For others, that's a B-83 on the left with the B-61 on the right.
Posted on 07/28/2015 3:37:04 PM PDT by Mariner
he US just introduced a new type of bomb into its already extensive arsenal, and it may just be the most alarming US weapon yet, Zachary Keck writes for The National Interest.
The new bomb is the B61-12. On its surface, the bomb does not appear to be as dangerous as other weapons in the US arsenal. Although the B61-12 is nuclear-armed, it has a yield of 50 kilotons — tiny compared to the largest nuclear bomb that the US possesses, which has a yield of 1,200 kilotons.
But as Keck notes, that difference in explosive power doesn't tell the entire story.
"What makes the B61-12 bomb the most dangerous nuclear weapon in America’s arsenal is its usability," Keck writes. "This usability derives from a combination of its accuracy and low-yield."
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
It would take all of the weapons in that one bunker to cripple / destroy all of Iran’s targets. I can’t remember how many there were but I remember at least two dozen targets. I counted at least 44 weapons there. Almost two per target.
In “The Day After”, you’ll notice the Russian strike is first an EMP burst at higher altitude, then the first real strike, followed by the second strike. I must confess I don’t know what the actual timing is but I suppose they were going for multiple warheads from the same missile platform. They got the X-Ray thing right though.
It’s even prophesied in Zechariah.
Zechariah 14:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG2aJyIFrA
But yeah, if their effect were multiplied....
Two rapid detonations result in massive pressure in the colliding wave fronts.
Quite a force multiplier. Literal ‘force’ multiplier.
I guess they only deactivated the oldest B-61’s.
I used to know somebody who was deployed at a B-1 base back in the day when they had the strike role.
Not such a small bomb.
Sometimes those weird earthquakes which have a fairly low Richter reading and happen in unusual places could be a bit of underground ‘testing’.
Re its’ “accuracy and low yield”. Under Obama it will be “inaccuracy and low yield”, just like the interest on our Bonds, savings accounts, the recession is over, and you can keep your insurance and doctor if you like them.
[Twice the power of the Fat Man dropped]
Must. Resist. Chris Christie. Joke.
Much. Resist. We Much.
If I’m going to use a nuke, I’m not going to worry about “unintended casualties” (aka “collateral damage”).
It’s call “WAR”, not “Make Pretend”!
In the 1980’s there were simulations on a DEC Vax 11-780 computer. Perhaps a 785.
I remember the article because we had a Vax 11-780 at the college I attended. And a 735. For those of you out there who may have known those machines.
Boy, have things changed.
I remember how they were shocked how quickly field commanders went for the nukes, sometimes destroying part of their own forces by close detonations.
At that time, we still had missiles in Europe to nuke Russian tanks if they came over the border.
The worst situation would be to have bombs that are less accurate but have higher yield, and find yourself in such a tight spot that you have to use them.
As I said in the book, we don't want to be programmed for holocaust.
Looks like I'd better dust that book off and update it.
It's been years since I saw it, but there was a movie called "Atomic Cafe" which was something of a documentary of early nuclear testing. It was oddly funny in parts.
One scene:
Newsman: "General, are the soldiers in danger from this bomb test?"
General: "Absolutely not. The soldiers will be no where near the blast. They will be a good thousand yards away from the actual nuclear detonation."
[Scientist leans over and whispers to the general]
General: "They may be even farther away than that."
Another scene: Scientist announcing that the above ground testing was not going to be harmful. Observers were sufficiently far away that they would be safe. The only danger would come from direct ingestion of radioactive dust, but basic precaution would stop this from occurring.
[CUT TO]
Interview with an observer:
Newsman: "What did you think of that explosion?"
Soldier: "It was really tremendous. The only part I didn't like was when all of that dust fly into my mouth."
Yeah, I think that was just beyond wrong.
Sharp climb from low level and guided parabolic loft, or guided from high altitude drop? More ways to intercept now. Stealth or countermeasures allow to reach defended target after release?
1.2 megatons is the largest US nuke?
I’m sure Iran will restrain themselves from developing any nukes larger than 1.2 megatons. /s
‘... the most dangerous nuclear weapon in America’s arsenal ...”
Zachary Keck as made the most fundamental error possible.
There are no dangerous weapons. Big or little, a weapon is merely an instrumentality: it has no volition, no moral content.
There are dangerous men, though.
I would rather think... 
the Iranians' A-bomb they were never to have but granted to them by Obama would "be the most dangerous weapon."
Of course, as the way things are going, the B61 Mod 12... 
will be used by President Cruz to get things set right in the Middle East.
From the article, that would appear to be the most powerful nuke currently in the arsenal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
