ARMS-D-Request@MIT-MC.ARPA (Moderator) (11/10/85)
Arms-Discussion Digest Sunday, November 10, 1985 11:47AM
Volume 5, Issue 16
Today's Topics:
Re: krytrons
ALCMs vs. ballistic missiles as B-52 payloads
Re: Doublespeak: "Peaceshield"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8-Nov-85 15:04:45-PST
From: jbn@FORD-WDL1.ARPA
Subject: Re: krytrons
Clearly the krytron is used to provide the pulse to detonate the
explosive lenses that implode the fissionable core. The power of the
bomb depends on the simultaneous detonation of all the explosive lenses,
so as to produce symmetrical compression. If one side fires slightly earlier
than the other, as soon as the fission reaction starts, it will blow out
the side that hasn't gone off yet, producing a ``fizzle''. (This,
incidentally, is why it is so hard to set off an A-bomb, let alone an H-bomb,
by accident; a severe fall or nearby explosion won't cause the precisely
symmetrical detonation required to contain the chain reaction long enough
for it to really get going, and modern A-bombs have less fissionable
material than the normal critical mass; they rely on that symmetrical
compression to make a subcritical mass become a compressed critical one).
What I don't see, though, is that the krytron is a particularly
essential component. Producing the huge pulses required was really difficult
when the A-bomb was invented, but since the pulses are so narrow, it should
be possible to use suitable power semiconductors; National Semiconductor has
some VMOS power FETs that might be suitable, as does G.E. I suspect that
the krytron is restricted primarily for historical reasons.
John Nagle
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 85 12:58:38 PST
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: ALCMs vs. ballistic missiles as B-52 payloads
> ... a fourth leg to the triad in the form of air-launched ICBMs or
> IRBMs. In fact, we have something close to this already being deployed,
> in the form of B-52 launched ALCMs [several per B-52] ... although of
> lower yield (and accuracy)...
Actually, the cruise missiles are probably more accurate than the air-
launched Trident I that I suggested. And the current ALCM warheads are
probably more powerful than most current Trident warheads (the Tridents
are MIRVed, and tend to be equipped with lots of little warheads rather
than a few big ones). However, it's not quite the same thing. The ALCMs
have much shorter range than a Trident, and are much easier to intercept
if you can locate them. (This is the standard tradeoff between cruise
missiles and ballistic missiles.) The ALCMs are a good idea -- again,
more diversity in the deterrent -- but my missile-carrier proposal would
give airborne weapons with near-ICBM range and the much harder interception
problems posed by ballistic missiles.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 85 13:40:22 PST
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Doublespeak: "Peaceshield"
> ...how could I ever trust the credibility of people who distort the
> issues to this degree to win over a naive populace? ...
How could you ever trust the credibility of people who claim, with a
straight face yet, that SDI would spend (say) $400 billion on launch
costs but would not spend any of that building cheaper launch systems?
There has been no shortage of lying and distortion on either side of
this issue. I agree that this particular example is a bit sickening,
but I've seen some equally sickening distortions from the radical fringe
of the disarmament movement. "A plague on both your houses."
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************