Money Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 i know this topic doesnt to this area of the forum but im pretty sure you guys can answer it specifically what is a "hybrid tactical nuclear weapon" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fattyjwoods Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 check on google ithink hitler tested one and made a couple more. its some kind of atomic bomb that is small. german scientists successfully made a couple suring the last days of the war thinking he could blow up london and change the tide. the germans had an atomic reactor in berlin. the Germans had as a "hybrid tactical nuclear weapon" much smaller than those dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. check out these sites http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=hybrid+tactical+nuclear+weapon&meta= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grifter Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 well, any tactical weapon is designed for use in a war, as oppose to a deterrent.. and hybrid implies that it is modified, and in someway combined with another device; so, a "hybrid tactical nuclear weapon" would imply a "nuclear class" modified weapon for use in combat situations it may be referring to the fission-fusion-fission bomb, which combines (as the name suggests)fusion and fission devices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 i was thinking radiological bomb where there would be forced fission but just a fizzle. the explosives make the bang and the uranium makes a lot of radioactive isotopes but doesn't really contribute much to the explosive power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foodchain Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 For instance the military has missiles, around say a 2,000 lb payload size used for busting bunkers, in this case you would have that save for it would be nuclear. I don’t know if that exists, buts its a perfect example of what you are looking for really. The difference being the missile is designed typically to get so much penetration into a substance for instance before detonation. SO they would take that technology and basically attach to it a nuclear warhead over whatever other compound for instance that was being used for the explosive. I personally do not understand that idea as the introduction of nuclear weapons in a war zone basically assumes the automatic reply of such by the other side or sides really. I think another reason for the advance of such technology is for the application of nuclear weapons at a smaller scale overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now