Comment by Stalin666

Entered on: 12/18/2007 9:08:46 PM

Total Hogwash! The fallout plume from a fission bomb is far richer than U238 with an extra neutron. In other words even a 300,000 ton TNT equiv tatical nuke will leave byproducts that will ID what it was for decades to 100's of years from now. As mentioned earlier there are plenty of neutral to hostile interests who could reveal this with evidence to prove the event took place. Furthermore the concept that yellowcake 238 could backscatter neutrons back into a bomb and up the yield is a joke. I'm no lover of Bush and the gang, but these types of claims need evidence and I saw none here. If nukes were detonated in Afghanistan as the article says then there'd be a group of blind afghans and a whole slew of ruined electronics to offer as evidence. Not to mention all the Russian, French, and Brittish satellites with IR, and EM sensors. Sorry pal, thanks for playing!

Comment by Fascist Nation

Entered on: 12/18/2007 1:24:19 PM

Bunker buster nukes, the B61-11 detonates 10 to 25 feet underground in a manner directing much of the shock force downward. If you wish to fantasize, as the Pentagon spin machine would have you believe, that 10 to 25 feet of dirt can contain an atomic detonation with no risk to the nearby civilian communities, more power to you.

I on the other hand KNOW that you cannot conceive of a more powerful global release of radioactive debris into the atmosphere than detonating a nuke not just at ground level, but a few feet under the ground. So I really don't need to read much beyond the headline [though I actually did make it halfway through part 1, before writing my initial comment.]

Comment by Chip Saunders

Entered on: 12/18/2007 12:23:47 PM

"Fascist Nation" didn't even read the article, did you?! No one is alleging any above ground detonations. The whole point is that by being underground, the only signature tell-tale signs produced are siezmic activity and airborne radioactive particulates. But both are ALSO produced by the depleted uranium sheathed penetrators of the "Bunker-Buster" munitions when they detonate. Unless an imagery satelite is looking down at the moment of an above ground detonation and records the flash signature, there is almost no way to differentiate from other trace evidence whether a nuclear weapon has gone off. There is hardly any way to know a bunker-buster was nuclear or not unless critical observers are nearby.

I am not saying that this did indeed happen. But the article is not proposing anything that is not actually possible. The ability to mask whether a bunker-buster was nuclear or conventional is indeed real.

Comment by Fascist Nation

Entered on: 12/18/2007 11:51:02 AM

Readers may want to know why I approved of this posting.

Well, I consider it to be a bunch of crap! Why? Because you cannot detonate even a small 5 kiloton atomic bomb above ground without neighboring nations like Russia, detecting obvious fallout from a atomic or thermonuclear detonation within hours to a couple of days later depending upon the prevailing winds. Over the following days to weeks virtually every nation on the planet, including many fairly independent University physics departments would detect and confirm the fallout in their respective nations.

Lastly, Russian satellites should have equally noted immediately the telltale detonation of an atomic explosion.

But hey, I might be wrong. And knowing this administration be be one of the evilest SOB's to rule the roost it wouldn't surprise me considering they certainly have threatened and planned to do exactly this. Who knows, maybe in a couple of days I will be reading about this in the NY Times and Washington Post (or more likely The Guardian and The Independent).