Talk:Cobalt bomb - Knowledge

1685:

detonation. So my point remains valid - if the point of the exercise is Szilard's original thesis - a weapons system which is capable of destroying all life on the planet Earth (which I agree with previous posters is a "thought experiment" more than a valid specification for a weapons system), then you have to make enough cobalt-60 to cover the habitable Earth (not just the "arable Earth," as you say). Many smaller cobalt bombs would use roughly the same amount of cobalt as the one large weapon. In terms of a practical weapons system, the multi-megaton weapons the Soviets (and their Russian successors) developed to destroy ICBMs in their silos did much of what you posit smaller cobalt bombs would have done as radiological weapons, for they would have landed in the midwest regions of the US with massive ground bursts, creating huge swaths of radioactivity downwind and killing thousands and hundreds of thousands in unprotected areas. The difference would be that this radioactivity is sufficiently short-lived that persons behind thick enough walls for a period between two weeks to a month would be able to step back out into survivably low radiation fields. But I concede your point -

845:

fallout and of as deadly a set of isotopes as possible - since the early days of Pacific thermonuclear weapon testing, when entire island ranges and vast expanses of ocean WERE subjected to lethal fallout after ONE test. We have to proceed from what we know about refractory metallurgy. 500 tonnes of cobalt would be somewhat of a heatsink, so that not all of it would be vaporized to micron-size particles in the fallout from a Szilard-type cobalt device; some of it would fallout as millimeter or larger particles, which (incidentally) would make the cobalt not spread as uniformly or cover as much territory as DevSolar apparently thinks it must. You're absolutely right that we don't really know what the cobalt would fallout as (how much of it would be micron-sized, how much millimeter-sized), and I can't think of any way short of an actual test to find out. I do, in that sense, "know what I don't know." I'm pretty sure NO ONE knows the answer to your question, because the fallout from a test like that would be prolific and people would not only have noticed, but the fatalities from radiation from such a test would have made headlines.

651:

also has the advantage of not emitting very many neutrons (the side reactions which emit neutrons are a few percent of the total reactions), so that neutron embrittlement of steel and other reactor structural materials is not the factor it would be in a thermonuclear fusion reactor. Proof of concept has already been furnished in the 1990s by Dr. Robert W. Bussard in the 1990s - a prototype inertial electrostatic confinement reactor small enough to fit on a desktop produced more power than it consumed (something that big-iron thermonuclear fusion reactors have yet to achieve). And finally, boron-11 plus proton emits electrons which can be recovered through the coils of the confinement grid and used as electrical power. I'd say this alone was the "point" in pursuing fusion of elements heavier than hydrogen isotopes (though you are certainly right that there's no point in looking at anything heavier than heavy hydrogen and lithium-6 for fusion fuel for

1967:

evenly covered with CO 60 there would only need be less for than 510 tons. A target person exposed would be exposed to 1 gram on the meter he is standing on plus the 8 grams on the surrounding 8 meters plus the 16 grams on the meterage surrounding that and so on to the horizon. In fact the material doesn't have to fall to the ground. If the material was uniformly distributed high in the atmosphere the entire arc of the sky would irradiate the ground target with even more than a target person would get if he were standing on a ground covered in it, and only getting the amount recieved from the arc below his feet to the horizon. "Back of the notebook calculations" with this consideration is that 510 tons is an order of magnitude more than needed. Ten times more than needed. 51 tons would have the same effect. That is the effect of 1 gram at 1 meter being lethal in a few minutes.

1689:- a semi-trailer could, conceivably, carry a thermonuclear device jacketed with enough cobalt to create a plume of cobalt-60 downwind and make some of the area downwind pretty much permanently lethal. But as a close reading of the chapter of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons we've cited as a reference in this article shows, the area contaminated would not be uniformly contaminated - not a big continuous block of contaminated land, but a blotchy stretch of land with many areas free of contamination or lightly contaminated. To completely depopulate even the metropolitan areas you mention would require MANY, MANY smaller cobalt bombs with overlapping fallout plumes. To systematically depopulate the Earth WOULD require an aggregate amount of cobalt for weapon jackets not much less than Szilard's estimate. Perhaps more. 1588:

single massive thermonuclear weapon with a yield in the multiple hundred-megaton range, or many smaller weapons - EACH of which must still be jacketed by enough cobalt (many tonnes) to cover their assigned downwind regions - that deployment by freighter seems the practical method of placing them where they must be in order to kill their assigned populations. You're still talking about a tenth of the annual production of cobalt of the Russian Federation. A megalomaniac, or perhaps a Millenialist like Ahmadinejihad who is presumably seeking to hasten the End of Days by mass destruction might still pursue such a course with one or more cobalt bombs, each filling a freighter, detonated off the US West Coast where prevailing winds would carry the cobalt over the continental US.

2647:. Unlike the Antler:Round test in Australia, any cobalt-60 contamination at the triple "taiga" nuclear salvo test was incidental to the test, not purposeful in any way. The purpose of that test was simply to dig huge holes in the ground, not to investigate ways of salting a bomb to create a specific kind of fallout or, as with Antler:Round, to use neutron-activated cobalt as a marker of the devices' efficiency. Otherwise, we'd have to include the "Castle Bravo" thermonuclear weapon test and others in that series which unintentionally contaminated a huge swath of the Pacific Ocean when the lithium in their dry fusion 'fuel' unexpectedly was neutron-activated to tritium and more than doubled its nuclear yield. 2334:, "Residual Nuclear Radiation and Fallout, section 9/50 "Radioactive Contamination from Nuclear Explosion, Land Surface and Subsurface Bursts" says "As the height of burst decreases, earth, dust, and other debris from the earth's surface are taken up into the fireball; an increasing proportion of the fission (and other radioactive) products of the nuclear explosion then condense onto particles of appreciable size. These contaminated particles range in diameter from less than 1 micron to several millimeters; the larger ones begin to fall back to earth even before the radioactive cloud has attained its maximum height, whereas the very smallest ones may remain suspended in the atmosphere for long periods." 355: 682:'Critics of the cobalt bomb concept point out that the mass needed would still be unreasonably large: 1 gram of 60Co per square kilometer of Earth's surface is 510 tonnes, and fallout does not reach all areas in equal proportions and dispersement (winds, etc.) . While the sheer size and cost of such a weapon makes it unlikely to be built, it is technically possible because there is no maximum size limit for a thermonuclear bomb. However, the effects of nuclear weapons, including blast, physical damage and fallout, do not scale up linearly with weapon size or yield; the magnitude of these effects increases more gradually than the energy released by the nuclear detonation.' 2362:"If the bomb is exploded at or near the surface of the earth, a large amount of dust, dirt and other surface materials will also be lifted with the updraft. Some of the fission products will adhere to these particles, or onto the material used to construct the bomb. The very largest particles - stones and pebbles - will fall back to earth in a matter of minutes or hours. Lighter material - ash or dust - will fall to earth within a few days, or perhaps be incorporated in raindrops. The radioactive material which returns to earth within 24 hours is called early or local fallout. It is the most dangerous. 2248:"Fission products are as deadly as neutron-activated cobalt in the first week or two following detonation, after a month to six weeks, the fission products from a thermonuclear weapon decay to levels tolerable by humans. The three-stage thermonuclear weapon is thus automatically a weapon of radiological warfare, but its fallout decays much more rapidly than that of a cobalt bomb, so that areas irradiated by fallout from even a large-yield thermonuclear weapon become habitable after a month or two; a cobalt bomb's fallout would render affected areas uninhabitable for up to a century. 761:

height of burst decreases, earth, dust, and other debris from the earth's surface are taken up into the fireball; an increasing proportion of the fission (and other radioactive) products of the nuclear explosion then condense onto particles of appreciable size. These contaminated particles range in diameter from less than 1 micron to several millimeters; the larger ones begin to fall back to earth even before the radioactive cloud has attained its maximum height, whereas the very smallest ones may remain suspended in the atmosphere for long periods."

557:. A Knowledge article on a weapon is not an appropriate forum for subjective statements which are not sourced regarding the effects of that weapon. However, if you can locate secondary sources which provide such commentary, you're welcome to write about the statements those sources make about the effects of that weapon. If you can find a source written by a notable authority on the use of nuclear weapons who describes the aftermath of use of a cobalt bomb as "slaughter", you could add the statement "Dr Iman Authoritee wrote, in an article in the 2677:"Two hot spots" is a whole different thing from "substantial amounts of Co-60". The reference's abstract goes on to say the air dose from that Cobalt-60 is in the low micro-Sievert range, which while significant from the point of view of someone wanting to placard the two hot-spots to keep other researchers' radiation dosage as low as reasonably achievable, is smaller than "substantial". Two "hot-spots" aren't substantial, they're where some neutron-activated cobalt fell immediately after the nuclear detonation. So I'm making the change that 2346:"But this factor of ten is misleading, since linear extrapolation does not apply. Suppose the bomb dropped on Hiroshima had been 1000 times as powerful, 13Mt. It could not have killed 1000 times as many people, but at most the entire population of Hiroshima perhaps 250,000. Re-doing the 'overkill' calculation using these figures gives not a figure of ten but of only 0.02. This example shows that crude linear extrapolations of this sort are unlikely to provide any useful information about the effects of nuclear war. 711:

smaller cobalt bombs as opposed to one huge one (the "one big bomb" concept goes back to before the Teller-Ulam and Sahkarov thermonuclear weapon designs made it possible to have a thermonuclear weapon that was deliverable by aircraft or missiles), one would actually need MORE cobalt to assure that every human habitation on Earth got its share of deadly radiation, because the plumes from the smaller thermonuclear devices would necessarily be narrower, more concentrated and disperse over a smaller area.

2276:

would not be universally rendered lifeless by a cobalt bomb. Also, the fallout and devastation after a nuclear detonation don't scale up linearly with the explosive yield (equivalent to tons of TNT), so that the concept of "overkill" - the idea that one can simply estimate the destruction created by a thermonuclear weapon of the size postulated by Leo Szilard's "cobalt bomb" thought experiment by extrapolating from the destruction caused by thermonuclear weapons of smaller yields - is fallacious. "

1309:, Antler/Round 1 was a "Test of Pixie, a lightweight small diameter implosion system with a plutonium core. This test later became notorious because of the experimental use of cobalt metal pellets as a test diagnostic for measuring yield (presumably by estimating the neutron flux from the degree of activation of the target pellet). Discovery of (mildly) radioactive cobalt pellets around the test site later gave rise to rumors that the British had been developing a "cobalt bomb" radiological weapon." 2664:"In situ measurements, performed in August 2009, revealed elevated levels of the γ-ray dose rate in air on the banks of the lake “Taiga”. Two hot spots were detected on the eastern bank of the lake. The excess of the γ-ray ::radiation is attributable to the man-made radionuclides 60Co and 137Cs. The current external γ-ray dose rate to a human from the contaminations associated with the “Taiga” experiment was between 9 and 70 μSv per week. Periodic monitoring the site is recommended." 1806:

it's a reference to an easily-confirmed and simple-to-understand conceptual calculation by Leo Szilard which gives readers of this article a very good rough estimate of the amount of cobalt needed to be neutron-activated and disseminated in the Earth's atmosphere to approximate a "cobalt bomb." Your objections, if implemented in the article by removing the "510 ton" reference, would destroy something of value in the article to the extent of constituting vandalism.

279: 345: 324: 2627:, 137Cs, 152Eu, 154Eu and 241Am may be considered as rather common long-lived man-made γ-ray emitters detectable at the sites of the tower, ground surface or underground nuclear explosions." The authors explain the presence of Co-60: "We assume that the high level of the ground contamination by 60Co might be associated with neutron activation of large quantities of metals used for creation of the wells (bore-holes) <...: --> 295: 263: 148: 2366:

decay rate one hour after the explosion, the rate will be about ten per cent at 7 hours, about one per cent at two days (about 7 x 7 hours), and about 0.1 per cent at two weeks (7 x 2 days). (After about six months the fall in the decay rate becomes faster than this.) For this reason, exposure to early fallout is the greatest danger due to radioactivity generated by nuclear explosions."

2775:

source. While I do read, write and speak Russian acceptably well, I defer to the editors in wikipedia.ru who maintain the page to which you refer. Unless you can produce an secondary source not controlled by the Russian government and specializing in weapon systems to document the statements you wish made here, they won't survive review by editors familiar with Knowledge guidelines.

2901:

them. But they wouldn't be better off without the big cities. Antibiotics and vaccines that now protect them from dying in horrible ways won't be there. The "law" won't be there, even to the extent it now protects people. Farmers could be shot or enslaved for their food, their families treated in ways I won't describe here. They sure won't be "greatly developing the world".

2044:) can increase its yield by containing and focussing the energy of the primary (fission) stage - causing the secondary (fusion) stage to work more efficiently. Also, in the "fission-fusion-fission" (three-stage) thermonuclear weapon, uranium-238 is used in the outer casing to take advantage of the dense storm of neutrons coming out of the fusion stage of the weapon, causing 22: 2859:, which wasn't available in a form movable onto a bomber or nuclear missile warhead at the time. So his idea is that they could be surrounded by a huge layer (his estimate was 540 metric tons) of cobalt, much of which would be vaporized, carried aloft in the atmosphere, and fall all over the Earth. Not just on cities, but everywhere, to kill everyone and every animal. 209: 198: 1447:, there's no stable or even acceptably long-lived precursor to gold-195 which could be used to jacket a nuclear device. Gold-195 is the decay chain daughter of mercury-195, which has a half-life of 9.9 hours; the decay chain precursors of mercury-195 are even shorter-lived, as far back as you care to go. There's no way to get gold-195 out of a salted nuclear weapon. 2475:. Whether or not this is a deliberate leak by the Russian government (and I don't think any editor here is qualified to judge), there is no reason to believe it is credible. The BBC article is based on rumor and "speculation", as it admits. There is also no credible evidence that this weapon system is a cobalt bomb; the article quotes speculation in the newspaper 953:"salted bombs" by that name. Herman Kahn and Leo Szilard, among others, made "cobalt bomb" a very well-recognized concept and our users will encounter it in movies, television (for example, one episode of Star Trek: the original series makes direct reference to it), novels and other literature. It only makes sense to give them what they'll likely be looking for. 1952:

ground. Simple calculations can be made for how many bombs, and how much cobalt required. Based on expectations of loss of material thrown to escape velocity and trajectories, time to fall, and air resistance to get the ideal altitude and speed to detonate the bombs for maximal dispersion to get to the minimal amount of 510 tons of cobalt 60 evenly distributed.

1470: 1401:

have made a destructive change to the article by removing reference to a major flaw of the cobalt bomb concept, the fact that nuclear fallout does not fall uniformly, but according to how the particles in the fallout are deposited by precipitation and other climate factors. As Dr. Martin is a climatologist, he was speaking from expertise in his own field.

88: 2049:

that they're intensely "dirty," - they make a lot of radioactive fallout. In fact, over the first month or so after detonation, the fallout from a three-stage thermonuclear weapon is more intensely radioactive than that of a cobalt bomb - but that fallout decays much faster as well, its radioactivity dropping quickly after that first month or so.

53: 2561:, because this passage isn't just blowback through BBC from a source of limited reliability, but it also smacks of "silly season" reporting of an implausible event or technology (the other references in this article support the previous statement "As far as is publicly known, no cobalt bombs have ever been built"). It falls afoul of 2623:(2011) at the test site, with photosynthesizing vegetation existing all around the lake that was formed". There are two references, both of them say nothing that any cobalt bomb test or something like this was performed there. One of these articles notes (with many examples) that "many decades after detonation, radionuclides such as 2303:

life means that this fallout remains dangerous, unlike 'normal' fallout distributed in such a way. Also, as discussed earlier, the masses matter. Statements that the gamma dose from the fission products is higher initially than the cobalt dose is weapon dependant and likely to be flat out wrong for any deliberately salted device.

1471:

http://books.google.pl/books?id=_Q0AAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=Hydrogen-Cobalt+Bomb+in+bullletin+arnold&source=bl&ots=_W7CkxJQRk&sig=MWKbUTyq3tOIbM7H5kaVcBsEMBU&hl=pl&ei=ofG5TbG_C4ODOruypP0O&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

1012:

use in a single weapon would be economically crippling to any major commercial producer of the metal. So, to answer your question, the amount of cobalt calculated to be required to produce an actual "Doomsday device" in the form of a cobalt-jacketed thermonuclear weapon is also "an exceedingly large and impractical amount."

705:

nuclear testing in the Nevada Test Site, this meant that fallout would often be deposited quite far away from the site of an explosion; the area around New Orleans, Louisiana was one example of a place where fallout tended to concentrate because of the high rainfall there compared to other areas between there and Nevada.

220: 187: 176: 2757:

military secrets don't want to release. you want to see top-secret development and know technical specifications ? not that ! for several years, if ever ! technical data of such systems will always be top secret. your assertion that this is just a leak about a sensation, it is not factual. apparently

2213:

However, this lethal fallout would be so short-lived that after a month to six weeks in a well-shielded fallout shelter, humans would be able to step out for increasingly long periods to do work, and after a couple of months, the acute danger from radiation (short-term illness or death) would be gone

1573:

The 510 tonne number came to Szilard before the Teller-Ulam design made thermonuclear weapons deliverable. The first thermonuclear device was not only not deliverable, it pretty much filled a building at the test site. So Szilard was thinking in terms of militarizing the new weapon SOMEHOW. And at

1498:

I don't really understand why people keep coming back to this "510 tons" number. That's a mind experiment only: "How much cobalt would I need to bring 1 gram of cobalt to every square km of earth's surface?". What Szilárd was talking about when he thought up the cobalt bomb is that it would also kill

1011:

510 tonnes of cobalt (the amount calculated to be required to make one gram of cobalt-60 available on the average for every square kilometer of the Earth's surface) is one-tenth the current annual production of that element in the Russian Federation (as an example). Diversion of that much cobalt for

704:

Answering your question, Glasstone and Dolan, in "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons," devote an entire chapter to the deposition of nuclear fallout in which they show that fallout tends to "clump up," not fall uniformly over the area downwind from the blast. Back during the days of frequent atmospheric

631:

My physics teacher described a Cobalt bomb to us one day. What he describes was not a "dirty bomb" at all but the use of consecutive shells of elements ending in Cobalt. All of these shells would be wrapped around a standard hydrogen bomb. The basic idea is that energy release from one shell would be

2302:

I'm not so sure about this. Reference basically explains why irregular deposition is less of an issue with a very large cobalt bomb. A large amount of cobalt would end up in the stratosphere and get much more evenly distributed around the globe over a period of months to years. The long cobalt half

1900:

Szilárd: "In this case, it will not help at all. it is very easy to rig an H-bomb, on purpose, so that it should produce very dangerous radioactivity. Of course, it takes very many less H-bombs to kill all Russians by radioactivity or to kill all Americans by radioactivity than to kill all people.

1805:

Referring you and other readers to the section immediately prior to this one - just upstream - where I address your objections. Repeating them here does nothing for the article - nor does your repetition of your objections here. The number "510 tons" is of considerable value to the article because

1314:

The Pixie system was a pure fission device and not even close to the sort of intense neutron source required to transmute significant quantities of cobalt-59 into the intensely radioactive cobalt-60. It does not qualify remotely as a "cobalt bomb" for our purposes - it just had cobalt pellets in it

1017:

The problem is compounded by the irregular nature of nuclear fallout deposition; one cobalt bomb would, in practice, not suffice to sterilize the Earth of human life because its fallout would not reliably reach every corner of the Earth. Kahn and other theorists had proposed that a nation in deadly

952:

as search terms. "Cobalt bomb" is a much more prevalent such meme than "Salted bomb." So from a viewpoint of "what serves most Knowledge users best," I submit more of them will be searching for the term "Cobalt bomb" than "Salted bomb," since there is practically no popular literature reference to

809:

are black). These are powders than can be an fineness you like; it's not at all obvious that these could not be filtered out like any other oxide powder. In a ground burst the cobalt oxides might be adsorbed and mixed with the silicate oxides and be mixed with them after melting, like silicate-based

710:

My point is that the 510 tonnes figure is not a maximum amount, but a MINIMUM amount of cobalt required to blanket the Earth with fallout. It assumes perfect dispersion of the Cobalt-60 from the weapon to every corner of the Earth (something highly unlikely in real terms). If one were to use several

685:

Surely then if you get more bang relatively speaking from a smaller bomb, would making several smaller Cobalt bombs result in needing a smaller overall total mass of bomb? If so, what's the optimal mass for one? You could also reduce the effects of dispersion if you had lots of smaller explosions

658:

However, you're right on your refutation of the "physics teacher's" explanation of concentric shells of elements around a thermonuclear device creating subsequent fusion reactions. That's utter nonsense. Intense flux of x-rays or other photons (from the primary, fusion-boosted fission stage of the

2795:

The statement "In a fission bomb, it has been suggested, the weapon's tamper could be made of cobalt. In a fusion bomb the radiation case around the weapon, normally made of 238U, could be made of cobalt. These changes would reduce the explosive power (yield) of the weapon somewhat." is unsourced.

2365:

As mentioned earlier, the fission products contain a mixture of different types of radioactive atoms, some of which decay quickly and others much more slowly. A rough rule of thumb is that as time increases by a factor of seven, the average decay rate drops by a factor of ten. Thus, compared to the

2349:'Overkill' can be meaningful if applied to specific targets which will be attacked by several nuclear weapons. But applied to the entire world population the concept of 'overkill' is misleading. By the same logic it might be said that there is enough water in the oceans to drown everyone ten times." 2207:

A three-stage nuclear device in the high megaton range (~25Mt) would emit quite a lot of deadly fission products and send them out over a very large area, because the uranium-238 fast-fissioned in the device's hohlraum would create a large number of intensely radioactive fission products, and if it

2146:

I agree, I would think it would all depend on the mass of cobalt used. The radiation case is certainly the most massive part of H bombs; if it were made of cobalt you would expect the mass of Co produced would exceed the mass of the fission products produced, although with their higher atomic mass

2048:

of the uranium - the explosive yield of such a weapon can be double that of the same weapon without a uranium hohlraum (and, in fact, the United States had a 25-megaton thermonuclear weapon which used this specific design to achieve such a high explosive yield). The disadvantage of such weapons is

1628:

I don't understand, really, why people keep coming up with strange examples, but don't add up the number and spread this BS about bombs "filling a freighter"...? Again, let's start at the 510-ton-for-the-whole-earth. OK, so that's 1/10 of the annual production of Russia. Unlikely, I grant you that,

1437:

Gold-198, not gold-197, is mentioned in the article as the end-product of a hypothetical "gold bomb." In the chapter of the High Energy Weapons Archive cited in the references, Carey Sublette specifically mentions that gold-197, which is the 100% naturally-abundant stable isotope of gold, would be

844:

atmospheric nuclear tests by any of the major nuclear powers; even India, Pakistan and North Korea have been circumspect about containing the fallout from their weapons tests in recent years. What we're considering is something no one's really done - trying purposefully to make as much atmospheric

722:

The scary thing is that a millenialist like Ahmadinejihad or one of his colleagues might seriously seek to hasten the end of days by constructing a cobalt-jacketed nuclear device and detonating it - or threaten to use it in order to beat political concessions out of the rest of the world. The game

716:

By the way, I agree with you that this is NOT something desirable in real terms (world nuclear powers, PLEASE don't try this at home), but logically, if the idea is to deter aggression by holding the human race hostage, one needs to do a complete job of it. That requires MORE cobalt than the floor

650:

There actually IS a point to fusion of SOME heavier elements. The boron-11 + proton reaction, while less energetic per gram than thermonuclear fusion, can actually proceed under inertial electrostatic confinement, using equipment orders of magnitude cheaper than thermonuclear fusion. This reaction

2358:

As far as the gamma emitters from nuclear detonations at ground level being initially many times that from Co-60 emanating from a salted weapon, that's also empirical knowledge. We know that sodium and aluminum from dirt drawn into the fireball of a megaton ground burst does get neutron activated,

2354:

We just don't know enough about how a massive amount of cobalt surrounding one or more high-yield (many megatons) nuclear weapons will fall out of the atmosphere. Martin does mention that much fallout from high-yield weapons would rise to the atmosphere, but he is describing fallout from existing

1601:

It would make more sense, though, to just blanket North America with EMP from one or more nuclear weapons detonated in the ionosphere in such a way that the pulse propagates through our electrical grid and destroys every semiconductor in the US and Canada. That alone would irreparably destroy our

789:

processed through a close-nuclear fireball at millions of degrees) does not mean in the least that we know what cobalt metal looks like after being heated to those temperatures in a fireball. It's not obvious, and the experiment has never been done. Whether it could, or could, not be dealt with in

636:

Nah-- either you misunderstood or your prof is out to lunch. Fusion is hard to produce, and early bombs "coated" even with shells of fusionables, even easy ones like deuterium, didn't fuse it very well (the shell configuration works in supernovas, but you need a star's gravity to help you with the

2261:

Initially, gamma radiation from the fission products of an equivalent size fission-fusion-fission bomb are much more intense than Co-60: 15,000 times more intense at 1 hour; 35 times more intense at 1 week; 5 times more intense at 1 month; and about equal at 6 months. Thereafter fission drops off

2175:

was certainly one of the most experienced nuclear weapon physicists of his day, a part of the original Manhattan Project. I would think he would have understood these issues. If there were doubts about increasing the radiological yield of a bomb significantly by this technique, I would think he

2130:

The paragraph which compares fission product gammas to C0-60 seems a bit off to me. It reads as if the fission products would be a more serious radiation hazard but this is only the case if the mass of fission products was equal to the mass of cobalt-60 produced. In reality the Cobalt will be the

2054:

By contrast, putting cobalt in the casing of a thermonuclear weapon wouldn't increase the explosive yield, because the scattering of neutrons back toward the primary and secondary stages of the weapon is much less important than the capture of neutrons by the cobalt. The whole reason for putting

1751:

That's why we have cited The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, chapter IX, "Residual Nuclear Radiation and Fallout," in the references section - it contains the necessary conceptual information to allow readers to estimate the requirements for blanketing the inhabitable Earth with nuclear radiation. I

1587:

However, to hit the all the arable land with a single Cobalt Bomb, you HAVE to cover the rest of the globe, too - you just have the one weapon and need to blanket the globe with it. However, 510 tonnes is still a reasonable aggregate number for the amount of cobalt-59 required to jacket either a

1400:

There is no difference in the behavior of particulate matter from the fallout plume of a cobalt bomb compared to that from a more conventional nuclear weapon. If your grounds for removing my reference to Dr. Martin's paper were his failure to mention salted nuclear weapons specifically, than you

760:

Chapter IX of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, "Residual Nuclear Radiation and Fallout," actually does address this issue directly. In the section "Radioactive Contamination from Nuclear Explosion, Land Surface and Subsurface Bursts (9.50)," this chapter describes what fallout looks like: "As the

2900:

thermonuclear weapon test that it'll cover huge areas, so that everyone you think would benefit from the death of the world's large cities would be just as dead, except for small groups of people in isolated areas. If they live on land clean enough of fallout to farm, ranch or hunt on, good for

2774:

None of those are "responsible secondary sources," which are needed to document a fact cited in a Knowledge article. They are all primary sources, which cannot be used to document a fact in a Knowledge article unless a good secondary source is given which can support the fact without the primary

2622:

I propose to remove the phrase "Furthermore the triple "taiga" nuclear salvo test, as part of the preliminary March 1971 Pechora–Kama Canal project, produced substantial amounts of Co-60, with this fusion generated neutron activation product being responsible for about half of the gamma dose now

2275:

Another important point in considering the effects of cobalt bombs is that deposition of fallout is not even throughout the path downwind from a detonation, so that there are going to be areas relatively unaffected by fallout and places where there is unusually intense fallout, so that the Earth

723:

analogy for nuclear strategy has changed from poker, to the chess of the late Cold War, and may degenerate to a grim variation on "tag" with the accession of Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria and (if intelligence reports are at all accurate) Myanmar and Bangladesh to nuclear weapon power status.

2355:

weapons, not weapons which are jacketed by many tonnes of cobalt. Hopefully we'll never have the empirical knowledge to describe how the fallout from such bombs would behave, but it's probable that reasonably accurate models of such detonations and fallout could be created with modern computers.

1966:

Another thing wrong with the 510 ton figure is that ir's a "back of the notebook" figure. It's based on the fact that 1 gram of CO60 at 1 meter is lethal in a matter of minutes. The "back of the notebook" figure simply scaled that amount to the square meterage of the Earth. But if the earth was

1684:

You've never seen a fallout plume map, have you, DevSolar? I have. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (the pertinent chapter, "Residual Nuclear Radiation and Fallout," is accessible as a .pdf in the reference list in this article) shows that fallout is not deposited evenly downwind from a nuclear

1199:

has covered this issue indirectly in the section of his paper "Overkill," in which he describes the fallacy of linear extrapolation of nuclear weapons effects to the world population at large succinctly. Earlier in the paper (the section "Fallout") Dr. Martin distinguishes between the sorts of

640:

Almost all of the energy available for fusion is already available when making helium, a fact due to the unusually low energy of helium. There's absolutely no point in making a bomb which has higher elements to get energy from fusion, even if they were set up with compression to do it, because

1951:

The concept of using cobalt bombs as doomsday machines isn't completely impractical. even distribution of the cobalt 60 can be accomplished by using numerous bombs detonated in low sub orbit. The clouds of vaporized material would travel great distances and expand broadly before falling to the

2287:

The added text is because a prior editor deleted my previous reference to the two major weaknesses of the cobalt bomb concept - irregular deposition of fallout preventing total destruction of life from a single cobalt bomb, and that destruction and fallout don't scale up linearly with nuclear

1840:. I don't have to make it so big that it wipes out all life on earth. What makes it a Cobalt bomb is the Co-59 jacket, not its yield or its destructive potential. Talking about how much it would take to make a Cobalt bomb into a doomsday device is non-topical. The quote by Szilard about the 2541:

be removed from the article on the grounds that it's not sufficiently factual - BBC basically commented on what we'd consider an unreliable source (Russian state-owned media) reporting an implausible technical development for which there's no independent secondary source confirmation?

2147:

perhaps the fission products are more intensely radioactive. However, for ground bursts there's also the contribution from radioactivity induced in dirt and ground matter vaporized by the fireball. Perhaps this source dwarfs the contribution to fallout from the bomb components. --

2449:

My opinion is that, while the sentence/paragraph in question quotes a news article by a reliable source (the BBC), the assertion described in the article is propaganda intended to change US foreign policy by creating fear, doubt and uncertainty regarding parts of US foreign policy.

1315:

to allow scientists to measure how much of the cobalt in them had been neutron-activated, thus giving an indirect indication of neutron flux from the detonation of the weapon and some indication of how efficient the implosion system was in 'burning' the plutonium core of the weapon

2536:"In 2015, a Russian nuclear-armed torpedo design was apparently leaked. It has been speculated that the warhead would be a cobalt bomb, designed for "creating wide areas of radioactive contamination, rendering them unusable for military, economic or other activity for a long time". 2414:"In 2015, a Russian nuclear-armed torpedo design was apparently leaked. It has been speculated that the warhead would be a cobalt bomb, designed for "creating wide areas of radioactive contamination, rendering them unusable for military, economic or other activity for a long time". 2421:

I don't want to take unilateral action, but I would like other editors, especially experienced ones either in wikipedia ethical issues or in nuclear weapons design-related issues, to comment on whether mention of a supposed Russian cobalt warhead torpedo violates our guidelines

1421:

The article cites the radioactive nuclide present in gold bombs as Au, which in fact is the only stable isotope of gold (curiously nobody discovered that mistake over so many years). It seems to me that Au with a half-life of 186 days is probably what the original author meant.

2628:

and the nuclear devices. This assumption is in agreement with the opinion of Lurie (2002) who supposes that the 60Co contamination at the “Taiga” site has originated from the constructive materials of the explosive devices." No need to note here any site contaminated by Co-60.

1602:

national infrastructure and cause massive economic and social chaos, and according to some calculations, the deaths of two-thirds of the US populace from starvation, disease and civil violence. And it would be incomparably cheaper to do this than to attempt the Cobalt Bomb.

592:

In order to make the article better, you could perhaps mention that cobalt bombs would be an extra and lingering danger in the area where they explode, but that however, the amount of cobalt required to cause the effect that Szilard described is enormous and not practical.

2371:

That sums up the reason for the statement in the proposed second paragraph to which you objected. I welcome any sources you can provide which present alternative accounts of the origin, nature or environmental fate of early fallout from large-yield thermonuclear weapons.

2329:

First, the discussion in the section "Appearance of cobalt after going through a nuke fireball?" points to a lacuna in our knowledge of how fallout from a massively cobalt-salted bomb would be produced. For existing nuclear weapons, Glasstone and Dolan, in Chapter IX of

1574:

the time, what amounts to global radiological blackmail was the only option - the one thing the huge, undeliverable weapon COULD do is make neutrons, so Szilard came up with a way to make it a game-changer - by making enough Cobalt-60 to sterilize the Earth of human life.

1111:, keeping the #REDIRECT there. Cobalt bomb is the most commonly discussed type of salted bomb, so it should also mention the other commonly-discussed types of salted bombs (e.g., zinc, gold). The general concept is of a salted bomb; a cobalt bomb is just one instance. 528:

I picked the term 'slaughter' on purpose. While I am not in any way anti-nuclear in any sense of the word, I won't whitewash the fact that nuclear weapons (particularly of the enhanced radiation sort) are designed to kill as many people as possible in the target area.

1276:"The British did test a bomb that incorporated cobalt as an experimental radiochemical tracer (Antler/Round 1, 14 September 1957). This 1 kt device was exploded at the Tadje site, Maralinga range, Australia. The experiment was regarded as a failure and not repeated." 270: 63: 2672:"...the triple "taiga" nuclear salvo test, as part of the preliminary March 1971 Pechora–Kama Canal project, produced substantial amounts of Co-60, with this fusion generated neutron activation product being responsible for about half of the gamma dose now...." 545:. These are two radically different types of nuclear weapon. Cobalt bombs are intended to create extremely long-lived radioactive fallout (lethal to unprotected humans for well over fifty years), while enhanced radiation weapons create a momentary flux of 2895:

What would happen is conjectural, but certainly among the predictable results is a dramatic loss of life in the countryside as well, for reasons I just mentioned. Cobalt from salted bombs may not fall from the sky absolutely uniformly, but we saw from the

2850:

Let's tackle your first premise first. You don't really seem to get the idea of cobalt bombs - if the point of the exercise were to just kill people in cities, the world's existing nuclear arsenal could do the job well. Cobalt bombs were conceived of by

2834:

This looks like its written from an urban point of view which incorrectly sees the world only as a collection of cities. In reality, the destruction of urban centers, much like the fall of Rome, would benefit humanity and greatly develop the world.

1018:

earnest (no pun intended) to use the cobalt bomb as a deterrent would be constrained to build several such devices, placing some of them in ocean-going freighters in order to have world-wide coverage of the Earth's surface with deadly radioactivity.

2433:

Specifically, the "leaked" assertion seems to contradict other statements in this article which are based on citations from secondary sources which are reviews of the literature on salted nuclear weapons (such as Glasstone and Dolan's classic work

1752:

recommend you read the chapter in its entirety before persisting in your objections to the 510-ton figure for the amount of cobalt needed to do that job. Otherwise, you're overlooking facts and holding fast to your own opinions on this issue.

1510:

Not that we need cobalt bombs (or any other "big bang" stuff) for that. We're doing a fine job exhausting natural resources and poisoning the ground just by negligence. To quote T.S. Eliot, the world will end with a whimper, not a bang. --

2933:

I'm pretty sure "overkill" refers to the diminishing returns from more fire, or larger shells, at the same targets. For example, Clark, Keefer, and Walton, "Foe: A Model Representing Company Actions" uses "overkill" in that sense in 1960.

2912:

gives a reasonable view of what post-nuclear Earth would be like. Among the few survivors left, Local demagogues then would act like national demagogues do now, and no one would be happy but the few at the top of the food chain.

2359:

and along with fission products from either the weapon primary or fast fission products from the third stage of a very large-yield thermonuclear device constitute the most pressing danger - early fallout. Quoting Martin again:

2010:

I've once red that a hydrogen bomb covered with a cobalt shield would make the bomb up to a 1000 times more powerful, but not more radioactive thow. I think the source was "Guiness World Records" (swedish edition) 1974 or 1975.

848:

Since we can't cite a reference to the passage you refer to, it ought to be redacted to a statement that CAN be supported by published sources. In fact, that passage no longer exists in the article. I didn't remove it. Did

436:

It's my experience that editors who just delete wholesale swaths of information on some technical wiki complaint oftentimes aren't so much worried about the technicality, but just don't want the information available at all.

1906: 1633:

Basic math. Area of the U.S.A.? 9.8 million square kilometers. That's less than 1/50th of the earth surface. 1/50th of 510 tons is around 10 tons, or 1/500th of the anual production of Russia. That fits on a lorry trailer,

796:

needs a reference. "Unlike cobalt-60" is what needs reference. Cobalt-60 in what form?? We don't know what cobalt metal heated to thermonuclear temperatures looks like. As I said, my guess is aggregate particles of various

766:

There are also photographs and autoradiographs of fallout particles (Figures 9.50 a through 9.50d) in this chapter. So really, the citation already exists in the reference section. All that is required is an appropriate

2208:

were detonated in a ground burst (as a counterforce weapon might be in order to "dig out" silo-based ICBMs or enemy command bunkers), then the neutron-activated sodium and aluminum from the soil would also be very lethal.

750:: This badly needs needs a ref. How do YOU know what cobalt metal processed through a nuclear fireball would come out physically? A similar oxidized particulate to what the rest of fallout is described as, is MY guess. 3023: 1778:

bomb. I don't even challenge the calculation, but the number it results in is not about the subject of the article, nor what Szilárd talked about. "Cobalt bomb" != "doomsday device". That number is a fallacy, and does

2262:

rapidly so that Co-60 fallout is 8 times more intense than fission at 1 year and 150 times more intense at 5 years. The very long-lived isotopes produced by fission would overtake the 60Co again after about 75 years.

3028: 2214:

or very slight. Fallout with large amounts of cobalt-60 would be lethal to anyone remaining out for more than a few hours for a hundred years or so. The bottom of the article explains this and is adequately sourced.

2441:

Are we giving the Russian government a soapbox in this article from which to make exaggerated claims for one of their nuclear weapons systems by including the blockquoted text in the article's third paragraph?

549:

which kills humans in the immediate vicinity of the area where the bomb is detonated (a 2 to 5-mile radius from the center of the detonation), but do not contaminate the area with radiation to any significant

1550:

OK, scrap that personal comment of mine, that indeed was unnecessary. But I feel that this "point of reference" is an attempt to ridicule the whole concept of a "salted bomb", which is IMHO not NPOV. --

1499:

the people in the target area who survived the initial blast. From a human standpoint, you only "need" to irradiate the arable land, which is only a fraction of the 30% of earth's surface that actually

1732:

I repeat my accusation: That's not "providing a point of reference", that's smoke and mirrors. I suggest removing the two paragraphs in question, and - if necessary or desirable - replace it with some

599:"originally proposed by physicist Leó Szilárd, who suggested that it would be capable of destroying all life on Earth," is totally without reference (not to mention the idea is preposterous anyway). 1084:

I think the merge needs to be reverted (is this possible, I cant find much information on reverting merges) and the cobalt bomb article made a part of the salted bomb article as was stated earlier.

2418:

The preceding paragraph states "As far as is publicly known, no cobalt bombs have ever been built", yet we give the Russian government space in this article to claim they've done just that thing.

2055:

cobalt around a thermonuclear weapon in the first place is not to scatter or reflect neutrons, but to make radioactive cobalt-60 to land away from the detonation site and kill people by radiation.

2958: 1736:

information on how much irradiation would result from a bomb of so-and-so much yield and so-and-so much cobalt and what the effects would be. But this "510 tons" blurb is simply misleading. --

2110:

I think the article and the cited references make it quite clear that you either misunderstood, or simply reinforcing that "Guiness World Records" might not be the best source for physics. --

1852:

remote, and adequately addressed in the article by linking the corresponding papers after "Szilard suggested , but this is disputed". (Which is a long shot already, as neither paper mentions

1061:

It's the general type of bomb where elements are added to contribute to the fallout. Cobalt bombs are but one example; other examples would be zinc, gold, or tantalum bombs. Unfortunately,

2714:

The only sources we have documenting that project are either primary "leaked" documents, popular-audience news reports which relay very sketchy details from those documents which fail under

302: 286: 71: 67: 793:

The fallout of other nuclear weapons has the appearance of sand or ground pumice, which falls back to the ground in short time, and can be filtered by even a handkerchief, unlike cobalt-60

745:

The fallout of other nuclear weapons has the appearance of sand or ground pumice, which falls back to the ground in short time, and can be filtered by even a handkerchief, unlike cobalt-60

2165:

Fission products are as deadly as neutron-activated cobalt. The standard high-fission thermonuclear weapon is automatically a weapon of radiological warfare, as dirty as a cobalt bomb.

1526:

The figure is preceded by the phrase, "To provide a point of reference," so it's clear that the figure quoted is not intended to be taken literally, but rather as a measure of scale.

538:

I don't think slaughter is appropriate for killing by radiation. Although it is not defined by that dictionary the implicit meaning is the killing in a violent way, in a bloody way.

2438:

which, over several editions spanning decades, has been the standard reference work for the US military and other agencies charged with preparation for nuclear war consequences).

2080:

by adding very highly radioactive cobalt-60 and other radionuclides to the fallout and spreading it widely across the Earth (if the weapon had enough explosive yield to do that).

3063: 1254:

sorry it took me so long to get back on this, I did find an alternate link for Chapter 9 of Glasstone and Dolan, "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" and have altered the text.

161: 138: 100: 1836:

made by Szilard. And you proved the whole point of my argument all over again: If I take a low-yield bomb, let's say a 5-kiloton device, and jacket it in Co-59, it's a

1232:

I have placed citations supporting these criticisms of the "overkill" and "doomsday machine" concepts in the text of the article. loupgarous 19:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2661:

Before I proceeded, I chose to wait for more input, we haven't gotten any. So I looked at the abstract for the radiological study that section references. It says:

2758:

none of you speaks Russian and can not read and understand the texts. on the Russian page is given a lot of links, including links to government contracts, example:

3018: 128: 2890:

Your second premise, that destruction of the world's metropolises "would benefit humanity and greatly develop the world" is without any facts backing it at all.

863:

Not that I remember. May be been somebody else who read this discussion 6 years ago. But I cannot remember many of my edits from 6 years ago, so no guarantees.

411: 147: 481:"it could wipe out millions of people" The term "wipe out" probably wouldn't be found in an encyclopedia. Perhaps "kill" or something similar would be better? 1654:

about "sterilizing the earth", it's about giving a comparatively small nuclear weapon very severe and long-lasting effects far exceeding the actual yield. --

632:

enough to start fusion in the next element, all the way to Cobalt. I forget the exact amount of energy released, but it would be enough to destroy the Earth.

2872:, farmers, Indians out in pueblos, Inuit out on ice barrens - not just the people in cities you seem to think we could get along without. Statistically, 810:

lava (or pumice) containing oxidized metals. I don't know the answer, but at least I know what I don't know. You don't seem to know what you don't know.

2723:

If the Russian Ministry of Defense cares to publish documentation of this project which can then be reviewed by responsible secondary sources (such as

3058: 2094:

You need to learn how to research using the World Wide Web, write down what you read, and read some more after that so you understand what you read.

401: 1129:

would redirect here? some of the text would need to be altered and the information on other types of bomb found as well (particularly the table).

1041: 922: 3043: 3033: 2799:

Unless someone can supply a secondary source for this statement (which makes assertions not common knowledge) I'll remove it after a few days.

2337:

The empirical results of above-ground nuclear testing are the basis for Dr. Martin's statement in what had been Reference 7 (now Reference 10),

1890: 663:

around the fusion fuel) trigger nuclear fusion in thermonuclear weapons. These conditions are NOT available outside the nuclear weapon casing

95: 58: 354: 3048: 3038: 104: 2731:), the secondary sources evaluating the report would be usable. But neither the wikipedia article or the sensationalistic BBC coverage are. 2746: 1335:"Critics" of the bomb say it won't destroy all life on the planet? Seriously? Do they see the destruction of all life as a desirable goal? 926: 1200:

fallout produced by differing sorts of nuclear detonations in terms of the dose of fallout delivered to nearby and worldwide populations.

2906:

As a rule, "after the War" science fiction isn't that helpful in understanding the probable post-nuclear world, but Walter Miller, Jr's

2836: 1953: 1363: 1342: 1286: 1045: 1770:

Blissfully ignoring the whole previous section. The "510 ton" number was calculated from the assumption that one would have to blanket

2962: 2935: 1968: 919:

It appears that Salted bomb article doesn't exist anymore. Just wonderful. All info about non-cobalt (gold, zinc) bombs is deleted...

377: 1385:

cites Brian Martin. It seems to me though that the Martin article does not discuss the cobalt bomb, only "ordinary" nuclear bombs. —

3053: 1479: 637:

shell compression, so it's not the same thing!). In either stars or bombs, for good fusion you need compression. This is a key idea.

1207:, Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan (editors), United States Department of Defense and Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 785:

Apparently you didn't read my note very well. Just because we know what fallout looks like from a ground burst (silica and various

1301:

This heading's potentially misleading. Antler/Round 1 was not a test of a "Cobalt bomb" as we have defined it in our discussion.

1218:

discusses in great detail the highly irregular deposition of fallout on the surface of the Earth after nuclear detonations. --

911:

Use In Science Fiction - The second Planet Of The Apes Film featured a doomsday weapon that was said to have a Cobolt caseing.

2814:

Silence (lack of the requested source for this statement) gives assent; I've removed the unsourced statement mentioned above.

1646:

scale, the whole bla-bla about unequal distribution of the fallout or nonlinear scaling of effect is debunked for what it is:

1438:

transmuted into gold-198 (t 1/2=2.697 days) by the capture of a neutron from the nuclear device in a hypothetical "gold bomb."

615: 2192:

Unfortunately pay walled and I don't have access. The abstract suggests he has done the calculations for various scenarios.

368: 329: 2483:

on the Russian government. Do any reliable secondary sources believe this is a serious reference to a cobalt bomb? See

33: 1987: 2992:

The lead section here is hardly just a summary, containing mostly exclusive information not found in the article body

2770:. if you search the site militaryrussia.ru you can find information about many things and references to the sources. 2189: 1215: 2506:

would seem to apply here, too. It's not like fact-checking played a large role in BBC's news cycle on this story.

2487:. As long as the BBC article is the only unsupported source we shouldn't include it. WP does not print rumors. -- 2035:

Covering a "hydrogen bomb" (a thermonuclear weapon) in cobalt almost certainly wouldn't make it much more powerful.

1864:

through and through. Oh, and my objections apparently have consent for almost half a year now, since the reference

1191:

Australian peace activist and atmospheric scientist Brian Martin, in "The global health effects of nuclear war,"

969: 1177:

I'm not sure about it. Perhaps somebody knowledgeable about the topic and having lots of sources can go at it?

2908: 2219:

That being said, there IS a very real difference between an "ordinary" thermonuclear weapon and a cobalt bomb.

930: 694: 2750: 2840: 1957: 1049: 2981: 1995: 1972: 1365: 1344: 1290: 99:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 2718:, or that wikipedia article, which is also not admissible as a source to document a statement in wikipedia. 1520: 1483: 659:

thermonuclear weapon) and the presence of a superheated plasma (from the heating of an aerogel foam called

497:“I could not give my name to aid the slaughter in this war, fought on both sides for grossly material ends” 2939: 2308: 2197: 2136: 1905:

I.e., the very crude calculations he makes in a footnote to the article (or the ones James R. Arnold does

942: 690: 1642:

less than that to irradiate the whole Boston-New York-Washington area - a bomb that fits on a pickup. At

2562: 2468: 2403: 1444: 495:

n. 1.The killing of animals especially for food. 2.The killing of a large number of people; a massacre:

39: 2304: 2193: 2132: 972: 2237:

I've taken the initiative to change the second paragraph and expand that material to be more accurate:

1467:

I recommend this (pages 290-292) as the source for the article- it's evaluation of Szilard claims....

790:

the same manner as silica/silicate-based-fallout I do not believe is known. That is why the statement

3000: 2856: 1475: 1282: 603: 541:@DV8 2XL, you're confusing the cobalt bomb with enhanced radiation nuclear weapons commonly known as 21: 2715: 2634: 2566: 2503: 2427: 2399: 2016: 1848:

of these bombs is already borderline to the article; that redneck "doomsday device" calculation is

433:

That an article violates copyright is not a reason to delete the article entirely, but to FIX IT.

376:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2977: 2918: 2819: 2804: 2780: 2736: 2686: 2652: 2574: 2547: 2511: 2476: 2455: 2377: 2293: 2224: 2115: 2099: 2026:

No recognized authority on nuclear weapon design or kinetics would confirm what you "red." It's

1991: 1942: 1918: 1873: 1811: 1788: 1757: 1741: 1694: 1659: 1607: 1556: 1516: 1452: 1427: 1406: 1390: 1358: 1337: 1320: 1259: 1223: 1182: 1122: 1023: 986: 958: 854: 772: 728: 668: 611: 566: 1130: 1094: 1085: 2472: 2423: 2395: 2172: 1934: 1093:

Or the salted bomb article could be recreated and then this article could be merged into it.

1002: 806: 554: 2467:

I don't think the text should be included in the article, but I think the relevant policy is

2077:- its explosive force (which is what would spread the radioactive cobalt you would be making) 1203:

The matter is covered in much more detail, but with similar conclusions to Dr. Martin's, in

1929:

a doomsday device, but it might just as well be built to fit in the trunk of your car (or a

802: 786: 452: 1897:

Q: "Will dispersal actually help if H-bombs are used not for blast but for radioactivity?"

1277: 801:, much like you'd get in a lab bottle of one of the cobalt oxides (which I have seen-- the 278: 2996: 2707:, no accidental leaks do not happen, cobalt filling as one of the variants of the torpedo 1910: 689:

I don't advocate anyone tries this of course, but surely it's the more logical approach.

561:

that the aftermath of the use of a cobalt bomb would best be described as a "slaughter"."

2943: 1211:, considered the definitive technical work on the subject of nuclear weapons effects. 1196: 1173:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cobalt_bomb&diff=250458634&oldid=250274935

2678: 2630: 2521: 2488: 2484: 2177: 2160:

I also have some doubts about the dismissal of the cobalt bomb in the first paragraph:

2148: 2012: 1532: 941:

This page should have been merged into the Salted Bomb article rather than vice versa.

901:

article. This is on a subset of that article, and doesn't really need its own page. --

511:

You may maybe consider trying "eliminate". It is less bloody and more Strangelovish. --

438: 360: 2520:

The comment I'm requesting, therefore, ought to be changed to be more along the lines

641:

burning light deuterium and tritium provides more energy PER GRAM than any other fuel.

464:

I would suggest fix over delete. Deletion should be only the most extreme solution. --

3012: 2954: 2914: 2815: 2800: 2776: 2732: 2682: 2648: 2570: 2543: 2507: 2451: 2373: 2289: 2220: 2111: 2095: 1983: 1938: 1869: 1807: 1784: 1753: 1737: 1690: 1655: 1603: 1552: 1512: 1448: 1423: 1402: 1386: 1316: 1255: 1241: 1219: 1178: 1019: 982: 954: 877: 874: 869: 864: 850: 824: 821: 816: 811: 768: 751: 724: 664: 642: 607: 562: 512: 465: 1725:(Emphasis mine to point out plural.) The next two paragraphs go on blurbing about a 1307: 2897: 2607: 2596: 2480: 2045: 1889:

Additional information. The actual paper where Szilárd makes his statements is the

1861: 1535:, not political soapboxes that have nothing to do with the subject of the article. 1503:

land. And suddenly, you'll see that the ability to destroy all human life on earth

798: 542: 530: 500: 2190:

http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/1960/04000/Cobalt_60_Bombs.8.aspx

1216:

http://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/WW3_Documents/Weapon_Effects/Effects_1977_09.pdf

2852: 2176:

wouldn't have risked his reputation by announcing it publicly on the radio. --

1922: 1533:

Knowledge talk pages are for the discussion of improvement of the actual article

1145: 1141: 1126: 1108: 1104: 1066: 1062: 902: 898: 344: 323: 294: 262: 2767: 1631:

But you don't need 510 tons of cobalt to build one bad sucker of a salted bomb!

2340: 1990:, and should just be deleted regardless of whether we deem it correct or not. 1208: 350: 2394:

Request for Comment: Is mention of a supposed Russian cobalt warhead torpedo

1536: 1153: 1112: 1070: 1236:

The effects9.pdf is offline, we should replace it with another web links. `

2703:

It is necessary to write about the project "Status-6", is a full article

2041: 1237: 546: 2759: 2724: 1001:

Exactly how much is an "exceedingly large and impractical" amount? --

686:

rather than relying on one big one to explode evenly across the globe.

660: 373: 2068:

by increasing the radioactivity of its fallout plume in proportion to:

2953:

Would it be worth mentioning that the Cobalt bomb has been used as a

1901:

But you have to get this radioactive material to Russia or America."

3004: 2985: 2966: 2922: 2844: 2823: 2808: 2784: 2754: 2740: 2690: 2656: 2638: 2578: 2551: 2515: 2493: 2459: 2381: 2312: 2297: 2228: 2201: 2182: 2153: 2140: 2119: 2103: 2074:- the neutron flux of the weapon available where the cobalt is, and 2020: 1999: 1976: 1961: 1946: 1877: 1815: 1792: 1761: 1745: 1698: 1663: 1611: 1560: 1541: 1487: 1456: 1431: 1410: 1394: 1371: 1350: 1324: 1294: 1263: 1245: 1227: 1186: 1156: 1133: 1115: 1097: 1088: 1073: 1053: 1027: 1005: 990: 975: 962: 934: 905: 880: 858: 827: 776: 754: 732: 698: 672: 645: 619: 570: 533: 515: 503: 468: 455: 441: 87: 52: 2728: 1868:

been removed long ago. Accusing me of vandalism is a bit rich. --

1169:

It appears that the statement mentioned here needs a fact check:

1930: 1914: 970:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/Salted_bomb

949: 840:

You have a good point. Obviously, there aren't going to be any

717:

figure of 510 tonnes - multiples of that figure, I would think.

15: 3024:

Start-Class military science, technology, and theory articles

1152:

word shouldn't be capitalized, since it's not a proper name.

3029:

Military science, technology, and theory task force articles

2763: 293: 277: 261: 146: 2669:

That's different from what the phrase in our article says:

2085:

So your source (or what you took away from it) is wrong on

655:- nothing else gives you that sort of "bang" for the buck). 2885:

bad because the cities would die." We said no such thing.

1891:

April 1950 issue of the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist"

1729:(singular) bomb, about how the effects wouldn't "scale". 739:

Appearance of cobalt after going through a nuke fireball?

2040:

The casing of a thermonuclear weapon (specifically, the

1723:

would be capable of destroying all human life on Earth."

1278:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html#nfaq1.6

2973: 2681:

proposed, with which I concur, on grounds of accuracy.

2188:

An extremely relevant paper would seem to be this one;

1860:"Szilard", not to mention "510", so your point here is 1382: 1172: 2288:

weapons' explosive yield (the concept of "overkill").

2791:

Unsourced Statement in "Mechanism" Section of Article

2704: 1921:, and thought about global nuclear determent only. A 1913:, but that's only because they had yet to hear about 1493: 1197:

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82cab/#n1

2976:, feel free to edit the article to make it clearer. 897:

I think that this article should be merged with the

447:

Actually, if an article is a copyright violation it

372:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 159:

This article has been checked against the following

271:

Military science, technology, and theory task force

244: 158: 2502:Good point, and one I'd totally missed - thanks. 1507:within the reach of an "arsenal of cobalt bombs". 2855:as a thought exercise of how to use the then-new 2766:and for example the data on the apparatus "SKIF" 1038:What is a salted bomb ? It's not explained here. 2479:for this. Russian newspapers are definitely not 2762:. in addition there is a very interesting site 2608:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34797252 2597:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34797252 1909:to ridicule the concept) might be for a global 1103:The most sensible solution would be to rename 2060:Jacketing a thermonuclear weapon with cobalt 8: 2768:http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-746.html 1195:, Vol. 59, No. 7, December 1982, pp. 14-26. 948:I respectfully disagree. Most people enter 2410:In this article, this passage concerns me: 2406:or violation of other wikipedia guidelines? 1494:Isn't this 510-ton number a bit ridiculous? 1209:http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/effects/ 3064:C-Class physics articles of Low-importance 318: 241: 155: 47: 1306:According to the Nuclear Weapons Archive 485:Replaced with 'slaughter'. Justification: 2881:Show me where we said "Cobalt bombs are 93:This article is within the scope of the 2589: 2131:biggest contributor to dose from day 1. 320: 49: 19: 2959:2606:A000:7D44:100:1C02:4825:EBE2:C72C 2929:"Overkill" - that's not what it means. 113:Knowledge:WikiProject Military history 103:. To use this banner, please see the 3019:Start-Class military history articles 2760:https://zakupki.kontur.ru/31502576410 805:is green, and the higher oxides like 116:Template:WikiProject Military history 7: 2341:""The Global Effects of Nuclear War" 366:This article is within the scope of 2030:, regardless of where you "red" it. 38:It is of interest to the following 2928: 14: 1636:for sterilizing all of the U.S.A. 1214:Their chapter on nuclear fallout 1069:, which doesn't make this clear. 559:Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2705:http://ru.wikipedia.org/Статус-6 353: 343: 322: 218: 207: 196: 185: 174: 86: 51: 20: 3059:Low-importance physics articles 1121:So this article would be named 981:Thanks for giving us that link. 406:This article has been rated as 133:This article has been rated as 2436:The Effects of Nuclear Weapons 2332:The Effects of Nuclear Weapons 1205:The Effects of Nuclear Weapons 442:21:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1: 3044:Start-Class Cold War articles 3034:Start-Class weaponry articles 2741:18:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 2657:17:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 2524:discussed and I expanded on - 2516:01:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC) 2494:02:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 2460:01:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC) 2343:, in the section "Overkill": 2313:16:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC) 2298:01:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC) 2229:00:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC) 1746:11:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 1719:"Leó Szilárd suggested that 1664:12:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC) 1648:Completely missing the point. 1629:but nowhere near impossible. 1432:12:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 1295:01:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 1228:05:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 1006:23:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 534:12:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC) 516:12:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC) 504:11:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC) 469:12:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC) 386:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics 380:and see a list of open tasks. 3049:Cold War task force articles 3039:Weaponry task force articles 2639:18:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC) 2202:16:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC) 2183:14:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC) 2154:14:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC) 2141:10:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC) 2126:Misleading second paragraph? 2071:- the amount of cobalt used, 1612:01:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1531:As for your other comments, 1395:22:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC) 1325:03:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1264:23:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC) 1187:02:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC) 991:03:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 963:03:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 935:10:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 456:14:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC) 389:Template:WikiProject Physics 96:Military history WikiProject 2923:15:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC) 2868:of cobalt bombs is to kill 2691:16:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC) 2104:08:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 1947:13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 1878:08:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 1816:08:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 571:16:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC) 3080: 2755:08:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 1962:08:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC) 1832:The calculation cited was 1721:an arsenal of cobalt bombs 1650:Building a cobalt bomb is 1488:11:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC) 412:project's importance scale 179:Referencing and citation: 3005:08:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC) 2986:05:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC) 2974:the bottom of the article 2967:11:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC) 2764:http://militaryrussia.ru/ 2579:03:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 2552:03:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 2120:12:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 2000:04:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC) 1977:14:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC) 1762:15:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1699:15:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 1561:06:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC) 1542:03:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC) 1521:09:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 1372:09:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 1351:09:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC) 1098:20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 1089:20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 976:06:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 906:14:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 881:21:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 859:19:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 828:17:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 777:15:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 620:13:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC) 451:a reason to delete it. -- 405: 338: 301: 285: 269: 240: 132: 119:military history articles 81: 46: 3054:C-Class physics articles 2972:It's covered already in 2944:20:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 2909:A Canticle for Leibowitz 2845:11:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC) 2824:18:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 2809:05:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 2785:05:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 2382:06:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 2021:19:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC) 1793:13:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC) 1457:12:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC) 1411:11:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC) 1246:21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC) 1193:Current Affairs Bulletin 1157:20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1134:20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1116:01:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC) 1028:20:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC) 755:20:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 733:21:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC) 699:12:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 673:23:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC) 646:20:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1074:20:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 1054:20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC) 245:Associated task forces: 190:Coverage and accuracy: 2538: 2416: 1331:"critics" of the bomb? 968:some version saved @: 298: 282: 266: 223:Supporting materials: 151: 28:This article is rated 2534: 2412: 1933:warhead) to render a 1445:Chart of the Nuclides 1044:comment was added by 925:comment was added by 297: 281: 265: 150: 2857:thermonuclear device 2006:H-bomb times 1000 !? 1988:WP:Original Research 1986:is correct, this is 1907:in the October issue 1783:for the article. -- 1774:with fallout from a 1713:510 tons, revisited. 893:Merge to Salted Bomb 499:(Sylvia Pankhurst). 2062:would increase its 369:WikiProject Physics 305:(c. 1945 – c. 1989) 303:Cold War task force 287:Weaponry task force 212:Grammar and style: 165:for B-class status: 2477:Rossiiskaya Gazeta 1937:uninhabitable. -- 1925:might be built to 1919:Assymetric warfare 299: 283: 267: 152: 101:list of open tasks 34:content assessment 1935:Metropolitan area 1772:the entire planet 1478:comment added by 1285:comment added by 1057: 938: 807:cobalt(III) oxide 787:silicate minerals 623: 606:comment added by 426: 425: 422: 421: 418: 417: 317: 316: 313: 312: 309: 308: 236: 235: 225:criterion not met 192:criterion not met 181:criterion not met 137:on the project's 105:full instructions 3071: 2610: 2605: 2599: 2594: 2491: 2180: 2151: 1911:Doomsday devices 1539: 1490: 1463:Possible source= 1368: 1361: 1347: 1340: 1297: 1272:Cobalt bomb test 1039: 920: 872: 867: 819: 814: 803:cobalt(II) oxide 743:Article states: 622: 600: 394: 393: 392:physics articles 390: 387: 384: 363: 358: 357: 347: 340: 339: 334: 326: 319: 252: 242: 226: 222: 221: 215: 211: 210: 204: 200: 199: 193: 189: 188: 182: 178: 177: 156: 121: 120: 117: 114: 111: 110:Military history 90: 83: 82: 77: 74: 59:Military history 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 3079: 3078: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3009: 3008: 2994: 2951: 2931: 2832: 2793: 2701: 2620: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2606: 2602: 2595: 2591: 2531:Should the text 2489: 2408: 2178: 2149: 2128: 2008: 1715: 1537: 1496: 1473: 1465: 1443:Consulting the 1419: 1383:present version 1380: 1366: 1359: 1345: 1338: 1333: 1280: 1274: 1167: 1165:Citation Needed 1082: 1040:—The preceding 1036: 999: 943:131.111.103.224 921:—The preceding 917: 895: 870: 865: 817: 812: 741: 691:Arbitrary Logic 629: 601: 587: 585:Doomsday effect 479: 431: 391: 388: 385: 382: 381: 359: 352: 332: 250: 224: 219: 213: 208: 202: 197: 191: 186: 180: 175: 118: 115: 112: 109: 108: 75: 61: 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 3077: 3075: 3067: 3066: 3061: 3056: 3051: 3046: 3041: 3036: 3031: 3026: 3021: 3011: 3010: 2993: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2957:in fiction? -- 2950: 2947: 2930: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2903: 2902: 2892: 2891: 2887: 2886: 2878: 2877: 2861: 2860: 2831: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2792: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2747:109.252.20.154 2744: 2743: 2720: 2719: 2700: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2619: 2616: 2612: 2611: 2600: 2588: 2587: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2563:WP:CRYSTALBALL 2555: 2554: 2533: 2532: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2518: 2497: 2496: 2469:WP:CRYSTALBALL 2462: 2407: 2404:WP:CRYSTALBALL 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2363: 2356: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2347: 2338: 2335: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2232: 2231: 2216: 2215: 2210: 2209: 2186: 2185: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2157: 2156: 2127: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2107: 2106: 2091: 2090: 2082: 2081: 2078: 2075: 2072: 2069: 2057: 2056: 2051: 2050: 2037: 2036: 2032: 2031: 2007: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1903: 1902: 1898: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1765: 1764: 1714: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1545: 1544: 1528: 1527: 1495: 1492: 1464: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1440: 1439: 1418: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1379: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1332: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1311: 1310: 1303: 1302: 1273: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1249: 1248: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1119: 1118: 1081: 1080:Revert merge ? 1078: 1077: 1076: 1035: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1014: 1013: 998: 995: 994: 993: 966: 965: 927:195.212.29.187 916: 913: 910: 894: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 846: 833: 832: 831: 830: 780: 779: 763: 762: 740: 737: 736: 735: 719: 718: 713: 712: 707: 706: 681: 678: 677: 676: 675: 656: 638: 628: 625: 586: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 551: 521: 520: 519: 518: 487: 486: 478: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 459: 458: 430: 427: 424: 423: 420: 419: 416: 415: 408:Low-importance 404: 398: 397: 395: 378:the discussion 365: 364: 361:Physics portal 348: 336: 335: 333:Low‑importance 327: 315: 314: 311: 310: 307: 306: 300: 290: 289: 284: 274: 273: 268: 258: 257: 255: 253: 247: 246: 238: 237: 234: 233: 231: 229: 228: 227: 216: 205: 194: 183: 169: 168: 166: 153: 143: 142: 131: 125: 124: 122: 91: 79: 78: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3076: 3065: 3062: 3060: 3057: 3055: 3052: 3050: 3047: 3045: 3042: 3040: 3037: 3035: 3032: 3030: 3027: 3025: 3022: 3020: 3017: 3016: 3014: 3007: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2978:Rolf H Nelson 2975: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2955:doomsday bomb 2949:Doomsday Bomb 2948: 2946: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2911: 2910: 2905: 2904: 2899: 2894: 2893: 2889: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2837:63.152.59.249 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2797: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2712:No, it's not. 2710: 2709: 2708: 2706: 2698: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2671: 2670: 2668: 2663: 2662: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2626: 2617: 2609: 2604: 2601: 2598: 2593: 2590: 2586: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2557: 2556: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2540: 2539: 2537: 2530: 2529: 2523: 2519: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2495: 2492: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2463: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2448: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2439: 2437: 2431: 2429: 2425: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2370: 2364: 2361: 2360: 2357: 2353: 2348: 2345: 2344: 2342: 2339: 2336: 2333: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2217: 2212: 2211: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2184: 2181: 2174: 2171: 2166: 2162: 2161: 2159: 2158: 2155: 2152: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2108: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2089:those counts. 2088: 2084: 2083: 2079: 2076: 2073: 2070: 2067: 2066:radioactivity 2065: 2059: 2058: 2053: 2052: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1992:Rolf H Nelson 1989: 1985: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1964: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1954:98.164.65.148 1949: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1899: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1892: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1730: 1728: 1724: 1722: 1712: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1638:. You'd need 1637: 1632: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1543: 1540: 1534: 1530: 1529: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1508: 1506: 1502: 1491: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1472: 1468: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1377: 1373: 1370: 1369: 1364: 1362: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1349: 1348: 1343: 1341: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1313: 1312: 1308: 1305: 1304: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1287:212.76.37.154 1284: 1279: 1271: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1212: 1210: 1206: 1201: 1198: 1194: 1189: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1175: 1174: 1170: 1164: 1158: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1117: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1091: 1090: 1087: 1079: 1075: 1072: 1068: 1065:redirects to 1064: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1046:87.65.138.108 1043: 1034:Salted Bomb ? 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1016: 1015: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1004: 996: 992: 988: 984: 980: 979: 978: 977: 974: 971: 964: 960: 956: 951: 947: 946: 945: 944: 939: 936: 932: 928: 924: 914: 912: 908: 907: 904: 900: 892: 882: 879: 876: 873: 868: 862: 861: 860: 856: 852: 847: 843: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 829: 826: 823: 820: 815: 808: 804: 800: 799:cobalt oxides 795: 794: 788: 784: 783: 782: 781: 778: 774: 770: 765: 764: 759: 758: 757: 756: 753: 749: 746: 738: 734: 730: 726: 721: 720: 715: 714: 709: 708: 703: 702: 701: 700: 696: 692: 687: 683: 674: 670: 666: 662: 657: 654: 649: 648: 647: 644: 639: 635: 634: 633: 626: 624: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 597: 594: 590: 584: 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 544: 543:neutron bombs 540: 539: 537: 536: 535: 532: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 517: 514: 510: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 502: 498: 494: 491: 484: 483: 482: 476: 470: 467: 463: 462: 461: 460: 457: 454: 450: 446: 445: 444: 443: 440: 434: 428: 413: 409: 403: 400: 399: 396: 379: 375: 371: 370: 362: 356: 351: 349: 346: 342: 341: 337: 331: 328: 325: 321: 304: 296: 292: 291: 288: 280: 276: 275: 272: 264: 260: 259: 256: 254: 249: 248: 243: 239: 232: 230: 217: 214:criterion met 206: 203:criterion met 195: 184: 173: 172: 171: 170: 167: 164: 163: 157: 154: 149: 145: 144: 140: 139:quality scale 136: 130: 127: 126: 123: 106: 102: 98: 97: 92: 89: 85: 84: 80: 73: 69: 65: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 2995: 2952: 2936:173.66.5.216 2932: 2907: 2898:Castle Bravo 2882: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2833: 2798: 2794: 2745: 2716:WP:SENSATION 2711: 2702: 2644: 2624: 2621: 2603: 2592: 2584: 2567:WP:SENSATION 2558: 2535: 2504:WP:SENSATION 2464: 2446: 2440: 2435: 2432: 2428:WP:PROMOTION 2420: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2400:WP:SENSATION 2331: 2305:Hairykrishna 2194:Hairykrishna 2187: 2164: 2133:Hairykrishna 2129: 2086: 2063: 2061: 2046:fast fission 2027: 2009: 1969:98.164.91.12 1965: 1950: 1926: 1904: 1888: 1865: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1780: 1775: 1771: 1733: 1731: 1726: 1720: 1718: 1716: 1686: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1630: 1509: 1504: 1500: 1497: 1469: 1466: 1420: 1381: 1378:Brian Martin 1357: 1356:Changed it. 1336: 1334: 1275: 1231: 1213: 1204: 1202: 1192: 1190: 1176: 1171: 1168: 1149: 1148:, yes. The 1120: 1092: 1083: 1037: 1003:Noclevername 1000: 973:74.12.96.200 967: 940: 918: 909: 896: 841: 792: 791: 747: 744: 742: 688: 684: 679: 652: 630: 598: 595: 591: 588: 558: 553:Please read 496: 492: 489: 488: 480: 448: 435: 432: 407: 367: 160: 134: 94: 40:WikiProjects 2853:Leo Szilard 2173:Leó Szilárd 1923:Cobalt bomb 1838:Cobalt bomb 1480:193.25.0.13 1474:—Preceding 1281:—Preceding 1146:Cobalt bomb 1142:Salted bomb 1127:Cobalt Bomb 1123:Salted Bomb 1109:Salted bomb 1105:Cobalt bomb 1067:cobalt bomb 1063:salted bomb 899:Salted bomb 602:—Preceding 453:Fastfission 429:Censorship? 201:Structure: 135:Start-class 76:Start‑class 3013:Categories 2997:SNAAAAKE!! 2915:loupgarous 2864:The whole 2830:Urban Bias 2816:loupgarous 2801:loupgarous 2777:loupgarous 2733:loupgarous 2683:loupgarous 2649:loupgarous 2618:Taiga test 2585:References 2571:loupgarous 2544:loupgarous 2508:loupgarous 2473:WP:SOAPBOX 2465:Don't know 2452:loupgarous 2424:WP:SOAPBOX 2396:WP:SOAPBOX 2374:loupgarous 2290:loupgarous 2221:loupgarous 2096:loupgarous 1850:completely 1808:loupgarous 1754:loupgarous 1717:Consider: 1691:loupgarous 1604:loupgarous 1449:loupgarous 1403:loupgarous 1317:loupgarous 1256:loupgarous 1020:loupgarous 983:loupgarous 955:loupgarous 851:loupgarous 769:loupgarous 725:loupgarous 665:loupgarous 596:+besieged 563:loupgarous 555:WP:SOAPBOX 490:slaugh·ter 64:Technology 2876:die, too. 2679:V1adis1av 2631:V1adis1av 2522:Chetvorno 2490:Chetvorno 2179:Chetvorno 2150:Chetvorno 2013:Boeing720 1856:"cobalt" 1842:potential 1734:technical 997:Undefined 767:footnote. 493:(slô'ter) 2870:everyone 2699:Status-6 2112:DevSolar 2042:hohlraum 1984:DevSolar 1939:DevSolar 1870:DevSolar 1785:DevSolar 1738:DevSolar 1656:DevSolar 1553:DevSolar 1513:DevSolar 1476:unsigned 1424:Zhieaanm 1417:Gold-197 1387:fnielsen 1283:unsigned 1220:vfrickey 1179:Cornince 1042:unsigned 923:unsigned 752:Sbharris 643:Sbharris 627:Accuracy 616:contribs 608:Besieged 604:unsigned 547:neutrons 513:Shaddack 477:language 466:Shaddack 162:criteria 72:Cold War 68:Weaponry 2485:WP:PSTS 2064:induced 1846:arsenal 1781:nothing 1360:Serendi 1339:Serendi 915:Merged? 748:COMMENT 661:FOGBANK 589:~~MV~~ 550:extent. 531:DV8 2XL 501:DV8 2XL 410:on the 383:Physics 374:Physics 330:Physics 30:C-class 2883:really 2725:Jane's 2471:, not 1854:either 1844:of an 1776:single 1727:single 1687:partly 903:Apyule 36:scale. 2874:you'd 2866:point 2729:SIPRI 2645:Agree 2028:wrong 1917:, or 1915:ICBMs 1862:WP:OR 1538:Xihr 1131:Edd17 1095:Edd17 1086:Edd17 950:memes 878:arris 825:arris 653:bombs 129:Start 3001:talk 2982:talk 2963:talk 2940:talk 2919:talk 2841:talk 2820:talk 2805:talk 2781:talk 2751:talk 2737:talk 2687:talk 2653:talk 2635:talk 2625:60Co 2575:talk 2565:and 2548:talk 2512:talk 2456:talk 2430:. 2378:talk 2309:talk 2294:talk 2225:talk 2198:talk 2137:talk 2116:talk 2100:talk 2087:both 2017:talk 1996:talk 1973:talk 1958:talk 1943:talk 1931:MIRV 1874:talk 1812:talk 1789:talk 1758:talk 1742:talk 1695:talk 1660:talk 1644:that 1640:much 1608:talk 1557:talk 1517:talk 1484:talk 1453:talk 1428:talk 1407:talk 1391:talk 1321:talk 1291:talk 1260:talk 1242:talk 1224:talk 1183:talk 1154:Xihr 1150:bomb 1144:and 1125:and 1113:Xihr 1071:Xihr 1050:talk 1024:talk 987:talk 959:talk 931:talk 855:talk 849:you? 773:talk 729:talk 695:talk 680:--- 669:talk 612:talk 567:talk 2727:or 2559:Yes 2481:RSs 2447:YES 2426:or 1866:has 1834:not 1652:not 1501:are 1367:ous 1346:ous 1238:a5b 1107:to 842:new 439:Kaz 402:Low 3015:: 3003:) 2984:) 2965:) 2942:) 2921:) 2843:) 2822:) 2807:) 2783:) 2753:) 2739:) 2689:) 2655:) 2637:) 2629:-- 2577:) 2569:. 2550:) 2514:) 2458:) 2402:, 2398:, 2380:) 2311:) 2296:) 2227:) 2200:) 2139:) 2118:) 2102:) 2019:) 1998:) 1975:) 1960:) 1945:) 1927:be 1893:. 1876:) 1858:or 1814:) 1791:) 1760:) 1744:) 1697:) 1662:) 1610:) 1559:) 1519:) 1505:is 1486:) 1455:) 1430:) 1409:) 1393:) 1323:) 1293:) 1262:) 1244:) 1226:) 1185:) 1052:) 1026:) 989:) 961:) 933:) 857:) 775:) 731:) 697:) 671:) 618:) 614:• 569:) 449:is 251:/ 70:/ 66:/ 62:: 2999:( 2980:( 2961:( 2938:( 2917:( 2839:( 2818:( 2803:( 2779:( 2749:( 2735:( 2685:( 2651:( 2633:( 2573:( 2546:( 2510:( 2454:( 2376:( 2307:( 2292:( 2223:( 2196:( 2167:" 2163:" 2135:( 2114:( 2098:( 2015:( 1994:( 1982:@ 1971:( 1956:( 1941:( 1872:( 1810:( 1787:( 1756:( 1740:( 1693:( 1658:( 1606:( 1555:( 1515:( 1482:( 1451:( 1426:( 1405:( 1389:( 1319:( 1289:( 1258:( 1240:( 1222:( 1181:( 1056:. 1048:( 1022:( 985:( 957:( 937:. 929:( 875:H 871:B 866:S 853:( 822:H 818:B 813:S 771:( 727:( 693:( 667:( 610:( 565:( 414:. 141:. 107:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index