RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Trump May Have Ended Nork's Nukes Program - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Trump May Have Ended Nork's Nukes Program Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • 1.4% Neanderthal
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 47,065
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 02:29 AM

Trump May Have Ended Nork's Nukes Program

Don Surber
Saturday, December 02, 2017

Excerpt:

On October 10, an earthquake struck North Korea's underground nuclear program, killing 200 workers.

Today, another earthquake struck.

Evidence shows that this may be the result of the Rods from God program -- a tungsten rod fired to Earth from space.

'Tis an Air Force weapon. The technology goes back half a century to Vietnam. Steel rods were fired from airplanes into the jungle below.

From Business Insider:

The idea is like shooting bullets at a target, except instead of losing velocity as it travels, the projectile is gaining velocity and energy that will be expended on impact. They were shotgunning a large swath of jungle, raining bullet-size death at high speeds.

That's how Project Thor came to be.

Instead of hundreds of small projectiles from a few thousand feet, Thor used a large projectile from a few thousand miles above the Earth. The "rods from god" idea was a bundle of telephone-pole-size (20 feet long, 1 foot in diameter) tungsten rods, dropped from orbit, reaching a speed of up to 10 times the speed of sound.

Why tungsten? That's what we use to make the coils in incandescent lamps. The element can withstand the heat. It melts at 6192 F, steel at 2500 F.

From Task and Purpose:

In 2013, the U.S. Air Force 846th Test Squadron and civilian researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory successfully test-fired a kinetic energy projectile, a tungsten-rich shell moving at 3,500 feet-per-second more than three times faster than the speed of sound on a specialized track at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. More recently, the Pentagon has tested the Navy electromagnetic rail guns hypervelocity projectiles with the help of conventional U.S. Army howitzers; the Navy hopes the completed cannon will be able to launch shells at up to 4,500 mph, six times the speed of sound.

So we have that weapon.

And while it could not cause an earthquake per se, it could do such damage.

Business Insider estimated the cost per rod at $230 million -- or what 230 cruise missiles would cost.

Would we? Oh hell yeah.

*snip*

Full Story
0

#2 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 35,809
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 03:33 AM

So according to the blog its either the fictional rods from God, a rail gun which is in the earliest stages of testing, or they did it themselves?

My money's on Dick Cheney's weather machine
0

#3 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 24,722
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 06:15 AM

Tesla weapon.
0

#4 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,772
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 03 December 2017 - 09:58 AM

"From AIRPLANES"...."a few THOUSAND MILES above the Earth" ....

And, hitting the target how? Heats up to thousands of Fahrenheit .... what electronic guidance system was used?

Based on those alone, not buying it yet.

This post has been edited by zurg: 03 December 2017 - 09:59 AM

0

#5 User is offline   firecoco 

  • Yes! We! Can!
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 14,518
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 10:10 AM

View Postzurg, on 03 December 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

"From AIRPLANES"...."a few THOUSAND MILES above the Earth" ....

And, hitting the target how? Heats up to thousands of Fahrenheit .... what electronic guidance system was used?

Based on those alone, not buying it yet.

I think I saw Slim Pickens riding one a few years ago
0

#6 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 24,722
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 10:16 AM

View Postzurg, on 03 December 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

"From AIRPLANES"...."a few THOUSAND MILES above the Earth" ....

And, hitting the target how? Heats up to thousands of Fahrenheit .... what electronic guidance system was used?

Based on those alone, not buying it yet.

They have them on military satellites a few hundred miles up.

The writer is wrong. The "Rod from God" is not fired from a Navy rail gun or an airplane.



Any "new" weapon that we hear about now, the military usually has had it for over 20+ years before the public knows.

Look at the SR-71 for example?

It was built in the late 1950's and we didn't hear about or see one until the the early 1980's.

The F-117 stealth fighter? Etc.?

This post has been edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger: 03 December 2017 - 10:34 AM

0

#7 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,772
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 03 December 2017 - 10:42 AM

View PostRock N, on 03 December 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

They have them on military satellites a few hundred miles up.

The writer is wrong. The "Rod from God" is not fired from a Navy rail gun or an airplane.



Any "new" weapon that we hear about now, the military usually has had it for over 20+ years before the public knows.

Look at the SR-71 for example?

It was built in the late 1950's and we didn't hear about or see one until the the early 1980's.

The F-117 stealth fighter? Etc.?

How much do those rods weigh? How were they launched and put into orbit? What guidance electronics can withstand thousands of degrees on re-entry?

Too many hypotheticals. Maybe there's something but I'm not a believer before some major basic questions can be explained. Like physics.
0

#8 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 24,722
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 11:14 AM

View Postzurg, on 03 December 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:

How much do those rods weigh? How were they launched and put into orbit? What guidance electronics can withstand thousands of degrees on re-entry?

Too many hypotheticals. Maybe there's something but I'm not a believer before some major basic questions can be explained. Like physics.

I'm not sure about the guidance system, but there are ways around the heat issue and the guidance system would be in the rear of the rod (fins or gyroscope) behind the hottest point and behind the sonic shockwave (vapor) cone of the nose. This thing would hit with so much force/blast that it wouldn't necessarily have to hit dead on the target to take it out? It could miss by a mile and still be effective.
Or it could have spiraled fins to make it spin like a rifle bullet to make it steer straight with centrifugal force? And the targeting computer aims it before release and compensates for crosswinds and the Earth's rotation?

They were likely put into space by the numerous space shuttle missions that were said to be carrying "military payloads".

This post has been edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger: 03 December 2017 - 12:46 PM

0

#9 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 10,565
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 03 December 2017 - 11:37 AM

View Postfirecoco, on 03 December 2017 - 10:10 AM, said:

I think I saw Slim Pickens riding one a few years ago

Hey, what about Major Kong?

View PostRock N, on 03 December 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

They have them on military satellites a few hundred miles up.

The writer is wrong. The "Rod from God" is not fired from a Navy rail gun or an airplane.



Any "new" weapon that we hear about now, the military usually has had it for over 20+ years before the public knows.

Look at the SR-71 for example?

It was built in the late 1950's and we didn't hear about or see one until the the early 1980's.

The F-117 stealth fighter? Etc.?

The SR-71s existence was announced by LBJ in '64, much to the chagrin of the CIA and AF.
0

#10 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 24,722
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 12:53 PM

View PostSeverian, on 03 December 2017 - 11:37 AM, said:

Hey, what about Major Kong?


The SR-71s existence was announced by LBJ in '64, much to the chagrin of the CIA and AF.

It was the A12 before it was the SR-71.

As I remember, we never got to even see a picture of it until around 1980 when the Air Force used pictures of it in recruitment ads.

I wasn't aware that LBJ had squealed to the public about it's existence?

This post has been edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger: 03 December 2017 - 12:56 PM

0

#11 User is offline   Novaprime 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 714
  • Joined: 28-July 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 01:49 PM

View PostRock N, on 03 December 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

It was the A12 before it was the SR-71.

As I remember, we never got to even see a picture of it until around 1980 when the Air Force used pictures of it in recruitment ads.

I wasn't aware that LBJ had squealed to the public about it's existence?

I've always 'liked', not expressive enough, the SR-71 or more appropriate RS-71 (Johnson misnamed it when he announced it's existence so it was renamed so as to not embarrass the President). I had a model of one from the mid-late 70's, read books on it dating back to the 60's and saw one take off while on guard duty in Germany in the 80's, it was awesome btw. The mystique of the SR-71 was more in line with its speed and altitude maximums than its existence. It wasn't a stealth plane, not in the way we use the term now, it was a surveillance platform that used speed and altitude to accomplish its missions.
0

#12 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 10,961
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 03 December 2017 - 02:13 PM

View PostModerator T, on 03 December 2017 - 03:33 AM, said:

So according to the blog its either the fictional rods from God, a rail gun which is in the earliest stages of testing, or they did it themselves?

My money's on Dick Cheney's weather machine

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-m9ioOwX3mxY/URO3tXafomI/AAAAAAAAEks/jXdvZJlrk7M/s1600/inanimate-carbon-rod.jpg
0

#13 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 23,774
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 06:05 PM

View Postzurg, on 03 December 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:

How much do those rods weigh? How were they launched and put into orbit? What guidance electronics can withstand thousands of degrees on re-entry?

Too many hypotheticals. Maybe there's something but I'm not a believer before some major basic questions can be explained. Like physics.


There is no guidance in the telephone pole, just like the EMRG You point and click. So it's Plug and Play technology. Moving at mach 6 aiming is based on trajectory.
0

#14 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,772
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 03 December 2017 - 08:44 PM

View PostTaggart Transcontinental, on 03 December 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

There is no guidance in the telephone pole, just like the EMRG You point and click. So it's Plug and Play technology. Moving at mach 6 aiming is based on trajectory.

Okay. I guess I could buy that.

Let's go back to the physics. How much does it weigh? How was it launched into orbit? How is it shot from the satellite? What happens to the satellite on recoil?
0

#15 User is offline   Buckwheat Jones 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 6,904
  • Joined: 08-May 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 09:31 PM

View PostRock N, on 03 December 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

It was the A12 before it was the SR-71.

As I remember, we never got to even see a picture of it until around 1980 when the Air Force used pictures of it in recruitment ads.

I wasn't aware that LBJ had squealed to the public about it's existence?

I was in kindergarten in 1967 and I had a plastic toy of the thing.
0

#16 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Got Wiener?
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 14,641
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 10:18 PM

View Postzurg, on 03 December 2017 - 08:44 PM, said:

Okay. I guess I could buy that.

Let's go back to the physics. How much does it weigh? How was it launched into orbit? How is it shot from the satellite? What happens to the satellite on recoil?

Delta III/IV/? perhaps? Recall that there's lots of stuff that made/makes its way up besides the Shuttle program. Launch or 'shot' by mere release. Gravity does the work. 32ft/sec/sec for as long as it takes to reach impact. Hypersonic by the time it reaches target. Force = mass x acceleration ... Mass doesn't have to be stupendous to wreak havoc; the acceleration makes up for the mass. All you need is a canister of rods and a precise aim and timer. A good clock and a precise latching mechanism, combined with a ballistics program in the CPU is all you need. As mentioned, the rod must be able to take the temperature of friction generated heat on re-entry.
0

#17 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,772
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 03 December 2017 - 10:28 PM

View PostNoclevermoniker, on 03 December 2017 - 10:18 PM, said:

Delta III/IV/? perhaps? Recall that there's lots of stuff that made/makes its way up besides the Shuttle program. Launch or 'shot' by mere release. Gravity does the work. 32ft/sec/sec for as long as it takes to reach impact. Hypersonic by the time it reaches target. Force = mass x acceleration ... Mass doesn't have to be stupendous to wreak havoc; the acceleration makes up for the mass. All you need is a canister of rods and a precise aim and timer. A good clock and a precise latching mechanism, combined with a ballistics program in the CPU is all you need. As mentioned, the rod must be able to take the temperature of friction generated heat on re-entry.

If you're up where satellites are, then you're in orbit. To get out of orbit, you need an application of force. If you just let go, the rod will continue to orbit.

Also, it won't accelerate until it hits the earth, because of the atmosphere. It'll reach terminal velocity at some point. If we knew some numbers these things could be calculated.

Then the force on impact could also be calculated. I would just want to do a back of the envelope to see if this is even feasible.
0

#18 User is offline   cobalt-blue 

  • Member of the RN Curmudgeon's Brotherhood. Get off my lawn
  • View gallery
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 10,079
  • Joined: 10-July 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 11:04 PM

In my novella, Imperial Entanglements, I pointed out that even with the advanced technology of a starfaring civilization, it's still cheaper and more efficient to hurl heavy objects at a target at high speeds than it is to build energy based weapons. Why build a hand phaser when a 40 caliber bullet will make the enemy just as dead and won't cost nearly as much to produce?
0

#19 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Got Wiener?
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 14,641
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 03 December 2017 - 11:29 PM

View Postzurg, on 03 December 2017 - 10:28 PM, said:

If you're up where satellites are, then you're in orbit. To get out of orbit, you need an application of force. If you just let go, the rod will continue to orbit.

Also, it won't accelerate until it hits the earth, because of the atmosphere. It'll reach terminal velocity at some point. If we knew some numbers these things could be calculated.

Then the force on impact could also be calculated. I would just want to do a back of the envelope to see if this is even feasible.

We're in agreement; we just don't have the numbers in front of us. Let me suggest this and see if it clarifies. We have worked the problem with our ICBMs and their MIRVs. The intricacies of targeting a MIRV and getting it to target intact have been solved. Agreed? Also consider that when we have obsolete satellites we don't want in orbit any longer, they produce a precise jet of energy to drop them out of orbit and into an unsuspecting ocean somewhere. True, near earth orbit is small (micro) gravity, but it's not "no gravity" if I can torture a double negative. All that's needed is release and a gentle nudge and Trump's Javelin is on its way. Just think of a skinny, heavy MIRV that's been parked in orbit for a few years.... and we decide to call it "home". Depending upon the shape of the object, the "terminal velocity" can be pretty high. I cannot recall the terminal speed of a W-80 MIRV, if I've seen one published (>15,000MPH?), but recall that the whole missile defense system boils down to hitting something traveling really, really, really fast.
0

#20 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 35,809
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 04 December 2017 - 01:15 AM

View PostNoclevermoniker, on 03 December 2017 - 11:29 PM, said:

We're in agreement; we just don't have the numbers in front of us. Let me suggest this and see if it clarifies. We have worked the problem with our ICBMs and their MIRVs. The intricacies of targeting a MIRV and getting it to target intact have been solved. Agreed? Also consider that when we have obsolete satellites we don't want in orbit any longer, they produce a precise jet of energy to drop them out of orbit and into an unsuspecting ocean somewhere. True, near earth orbit is small (micro) gravity, but it's not "no gravity" if I can torture a double negative. All that's needed is release and a gentle nudge and Trump's Javelin is on its way. Just think of a skinny, heavy MIRV that's been parked in orbit for a few years.... and we decide to call it "home". Depending upon the shape of the object, the "terminal velocity" can be pretty high. I cannot recall the terminal speed of a W-80 MIRV, if I've seen one published (>15,000MPH?), but recall that the whole missile defense system boils down to hitting something traveling really, really, really fast.



You can probably find accurate-ish numbers online for the proposed "Rods from God" concept to do the math. It also might be worth tossing up on Reddit's /r/theydidthemath if you're into that sort of thing. According to the Wikipedia entry on the proposed Air Force weapon it would hit with the equivalent force of 11.5 tons of TNT which is a lot smaller than the "force of a nuclear weapon" most blogs use to describe the hit. This is based on a 6.1m long and .3m wide cylinder of tungsten weighing about 9 tons falling at mach 10.


This is of course ignoring how inconvenient and wildly expensive such a weapon system would be. Tungsten isn't exactly cheap, and something like 80% of the Earth's tungsten is controlled by China. On top of that you have to find a way to get multiple 9 ton rods into space. If your system is designed to hit multiple countries/locations, you'd probably need multiple systems with multiple rods each, which drives the price up even more as that much materials plus the cost of dozens of orbital launches isn't cheap (a single satellite launch is anywhere from $100 to 260 million dollars). On top of that the aiming/launch system would have to be very advanced as from what I understand, the thing would have little to no guidance once fired/used, so it would all have to be done when fired, and unlike say a nuclear MIRV which needs to be in the general neighborhood, a ballistic bunker busting weapon would need to be very accurate in its hit to do its job. I'm not saying it can't be done, we have figure out some impressive math with weapons before, but it would be pretty complicated.

From what I read, a dramatically cheaper way to do it would be to strap them to ballistic missiles and just launch them up and allow the dart to fall, but I imagine China and Russia wouldn't be too accepting of large rockets being fired in their general direction that could easily be a nuclear attack on them. That said I doubt they'd be thrilled with us deploying the first space based weapon either, so it may not matter either way.
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users