.

If it bothers him that much, he needs to, like, unplug, man! you know - get some R&R?

Follow the white rabbit...

I started the thread and was trying to explain some reasonable arguements. As far as I see, everybody has been giving valid facts and arguements and nobody is undermining the concept of building nukes. I am sorry if I have caused an inconvenience to anyone

Anyway, what do you mean?

It's a quote from The Matrix.

I see. I had no idea.

[Donnie B.]

All this sounds like a very dicombobulated attempt at undermining the concept of building nukes in the first place, just because someone's brother has a fit.

If it bothers him that much, he needs to, like, unplug, man! you know - get some R&R?

Follow the white rabbit...

I started the thread and was trying to explain some reasonable arguements. As far as I see, everybody has been giving valid facts and arguements and nobody is undermining the concept of building nukes. I am sorry if I have caused an inconvenience to anyone

Anyway, what do you mean?

It's a quote from The Matrix.
Which is, itself, a reference to Alice in Wonderland.

[collegeguy]

Just to point out some more things.

Cobalt bombs could not be made in the megaton range. They would have to weigh as much as a megaton range weapon to carry up to 400 pounds of cobalt. However, if they were made megaton range, the radioactive particles would go to the stratosphere and would spread worlwide. They would not be area-denial weapons.

If the explosion is a true air-burst (the fireball does not touch the ground), when the vaporized radioactive products cool enough to condense and solidify, they will do so to form microscopic particles. These particles are mostly lifted high into the atmosphere by the rising fireball, although significant amounts are deposited in the lower atmosphere by mixing that occurs due to convective circulation within the fireball. The larger the explosion, the higher and faster the fallout is lofted, and the smaller the proportion that is deposited in the lower atmosphere. For explosions with yields of 100 kt or less, the fireball does not rise abve the troposphere where precipitation occurs. All of this fallout will thus be brought to the ground by weather processes within months at most (usually much faster). In the megaton range, the fireball rises so high that it enters the stratosphere. The stratosphere is dry, and no weather processes exist there to bring fallout down quickly. Small fallout particles will descend over a period of months or years. Such long-delayed fallout has lost most of its hazard by the time it comes down, and will be distributed on a global scale. As yields increase above 100 kt, progressively more and more of the total fallout is injected into the stratosphere.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html

Also making a megaton range cobalt bomb would be extremely hard. If you make the outer shell or the final jacket of a fission-fusion-fission bomb with cobalt, you have not used fissionable material and therefore, the weapon would lose a lot of its yield. (tsar bomb, the 50 megaton russian weapon comes to mind). If the bomb would have been given a tamper of uranium, it would have been around 100 mt. But since uranium was retired and other material placed, the yield was greatly diminished. if the cobalt bomb were to be a local problem, not much of it would spread worlwide, therefore it would not be a doomsday device. Since most weapons nowadays are at the most of 750 kilotons (with some megaton exceptions), the cobalt would be largely a local problem. I also think those weapons are used in MRVs to destroy targets rather than to salt them with long-lived isotopes. The so-called "salted bombs" always sounded as tactical nuclear weapons. Those are low-yield weapons always.

Please feel free to point out any flaws in my post.

[Bluestar]

Just to point out some more things.

Cobalt bombs could not be made in the megaton range. They would have to weigh as much as a megaton range weapon to carry up to 400 pounds of cobalt. However, if they were made megaton range, the radioactive particles would go to the stratosphere and would spread worlwide. They would not be area-denial weapons.

If the explosion is a true air-burst (the fireball does not touch the ground), when the vaporized radioactive products cool enough to condense and solidify, they will do so to form microscopic particles. These particles are mostly lifted high into the atmosphere by the rising fireball, although significant amounts are deposited in the lower atmosphere by mixing that occurs due to convective circulation within the fireball. The larger the explosion, the higher and faster the fallout is lofted, and the smaller the proportion that is deposited in the lower atmosphere. For explosions with yields of 100 kt or less, the fireball does not rise abve the troposphere where precipitation occurs. All of this fallout will thus be brought to the ground by weather processes within months at most (usually much faster). In the megaton range, the fireball rises so high that it enters the stratosphere. The stratosphere is dry, and no weather processes exist there to bring fallout down quickly. Small fallout particles will descend over a period of months or years. Such long-delayed fallout has lost most of its hazard by the time it comes down, and will be distributed on a global scale. As yields increase above 100 kt, progressively more and more of the total fallout is injected into the stratosphere.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html

Also making a megaton range cobalt bomb would be extremely hard. If you make the outer shell or the final jacket of a fission-fusion-fission bomb with cobalt, you have not used fissionable material and therefore, the weapon would lose a lot of its yield. (tsar bomb, the 50 megaton russian weapon comes to mind). If the bomb would have been given a tamper of uranium, it would have been around 100 mt. But since uranium was retired and other material placed, the yield was greatly diminished. if the cobalt bomb were to be a local problem, not much of it would spread worlwide, therefore it would not be a doomsday device. Since most weapons nowadays are at the most of 750 kilotons (with some megaton exceptions), the cobalt would be largely a local problem. I also think those weapons are used in MRVs to destroy targets rather than to salt them with long-lived isotopes. The so-called "salted bombs" always sounded as tactical nuclear weapons. Those are low-yield weapons always.

Please feel free to point out any flaws in my post.

But if megaton range weapons push their fallout to the stratosphere, what about the castle bravo shot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_bravo

the explosion was 15 megatons and Radioactive fallout was spread eastward onto the inhabited Rongelap and Rongerik atolls, which were soon evacuated. (Many of the Marshall Islands natives have since suffered from birth defects and have received some compensation from the Federal government.)
A Japanese fishing boat, the Fifth Lucky Dragon, also came into contact with the fallout, which caused many of the crew to grow ill; one eventually died.Unanticipated fallout and radiation also affected many of the vessels and personnel involved in the test, in some cases trapping them in bunkers. One prominent scientist later recalled that he was on a ship 30 miles away, and received 10 R of radiation (about the amount from 10 chest X-ray exams) as a result. Radioactive contamination also affected many of the testing facilities built on other islands of the Bikini atoll system.

it seems like a very big part of the total fallout stayed in the troposhere. It doesn't seem to be true that in megaton range the total fallout goes to the stratosphere.

[collegeguy]

Just to point out some more things.

Cobalt bombs could not be made in the megaton range. They would have to weigh as much as a megaton range weapon to carry up to 400 pounds of cobalt. However, if they were made megaton range, the radioactive particles would go to the stratosphere and would spread worlwide. They would not be area-denial weapons.

If the explosion is a true air-burst (the fireball does not touch the ground), when the vaporized radioactive products cool enough to condense and solidify, they will do so to form microscopic particles. These particles are mostly lifted high into the atmosphere by the rising fireball, although significant amounts are deposited in the lower atmosphere by mixing that occurs due to convective circulation within the fireball. The larger the explosion, the higher and faster the fallout is lofted, and the smaller the proportion that is deposited in the lower atmosphere. For explosions with yields of 100 kt or less, the fireball does not rise abve the troposphere where precipitation occurs. All of this fallout will thus be brought to the ground by weather processes within months at most (usually much faster). In the megaton range, the fireball rises so high that it enters the stratosphere. The stratosphere is dry, and no weather processes exist there to bring fallout down quickly. Small fallout particles will descend over a period of months or years. Such long-delayed fallout has lost most of its hazard by the time it comes down, and will be distributed on a global scale. As yields increase above 100 kt, progressively more and more of the total fallout is injected into the stratosphere.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html

Also making a megaton range cobalt bomb would be extremely hard. If you make the outer shell or the final jacket of a fission-fusion-fission bomb with cobalt, you have not used fissionable material and therefore, the weapon would lose a lot of its yield. (tsar bomb, the 50 megaton russian weapon comes to mind). If the bomb would have been given a tamper of uranium, it would have been around 100 mt. But since uranium was retired and other material placed, the yield was greatly diminished. if the cobalt bomb were to be a local problem, not much of it would spread worlwide, therefore it would not be a doomsday device. Since most weapons nowadays are at the most of 750 kilotons (with some megaton exceptions), the cobalt would be largely a local problem. I also think those weapons are used in MRVs to destroy targets rather than to salt them with long-lived isotopes. The so-called "salted bombs" always sounded as tactical nuclear weapons. Those are low-yield weapons always.

Please feel free to point out any flaws in my post.

But if megaton range weapons push their fallout to the stratosphere, what about the castle bravo shot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_bravo

the explosion was 15 megatons and Radioactive fallout was spread eastward onto the inhabited Rongelap and Rongerik atolls, which were soon evacuated. (Many of the Marshall Islands natives have since suffered from birth defects and have received some compensation from the Federal government.)
A Japanese fishing boat, the Fifth Lucky Dragon, also came into contact with the fallout, which caused many of the crew to grow ill; one eventually died.Unanticipated fallout and radiation also affected many of the vessels and personnel involved in the test, in some cases trapping them in bunkers. One prominent scientist later recalled that he was on a ship 30 miles away, and received 10 R of radiation (about the amount from 10 chest X-ray exams) as a result. Radioactive contamination also affected many of the testing facilities built on other islands of the Bikini atoll system.

it seems like a very big part of the total fallout stayed in the troposhere. It doesn't seem to be true that in megaton range the total fallout goes to the stratosphere.

The castle Bravo incident was a ground burst. probably that influenced the amount of fallout that affected those areas.

Severe local fallout contamination can extend far beyond the blast and thermal effects, particularly in the case of high yield surface detonations.
When Bravo was detonated, within a second it formed a fireball almost three miles (roughly 5 km) across, which was visible on the Kwajalein atoll over 250 miles (450 km) away. The explosion left a crater of 6,500 feet (2,000 m) in diameter and 250 feet (75 m) in depth.

It sounds to me like this was a high yield surface detonation.

Anyway, wikipedia does not seem so reliable on this. Check this out:

After an air burst the fission products, unfissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues which have been vaporized by the heat of the fireball will condense into a fine suspension of very small particles 10 nm to 20 µm in diameter. These particles may be quickly drawn up into the stratosphere, particularly if the explosive yield exceeds 10 kt. They will then be dispersed by atmospheric winds and will gradually settle to the earth's surface after weeks, months, and even years as worldwide fallout.

I have read on the nuclear weapon archive site that:

Explosions less than 100 kt have their total fallout in the troposphere. The explsion does not reach as high as the stratosphere

The stratosphere is dry, there are no winds or other climatological effects there. Wikipedia confused the troposhere with the stratosphere by saying that the particles in the stratosphere would be carried by winds or climatological conditions.

But being tactical nuclear weapons, cobalt bombs would focus on local rather than worldwide fallout. So, they could be low-yield ground bursts.
In other words, nuclear archive site is more reliable and the castle bravo was a ground burst so the consequences were different thatn in a megaton airburst.

[LawBeefaroni]

If they were built of this size (doubtful) they would the most expensive to maintain and store. So if they were built, they would be the first to be decomissioned or be rendered unusable by lack of upkeep.

The odds would suggest you worry more about crossing the street than cobalt salted bombs.

[Gillianren]

I grew up (I'm 28 ) with my biggest fear being nuclear weapons. however, as I've said in other places, I don't worry about them even a quarter as much anymore, because the scenario required for total thermonuclear war does not exist right now. yes, it's possible for there to be small-scale exchanges, and that frankly worries me a great deal as well. however, those I think most likely to start any small-scale exchange are also, if I'm reading things here properly, least likely to have this particular kind of weapon.

I'm also going to have to chime in on the counseling thing, Bluestar. let me emphasize that this is not a put-down, an ad hom, or any other attempt to be mean. this is because you are showing an unreasonable fear, and you cannot yourself see that it is unreasonable, despite frequently-repeated evidence to the contrary. believe me, I understand being afraid of nuclear weapons. especially given my shaky grounding in physics, which means I only marginally understand them. however, in every thread you've posted in that I've read, you show extreme fear of any doomsday scenario that gets cited to you. that's not healthy. even if you can't afford it, your county probably has at least sliding-scale options available, and I think it very important that you seek them out.

[collegeguy]

As I have seen there were "doubts" of the possible weapons in other nations arsenals, here is a good site with info on the topic. Youc an check the nations arsenals, their current models and other statistics. this site seems to be better than the Nuclear archive site:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/index.html

[Bluestar]

That's all very well, but the cobalt bomb has an outer shell made of cobalt. It doesn't have to do with the fission-fusion-fission. but it is instead the encasing of the weapon. So the bomb could still be a, for example, 20-megaton nuke and have the cobalt-salting effect. How much cobalt there is in it would depend in the size of the casing.
By the way, the Russians have up to 25 megaton weapons nowadays. Not all their nukes are MRVs. Megaton nukes could be used to destroy and salt the areas, especially if they were as they would likely be groundbursts.
Cobalt weapons only would need to spread around 33.6 tons of cobalt 60 to be deadly for everyone. It wouldn't be so hard

[Van Rijn]

That's all very well, but the cobalt bomb has an outer shell made of cobalt. It doesn't have to do with the fission-fusion-fission

Except you need the neutrons to transmute to Cobalt-60, so there are specifics in design. You can't just pile on as much cobalt as you want.



Cobalt weapons only would need to spread around 33.6 tons of cobalt 60 to be deadly for everyone. It wouldn't be so hard

Then everybody should be dead from the hundreds of nuclear tests in the '50s. A lot of nasty radioactive material was spread around, after all ...

Look, there is no evidence that anyone has cobalt bombs in their arsenal and we've already gone over the reasons why they make no sense. During the cold war, I had a nightmare or two, but even then I didn't obsess on the subject as much as you seem to be now. Talk to somebody, please.

[collegeguy]

That's all very well, but the cobalt bomb has an outer shell made of cobalt. It doesn't have to do with the fission-fusion-fission. but it is instead the encasing of the weapon. So the bomb could still be a, for example, 20-megaton nuke and have the cobalt-salting effect. How much cobalt there is in it would depend in the size of the casing.
By the way, the Russians have up to 25 megaton weapons nowadays. Not all their nukes are MRVs. Megaton nukes could be used to destroy and salt the areas, especially if they were as they would likely be groundbursts.
Cobalt weapons only would need to spread around 33.6 tons of cobalt 60 to be deadly for everyone. It wouldn't be so hard

Once again, even if the megaton range weapons were salted with cobalt, the majority of fallout would be sent to the stratosphere, there are no winds there, so the particles would spread worldwide making it useless as an area-denial weapon. As for less yields, they would not spread globally so they wouldn't be doomsday devices.

The link I provided shows the current arsenals. No proof of cobalt weapons there.

[collegeguy]

Also, it must be remembered that during the cold war there was an attempt to replace almost all explosives with nukes. The Davy Crockett artillery shell was the smallest nuclear weapon developed by the USA and wasn't so practical, but was developed. Blue Peacock nuclear mines and suitcase bombs are other examples. However, not all these projects were considered practical. the cobalt bomb is also impractical and wouldn't be used in megaton range weapons.

[Bluestar]

You are missing the point. You said it would be really hard to build a megaton range weapon salted with cobalt. That's not true. the cobalt bomb does not have the fission or fusion stages amde of cobalt, but the encasing or outer shell, the overall encasing of the bomb.

The cobalt bomb uses cobalt in the shell, and the fusion neutrons convert the cobalt into cobalt-60, a powerful long-term (5 years) emitter of gamma rays, which produces major radioactive contamination. In general this type of weapon is a salted bomb and variable fallout effects can be obtained by using different salting isotopes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

So the explosion can still be a megaton range explosion and still be salted with cobalt to contaminate the area it hits. It is very simple to do. Now the overall encasing can even be bigger than the tamper of the fission-fusion stages.
Also, you don't need megaton range weapons to give radioactive contamination worldwide. anything beyond 100 kt will start to inject fallout into the stratosphere. kiloton weapons can also do the trick.

To Van Rijn, you can't compare the nuclear tests of the past to cobalt bombs. None of those tests were cobalt and even though there are little amounts of it in all fallout, it is not the same.

[collegeguy]

Fine. But megaton range weapons would launch their fallout into the stratosphere, making it useless as an area-denial weapon. even if you used a weapon of several kilotons, you would want the radiation to be local for it to work as an area-denial weapon.

i think we can agree that a cobalt bomb would be a nuclear device more intended to be a radiological weapon. That has several disadvantages:

Radiological weapons are widely considered to be militarily useless for a state-sponsored army and are not believed to have been deployed by any military forces. Firstly, the use of such a weapon is of no use to an occupying force, as the target area becomes uninhabitable. Furthermore, area-denial weapons are generally of limited use to an attacking army as it slows the rate of advance so the need for a radioactive denial system is limited. Finally, like biological weapons, radiological weapons can take days to act on the opposing force. They therefore not only fail in neutralizing the opposing force instantly, but they also allow time for massive retaliation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiological_weapon

Another aspect is that the cobalt bomb would be inferior to other salting materials.

Militarily useful radiological weapons would use local (as opposed to world-wide) contamination, and high initial intensities for rapid effects. Prolonged contamination is also undesirable. In this light Zn-64 is possibly better suited to military applications than cobalt, but probably inferior to tantalum or gold. As noted above ordinary "dirty" fusion-fission bombs have very high initial radiation intensities and must also be considered radiological weapons.

So, if they weee considered in the past as probable tactical weapons wouldn't be surprising. Almost all explosives were thought of being replaced with nukes. But you can't expect megaton ranhe weapons to have them and the radiation would not spread evenly.

[Van Rijn]

You are missing the point. You said it would be really hard to build a megaton range weapon salted with cobalt. That's not true. the cobalt bomb does not have the fission or fusion stages amde of cobalt, but the encasing or outer shell, the overall encasing of the bomb.


I wasn't talking about the difficulty of design, simply that you can't make assumptions about design. You can't just assume that if you take bomb A and add X amount of cobalt you will get effect Y. What design do you need for efficient neutron production and capture? What yield? What would be a reasonable cobalt mass for a given weapon? What would be the percentage of conversion to cobalt-60? And so on. An efficient cobalt bomb would have to be designed properly.



To Van Rijn, you can't compare the nuclear tests of the past to cobalt bombs. None of those tests were cobalt and even though there are little amounts of it in all fallout, it is not the same.

Sure you can. According to some famous people, plutonium is supposed to be the most deadly substance on earth. Many tons of that stuff was lofted into the atmosphere along with many nastier radioactives in the atmospheric tests. So why isn't everyone dead? Mostly because it was not, and could not be optimally distributed.

Optimal distribution means that just enough of the stuff gets into each and every body in just the best way to cause the most damage. Floating ten miles up in the air is not optimal distribution. Nor is sitting in a hole or washed out to sea. You can't simply assume that X amount of substance Y will kill everybody on earth. It doesn't work that way.

You are making a long chain of assumptions, starting with the assumption that there are cobalt weapons when there is no evidence that anyone has them, followed by the assumption that anyone would have a reason to use them, then followed by assumptions on their effects. You are piling assumption upon assumption upon assumption.

These assumptions are not reasonable. Talk to someone.

[Bluestar]

You are missing the point. You said it would be really hard to build a megaton range weapon salted with cobalt. That's not true. the cobalt bomb does not have the fission or fusion stages amde of cobalt, but the encasing or outer shell, the overall encasing of the bomb.


I wasn't talking about the difficulty of design, simply that you can't make assumptions about design. You can't just assume that if you take bomb A and add X amount of cobalt you will get effect Y. What design do you need for efficient neutron production and capture? What yield? What would be a reasonable cobalt mass for a given weapon? What would be the percentage of conversion to cobalt-60? And so on. An efficient cobalt bomb would have to be designed properly.



To Van Rijn, you can't compare the nuclear tests of the past to cobalt bombs. None of those tests were cobalt and even though there are little amounts of it in all fallout, it is not the same.

Sure you can. According to some famous people, plutonium is supposed to be the most deadly substance on earth. Many tons of that stuff was lofted into the atmosphere along with many nastier radioactives in the atmospheric tests. So why isn't everyone dead? Mostly because it was not, and could not be optimally distributed.

Optimal distribution means that just enough of the stuff gets into each and every body in just the best way to cause the most damage. Floating ten miles up in the air is not optimal distribution. Nor is sitting in a hole or washed out to sea. You can't simply assume that X amount of substance Y will kill everybody on earth. It doesn't work that way.

You are making a long chain of assumptions, starting with the assumption that there are cobalt weapons when there is no evidence that anyone has them, followed by the assumption that anyone would have a reason to use them, then followed by assumptions on their effects. You are piling assumption upon assumption upon assumption.

These assumptions are not reasonable. Talk to someone.

[Bluestar]

You are missing the point. You said it would be really hard to build a megaton range weapon salted with cobalt. That's not true. the cobalt bomb does not have the fission or fusion stages amde of cobalt, but the encasing or outer shell, the overall encasing of the bomb.


I wasn't talking about the difficulty of design, simply that you can't make assumptions about design. You can't just assume that if you take bomb A and add X amount of cobalt you will get effect Y. What design do you need for efficient neutron production and capture? What yield? What would be a reasonable cobalt mass for a given weapon? What would be the percentage of conversion to cobalt-60? And so on. An efficient cobalt bomb would have to be designed properly.



To Van Rijn, you can't compare the nuclear tests of the past to cobalt bombs. None of those tests were cobalt and even though there are little amounts of it in all fallout, it is not the same.

Sure you can. According to some famous people, plutonium is supposed to be the most deadly substance on earth. Many tons of that stuff was lofted into the atmosphere along with many nastier radioactives in the atmospheric tests. So why isn't everyone dead? Mostly because it was not, and could not be optimally distributed.

Optimal distribution means that just enough of the stuff gets into each and every body in just the best way to cause the most damage. Floating ten miles up in the air is not optimal distribution. Nor is sitting in a hole or washed out to sea. You can't simply assume that X amount of substance Y will kill everybody on earth. It doesn't work that way.

You are making a long chain of assumptions, starting with the assumption that there are cobalt weapons when there is no evidence that anyone has them, followed by the assumption that anyone would have a reason to use them, then followed by assumptions on their effects. You are piling assumption upon assumption upon assumption.

These assumptions are not reasonable. Talk to someone.

I am making a lot of assumptions. Agreed. But I can answer to the rest of the post

I wasn't talking about the difficulty of design, simply that you can't make assumptions about design.

The design has been explained here:

The cobalt bomb uses cobalt in the shell, and the fusion neutrons convert the cobalt into cobalt-60, a powerful long-term (5 years) emitter of gamma rays, which produces major radioactive contamination. In general this type of weapon is a salted bomb and variable fallout effects can be obtained by using different salting isotopes. Gold has been proposed for short-term fallout (days), tantalum and zinc for fallout of intermediate duration (months). To be useful for salting, the parent isotopes must be abundant in the natural element, and the neutron-bred radioactive product must be a strong emitter of penetrating gamma rays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

Though I am not sure if the model was the outer shell, from here:

A "salted" nuclear weapon is reminiscent of fission-fusion-fission weapons, but instead of a fissionable jacket around the secondary stage fusion fuel, a non-fissionable blanket of a specially chosen salting isotope is used (cobalt-59 in the case of the cobalt bomb). This blanket captures the escaping fusion neutrons to breed a radioactive isotope that maximizes the fallout hazard from the weapon rather than generating additional explosive force (and dangerous fission fallout) from fast fission of U-238.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html


The cobalt would be in the outer shell or reflective encasing. The whole encasing would be really big since it involves all the bomb. How much it would weigh would probably be in the hundreds of pounds, there is no way to tell for sure, it depends on how big the warhead is. If it would be in the fissionable jacket of the secondary stage fusion fuel, it would decrease the yield of the weapon somewhat.

Sure you can. According to some famous people, plutonium is supposed to be the most deadly substance on earth. Many tons of that stuff was lofted into the atmosphere along with many nastier radioactives in the atmospheric tests. So why isn't everyone dead? Mostly because it was not, and could not be optimally distributed.

Whether there was optimal distribution or not I am not sure. But most of the particles in the atmosphere decayed before they fell to the earth. Evidently, they wouldn't have been so dangerous after that, that's why people didn't die.

Edit: sorry for the double post.

[/quote]

[Van Rijn]

I am making a lot of assumptions. Agreed. But I can answer to the rest of the post

The design has been explained here:

The cobalt bomb uses cobalt in the shell, and the fusion neutrons convert the cobalt into cobalt-60, a powerful long-term (5 years) emitter of gamma rays, which produces major radioactive contamination. In general this type of weapon is a salted bomb and variable fallout effects can be obtained by using different salting isotopes. Gold has been proposed for short-term fallout (days), tantalum and zinc for fallout of intermediate duration (months). To be useful for salting, the parent isotopes must be abundant in the natural element, and the neutron-bred radioactive product must be a strong emitter of penetrating gamma rays.


This is about basic principles, not about design. To repeat: What design do you need for efficient neutron production and capture? What yield? What would be a reasonable cobalt mass for a given weapon? What would be the percentage of conversion to cobalt-60? You are assuming it describes things that it does not.



Sure you can. According to some famous people, plutonium is supposed to be the most deadly substance on earth. Many tons of that stuff was lofted into the atmosphere along with many nastier radioactives in the atmospheric tests. So why isn't everyone dead? Mostly because it was not, and could not be optimally distributed.

Whether there was optimal distribution or not I am not sure. But most of the particles in the atmosphere decayed before they fell to the earth. Evidently, they wouldn't have been so dangerous after that, that's why people didn't die.


Some short lived isotopes decayed out, but much of it did not. You can measure plutonium in the soil today because of these tests. Optimal distribution is impossible. That's why the world exists. Fact is, the world is full of potentially lethal substances. Distribution is the key.

You haven't even begun to answer what it would take to produce lethal worldwide levels of cobalt-60. What bombs it would take, where you would need to explode them, the effects of weather on distribution, average particle size, environmental distribution, average time in environment, most likely exposure methods, risk of different exposure methods, and a few dozen other things I can't even think about. That is after the assumption that there are any such bombs in the first place, and would be used.

Anyway, this is my last word on the subject. Good luck to you.

[Bluestar]

I am making a lot of assumptions. Agreed. But I can answer to the rest of the post

The design has been explained here:

The cobalt bomb uses cobalt in the shell, and the fusion neutrons convert the cobalt into cobalt-60, a powerful long-term (5 years) emitter of gamma rays, which produces major radioactive contamination. In general this type of weapon is a salted bomb and variable fallout effects can be obtained by using different salting isotopes. Gold has been proposed for short-term fallout (days), tantalum and zinc for fallout of intermediate duration (months). To be useful for salting, the parent isotopes must be abundant in the natural element, and the neutron-bred radioactive product must be a strong emitter of penetrating gamma rays.


This is about basic principles, not about design. To repeat: What design do you need for efficient neutron production and capture? What yield? What would be a reasonable cobalt mass for a given weapon? What would be the percentage of conversion to cobalt-60? You are assuming it describes things that it does not.



Sure you can. According to some famous people, plutonium is supposed to be the most deadly substance on earth. Many tons of that stuff was lofted into the atmosphere along with many nastier radioactives in the atmospheric tests. So why isn't everyone dead? Mostly because it was not, and could not be optimally distributed.

Whether there was optimal distribution or not I am not sure. But most of the particles in the atmosphere decayed before they fell to the earth. Evidently, they wouldn't have been so dangerous after that, that's why people didn't die.


Some short lived isotopes decayed out, but much of it did not. You can measure plutonium in the soil today because of these tests. Optimal distribution is impossible. That's why the world exists. Fact is, the world is full of potentially lethal substances. Distribution is the key.

You haven't even begun to answer what it would take to produce lethal worldwide levels of cobalt-60. What bombs it would take, where you would need to explode them, the effects of weather on distribution, average particle size, environmental distribution, average time in environment, most likely exposure methods, risk of different exposure methods, and a few dozen other things I can't even think about. That is after the assumption that there are any such bombs in the first place, and would be used.

Anyway, this is my last word on the subject. Good luck to you.

We don't know if they were ever made. But they could have. van Rijn consider this last thing:

In interviews published posthumously, MacArthur said he had a plan that would have won the war in 10 days: “I would have dropped 30 or so atomic bombs . . . strung across the neck of Manchuria”. Then he would have introduced half a million Chinese Nationalist troops at the Yalu and then “spread behind us - from the Sea of Japan to the Yellow Sea - a belt of radioactive cobalt . . . it has an active life of between 60 and 120 years. For at least 60 years there could have been no land invasion of Korea from the North.” He was certain that the Russians would have done nothing about this extreme strategy: “My plan was a cinch” (12).


Before the Sino-Korean offensive, a committee of the JCS had said that atomic bombs might be the decisive factor in cutting off a Chinese advance into Korea; initially they could be useful in “a cordon sanitaire [that] might be established by the UN in a strip in Manchuria immediately north of the Korean border”. A few months later Congressman Albert Gore (2000 Democratic candidate Al Gore’s father, subsequently a strong opponent of the Vietnam war) complained that “Korea has become a meat grinder of American manhood” and suggested “something cataclysmic” to end the war: a radiation belt dividing the Korean peninsula permanently into two.


http://mondediplo.com/2004/12/08korea


http://hnn.us/articles/9245.html

I don't know how reliable they are. but they show the military had plans to use them. Did they build the bombs for the plan? We don't know.

[Swift]

Bluestar, I would like to try another tact. Let's just say for sake of argument that one could actually build a cobalt bomb and some of them were built (I don't think so because of all the arguments given here, but let's just assume). So the US or Russia or maybe both have a couple of these.

So what.

Yes they are another way that a whole bunch of people could die and we could make a further mess of our planet. But there is an endless list of ways that people can die and they do so all the time. Even without cobalt bombs we seem to do a fine job in killing each other off with bullets and landmines and starvation and untreated but treatable diseases. Humans can be a pretty ugly bunch.

But we also can do beautiful and wonderful things and can be kind and loving and noble. You can spend your timing worrying about dying or you can spend your time living.

Worry about stuff you can do something about (stay out of thunderstorms, drive defensively, eat healthy and exercise), do your part (both big and small) to make this world a better place, and stop and enjoy the beautiful things as much as you can.

Peace and good luck to you.

(edited to fix some typos)

[Kesh]

The fact comes down to this: by the time you build a single cobalt bomb big enough to "wipe out all life," it doesn't work anymore. The sheer mass of cobalt necessary prevents it from being an effective weapon anymore, and you won't get the kind of spread you need over the globe.

In order to have a planet-killing cobalt bomb detonation, you would have to build thousands of regular-sized, cobalt-salted warheads... and, at that point, you're still dealing more with the explosion & initial fallout than the spread of radioactive cobalt through the atmosphere. Plus, the warheads become bigger, heavier and more expensive to produce, while being no more effective per-warhead than a standard nuke.

So, even assuming that someone built a couple test cobalt bombs, they'd wind up being no more dangerous to the planet at-large than a standard hydrogen bomb. Indeed, they'd probably be less effective due to the extra mass of the shell.

There are far more likely world-ending scenarios than a cobalt nuke.

[Bluestar]

The fact comes down to this: by the time you build a single cobalt bomb big enough to "wipe out all life," it doesn't work anymore. The sheer mass of cobalt necessary prevents it from being an effective weapon anymore, and you won't get the kind of spread you need over the globe.

In order to have a planet-killing cobalt bomb detonation, you would have to build thousands of regular-sized, cobalt-salted warheads... and, at that point, you're still dealing more with the explosion & initial fallout than the spread of radioactive cobalt through the atmosphere. Plus, the warheads become bigger, heavier and more expensive to produce, while being no more effective per-warhead than a standard nuke.

So, even assuming that someone built a couple test cobalt bombs, they'd wind up being no more dangerous to the planet at-large than a standard hydrogen bomb. Indeed, they'd probably be less effective due to the extra mass of the shell.

There are far more likely world-ending scenarios than a cobalt nuke.

It is not foolish to think they were built, check out this article:

http://mondediplo.com/2004/12/08korea

there were plans to use cobalt bombs in the Korean war. They wanted to create a radioactive belt from the sea of japan to the yellow sea in order to avoid any attacks from the north to South Korea. Douglas MacArthur had this plans. Al Gore Sr. also advocated this to end the threat from the north.

[collegeguy]

Does anybdy know the public article or document where Leo Szilard explained about the "cobalt bomb"? I know he opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb, maybe seeing the document we can clear up this issue.

Does anybody know where I can get that info?

[begtets]

There are enough firearms in the world for half of the population to take up arms and kill the other half and then half of the half that is left to take up arms etc...
Mankind has been in a position to inflict enormous damage upon itself for a long time but so far has had it's arse whipped by the 'flu when it comes to lives lost.
You can't get fixated by one device, nature is too clever for that.

[collegeguy]

I have told Bluestar to keep out of the internet for a while and he has agreed. Some of the pages he constantly checked: PNAC and other pages triggered his anxiety.

If anybody knows where I could get the 1950 article where Szilard opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb and indicated that they could be coated with cobalt, I would appreciate it. It might be help with this matter.

[publiusr]

I do seem to remember a very old Guiness Book of W. Records that talked about a 57,000 MT Cobalt salted bomb.

Form the 1970s.

[genebujold]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm............ Still?

If you haven't found the help you need with your brother in three pages of unbelievably well-defined and highly-inspired posts in the last three pages on Bad Astronomy, then I believe it's safe to say that your brother is beyond the kind of help we can give.

Just a well-informed observation....

[collegeguy]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm............ Still?

If you haven't found the help you need with your brother in three pages of unbelievably well-defined and highly-inspired posts in the last three pages on Bad Astronomy, then I believe it's safe to say that your brother is beyond the kind of help we can give.

Just a well-informed observation....

Thanks for all the info, anyway. He's off the internet for a while.

[collegeguy]

I do seem to remember a very old Guiness Book of W. Records that talked about a 57,000 MT Cobalt salted bomb.

Form the 1970s.

Thanks :D . Seriously, if someone knows of it, let me know.

[Van Rijn]

Whatever they might have said, I seriously doubt there was a 57 gigaton weapon. And I've never seen anything that showed any cobalt weapons were built except for a low-yield British weapon test where a small amount was used as a tracer.

[genebujold]

Whatever they might have said, I seriously doubt there was a 57 gigaton weapon. And I've never seen anything that showed any cobalt weapons were built except for a low-yield British weapon test where a small amount was used as a tracer.

Yes there was: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

No mention of cobalt, though, thank God!

[Nicolas]

What I heard was the 50MT bomb tested over Nova Zembla as being the largest detonated bomb, and a Russian spokesman saying: "there have been rumours about a 100MT Russian bomb; I am not saying that these claims are false" and "that it is impossible for Russia to test such a weapon anywhere on earth without breaking Russian windows". 100MT still is a looooooong way to 57 gigaton...I wouldn't believe that number.

[collegeguy]

Whatever they might have said, I seriously doubt there was a 57 gigaton weapon. And I've never seen anything that showed any cobalt weapons were built except for a low-yield British weapon test where a small amount was used as a tracer.

Even there they did not mention if it was Cobalt 59 or not. If it's not cobalt 59, the result isn't cobalt 60 so there is no much dangerous radiation. They were just joking I guess. I am still looking for the 1950 report though.

[publiusr]

Like I said--it was from an old copy. Don't buy it myself--but I heard that it was to be placed in Antarctica. Vey small nukes are described in Project Orion--as well as huge orbital nukes to irradiate large areas from space.

[collegeguy]

Like I said--it was from an old copy. Don't buy it myself--but I heard that it was to be placed in Antarctica. Vey small nukes are described in Project Orion--as well as huge orbital nukes to irradiate large areas from space.

Some wise guy joking I bet. Project orion was not developed as a weapon:

Project Orion was the first engineering design for a spacecraft powered by nuclear pulse propulsion, an idea first proposed by Stanislaw Ulam 1947. The project was led by a team at General Atomics in the 1950s. The design appeared to offer capabilities well in excess of even the most advanced conventional or nuclear rocket engines then under study, making routine interplanetary travel a possibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion#Problems

It was never built also. The project was shelved. They wanted to use for space travel, not to irradiate the earth with fallout or as a weapon.

But thanks for the info, anyway. I did not know about that project until now, very interesting.

[collegeguy]

We don't know if they were ever made. But they could have. van Rijn consider this last thing:







http://mondediplo.com/2004/12/08korea


http://hnn.us/articles/9245.html

I don't know how reliable they are. but they show the military had plans to use them. Did they build the bombs for the plan? We don't know.

I have been reading into the ways to spread the radiation and it may be that Douglas MacArthur had been talking about spreading radioactivity by other means rather than by bombs. Radiation can also by spread by a crop duster. There were plans to spread some on German fields and that was before the use of nukes. MacArthur may have been talking about spreading without using nukes.