According to one weapons designer the only safe way to use it was to fire from a hilltop into a valley from a jeep and then drive like hell into the next valley.

If you are within 150m you will receive an instantly lethal dose. Within 400m you will receive up to 600 rem with is lethal. Even at to 1000m you would likely get enough radiation to interfere with your warfighting capacity.


Peter St. John wrote:
War is hell, but I wouldn't call it a "suicide device". The range of the rocket is on the order of 1000 meters, and the effective radius at the target is on the order of 100 m. You wouldn't want to shoot yourself in the foot with one of these, you'd take out your own batallion, but you are aiming at a valley or a hillside, not an oncoming tank.
Peter

On 6/19/08, *Mike Davis* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:

    To continue to be OT. Look up the Davey Crockett.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29>



    It is a weapon meant exclusively for battlefield use. It is also
    almost a suicide weapon.





    Kilian CAVALOTTI wrote:

        On Thursday 19 June 2008 06:58:44 am Robert G. Brown wrote:
            Getting too big
            or two small an explosion can either kill your own troops
            or not kill
            all of the enemy on an actual battlefield.

        To add some more OT stuff to this thread, I don't think a
        nuclear weapon has ever been used (or even considered being
        used) to kill troops on a battlefield. Some cluster bombs
        (hey, back on topic! :)) are probably enough for this purpose.

        IMHO, a nuclear weapon is mainly a dissuasion weapon, ie, one
        you claim you own to make your ennemies think twice before
        they strike you. Or that you use against civilians to make
        your point louder, and let your ennemies understand they'd
        better surrender.

        That's why I find the association between "nuclear weapon" and
        "battlefield" a bit irrelevant.

        Other than that, pretty interesting stuff. I'm unfortunately
        supporting your conclusions.

        Cheers,

    _______________________________________________
    Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org <mailto:Beowulf@beowulf.org>
    To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
    http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf



_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit 
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf

Reply via email to