Ukraine Invasion: Part 33

[MagicFox]

Starting this at 980 on the other thread because it's late and I might miss the tipping point. We're moving fast at the moment, thanks all for the analysis, insight and company

Also really ingesting listening to Dominic Nichols explain that it must be remembered that air defence systems cannot offer total protection, they can protect pockets of vital interests but not whole cities. Even the best air defence system would allow some strikes through.

I think the "heckling" was regarding nuclear weapons only ever detonating on impact; and I'm afraid that I don't think that can be so. Because I felt that a question I had asked about what happens to a nuke that has been shot down had started that bit of argumentation, I went and had a look for information and was not reassured by the things I found.

For example, if only impact caused detonation, then papers such as this one would not be written, or if they were would not be published by universities which wanted to retain a shred of credibility:
large.stanford.edu/courses/2019/ph241/abbate2/

Also newspaper and magazine articles such as this one would be laughed off the news-stands:
www.newsweek.com/nuclear-bomb-blast-map-shows-what-would-happen-one-detonated-near-you-nukemap-1706923
for containing reference to "a map in which users can select a location and model the local impacts of a blast, while accounting for various factors, such as the power of the weapon and whether or not it detonates on (or near) the surface or up in the air."

I'd like to believe that they only went off when they struck the ground, but it doesn't look as if that were the case. I just hope they are designed to be extremely stable until they get the right "signal" to trigger them, and would not be able get that signal if they had been shot from the sky.

I don't think it was heckling. It was a possibly-heated disagreement but both people are knowledgeable and hopefully both will stay.

think the "heckling" was regarding nuclear weapons only ever detonating on impact; and I'm afraid that I don't think that can be so.

And you'd be right to think that as that isn't what I said at all. I said a nuclear missile would most likely survive being shot down as they are built more robustly than regular missiles because they are designed to detonate after impact, not on impact.

I was then heckled about how my nuclear scientist is totally wrong as nuclear missiles can also be detonated before impact. Which is true. However, even those are build to detonate after impact so are robust enough to survive being shot down.

The detonation and delivery methods of nuclear warheads are top secret but the way they are constructed isn't. And the way they are constructed does not change as scientists can no longer test new construction methods.

So what DH said was absolutely correct, that there's a good chance a shot down nuclear warhead would survive and would therefore be useable by the other side. This something the Russians now have to factor in. $28-78 million on a missile that may not hit its target and may end up being used against them.

It takes a lot of time for DH to explain very complex things in a way that we can understand and for me to pass it on. I don't appreciate it when an armchair expert says he doesn't know what he's talking about. If he didn't know he wouldn't have been interviewed by ITV News, The Wall Street Journal, Der Speigal and all the other world media who contact him every time the nuclear threat gets mentioned.

It makes me feel like crap when I try to help calm fears and I get shouted down because someone is an expert at googling.

I'd like to believe that they only went off when they struck the ground, but it doesn't look as if that were the case. I just hope they are designed to be extremely stable until they get the right "signal" to trigger them, and would not be able get that signal if they had been shot from the sky.

In war, most nukes would be set to detonate well above ground unless they were trying to destroy a buried target like an underground bunker. Exploding on impact limits the destructive radius as much of the energy goes into digging a hole in the ground. I think some of the confusion on the previous thread is because above-ground testing (aka atmospheric testing) was banned decades ago. A war shot can be detonated at any height above ground desired.

The relevant process before a weapon can detonate is called arming, fuzing, and firing. This explains a bit about it.

www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/safe.htm

Fuzing is controlled by location, as determined by inertial guidance devices (which use gyroscopes) and satellite navigation, working as a check on each other. A radar altimeter can also be included to ensure detonation at the desired altitude.

So long, very technical story short, it's extremely unlikely that a warhead would detonate before reaching the target location, even if the missile carrying it was shot down.

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime

I'd noticed the "heckling" comment upthread and rather hope it wasn't aimed in the direction of the discussion I was involved in....

such as the power of the weapon and whether or not it detonates on (or near) the surface or up in the air."
I'd like to believe that they only went off when they struck the ground, but it doesn't look as if that were the case.

I can only reiterate (yes I can hear the groans) that's definitely not the case and I'm still not sure why this idea that they only go "off" on the ground gained traction.

I'd kind have hoped we had put this to bed by now but even if you won't take this armchair BS,ers word for it (I think that was pretty much the accusation at one point) there is plenty of info available, open source, for those that chose to look for it.

@BringBackCoffeeCreams

Thanks for the fuller explanation...if I may

I'm not querying your husband or his expertise.

I am querying your need to keep claiming:

"a nuclear missile would most likely survive being shot down as they are built more robustly than regular missiles because they are designed to detonate after impact, not on impact." [my emphasis]

That's simply not universally true..

As for: "don't appreciate it when an armchair expert" and "I get shouted down because someone is an expert at googling."

You actually had your claims challenged by somebody that cut their teeth on the practical aspects of some of this subject well before the internet was even invented, but I admit to resorting to the armchair a bit more these days.

---------------(that's me drawing a line)

Think we can universally agree @notimagain and @BringBackCoffeeCreams that both of your inputs are deeply valued. And actually a certain level of disagreement on such technical issues are really interesting.

Fuck off and leave me alone.

---(that's me drawing a line)

Omfg 😄😄😄😄

😂😂 it does have a “no shit Sherlock” vibe to it doesn’t it?

Ijsbear · Today 20:22
I don't think it was heckling. It was a possibly-heated disagreement but both people are knowledgeable and hopefully both will stay.

Yes, disagreement, and anyone can quietly look up the questions for themselves now.
Please both stay.

Truss looks to be in serious political peril, it really worries me that the political turmoil we are in will have real world ramifications for our ability to support Ukraine.

I have already assigned a look to each of the regular posters over the last few months so I doubt I will need name tags 😄

MissConductUS
So long, very technical story short, it's extremely unlikely that a warhead would detonate before reaching the target location, even if the missile carrying it was shot down.

Thank you! That does seem pretty-much what I was hoping.

Maybe Ukraine will end up getting back one of the nukes it trustingly allowed to be taken away in 1991 because it thought the Russian word was worth diddly-squat....

Excellent idea 😁

For sure. I keep imagining prisoners running away with Benny Hill music in the background 😄

Piss up in a brewery comes to mind 🤦‍♀️

I think they're going to have to call a general election at some point. Starmer supports Ukraine.

Ironically I suspect a piss up is one of the few things they’d be fairly good at 😂

MissConductUS
So long, very technical story short, it's extremely unlikely that a warhead would detonate before reaching the target location, even if the missile carrying it was shot down.

So would the shot down warhead part remain intact and never explode no matter the impact of what hit it, or the impact of it hitting the ground?

(Sorry if this is a stupid question)

This is worth a read. Interviews from Russian soldiers serving/have served in Ukraine.

It really does illustrate the point made by @MissConductUS that it's not just the number of troops Russia has lost, but the fact they are are replacing their best with conscripts who will be significantly less effective.

meduza.io/en/feature/2022/09/28/honestly-they-re-all-going-to-die-there

The UN has voted in favour of condemning the illegal annexations of parts of Ukraine by Russia. 143 of 193 voted in favour, China and 34 others formally abstained and four voted with Russia (N. Korea, Belarus, Syria and Nicaragua).

As ever China’s abstention should be read as a rebuke to Russia. They would never vote in favour of a Western proposal so unrealistic to expect them to.

Tim White
@TWMCLtd
·
58m
The General Assembly of the @UN

has just voted to condemn Russia's annexation of regions in Ukraine.

It follows #Putin absorbing four partially occupied areas of #Ukraine into Russia.

It's not a stupid question. It might remain intact or it might suffer some damage, depending on how it was shot down and impacted. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that your concern is that the Russians could send some sort of signal to it to detonate it. It's strongly thought that this capability is not built in because the US or other country might learn what the signal is and use it to detonate the warhead in flight.

A nuclear warhead would be very difficult to detonate from an impact because setting it off requires bringing two or more pieces of the warhead into perfect, forceful contact to create what is called a critical mass of fissile material. The mechanism to do so with perfect timing is quite complex.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass

Have I addressed your concern, @ScrollingLeaves ?