Russian submarine with nuclear warheads headed for the US coast

The Pentagon was unable to account for the spent eight trillion dollars. Now he will not be able to account for the spent nine trillion dollars. That's the whole difference.

 

Ahahaha .... ...The Russians recycle their old weapons for scrap, but the Pentagon prefers to use their old "weapons" as "weapons."
The Marine Corps is pulling parts off of museum planes to keep their F-18s flying.
Only one-third of Army brigades are ready for combat. The Army has now fallen to the smallest level since before World War II, while the top Army general says that the Army would face “high military risk” if it were to fight a serious war.
The Air Force is cannibalizing parts from some F-16’s to keep other F-16’s flying and is pulling parts off museum planes to keep their B-1 bombers flying. And half of Air Force squadrons are not prepared for serious combat.
While the Navy needs about 350 ships, today it only has 273.
Serious crashes of Marine Corps planes and helicopters are nearly double the 10-year average.
The Air Force’s B-52 bombers are an average of 53 years old. Most Americans would not want to drive across the country in a 53-year-old car (see example below), let alone go to combat in a 53-year-old airplane.

 

You just post here to reassure everyone, don't you?

 

The B-52s are being refurbished so they will continue to be a viable platform for delivering cruise missiles:

https://www.aerotechnews.com/blog/2...engines-to-extend-b-52-service-life-to-2050s/

https://newatlas.com/military/rolls-royce-re-engine-us-b-52-bomber-fleet/


And they will be equipped with new nuclear-tipped stealth cruise missiles:

https://www.afnwc.af.mil/News/Artic...s-contract-for-new-long-range-missile-system/


But don't worry. The B-52s won't be alone. We are also building 145 new stealth bombers (which will also be able to carry those new nuclear-tipped stealth cruise missiles):

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...gets-endorsement-from-biden-air-force-nominee

 

That's sounds dodgy, just like the Russian S400's are not to fire
on Israeli jets today when they intrude into Syrian air space. I have
read that this particular 1982 incident in the Bekka Valley was one
of the factors which contributed to the fall of the USSR. Soviet
generals reviewed the wrecked Syrian military assetts and could
not be sure how the missiles were destroyed. If this is how NATO
and the USA will fight a European Russian war then it's not going
to go well.

 

You simply don't understand what you read - because you don't understand what a Fusion bomb aka "hydrogen bomb" is.

Fusion Bombs aka hydrogen bombs create a massive amount of fallout - does not mean the fallout comes from Fusion.

If you have the faintest idea how hydrogen bomb works - you would know that the fallout from a "Fusion Bomb" comes from fission .. not Fusion.

Wrong again.

 

Your claim that the primary reaction does not produce the heat for fusion is simply false. This Fission reaction also provides pressure --

Do you not understand that both pressure and heat are required for fusion .. and if not from fission .. where does the heat for fusion come from?

Wrong again

 

Of course heat from the primary "Fission" is involved .. where do you the heat for Fusion comes from ? "The Universe" - Thats funny.

Were does the website stated that heat from fission is not involved in creating Fusion ? Post where the website states this .. Proof your laughable claim .. one falsehood after another with you ... good grief .. do you not understand what you are reading .. or do you just like to make things up.

Prove that the link I gave you states that the heat from Fission is not involved in creating Fusion in a hydrogen bomb

 

Hallelujah!!!

 

"unable to account for" does not mean what you seem to think it means.

 

Claims - "Fission causes the heat and pressure for Fusion" "Fission also is where the radioactive fallout comes from"

At first I thought you were just changing your story from post to post to avoid being wrong .. but now I am thinking perhaps you really don't understand -- So decided to change tactics - "be nice" which is difficult for me ..as other posters have noticed.

So .. here is how it works. Fission is splitting the atom .. it is the atom being broken up that causes the fallout .. you are breaking up an atom .. and as we all know .. this generates alot of heat .and pressure as we see from Hiroshima .. and a whole lot of fallout.

There was no Fusion going on at Hiroshima .. that was an "Atomic' Bomb .. a Fission bomb.

Fusion is different -- you are combining protons together .. so hydrogen which has one proton . x 2 .. is transformed into helium .. which has 2 protons .. and so on .. the process by which all the elements are made.

This is very difficult because the nucleus of atoms repel each other... so think of little balls that when they hit each other .. they bounce off rather than combining.. and good thing too because we don't want atoms reacting every time they hit each other .. a trilliong events of which are happening right now above your head.

So .. how do we get these protons to fuse ?? .. well .. as the temperature rises .. the speed at which these balls/atoms" hit each other increases... these balls start to hit each other harder and harder - until finally they it each other so hard .. that the fuse together.
In this process matter some matter is destroyed .. and is converted directly into energy E=MC2 pure energy .. with no fallout .. other than the new elements produced .. which are not radioactive

Problem is .. in order to get the balls to move fast enough to fuse .. you need to achieve temperatures close to the sun .. One way to do this is .. An atomic bomb . . which achieves the required temperature.

So in a hydrogen bomb .. which is two bombs in one .. you use the Fission (which is dirty) to achieve the required heat and pressure to generate Fusion .. the Fusion reaction does not generate any fallout in of itself ... it just adds to the energy and disperses the fallout from the fission explosion.

The Fusion reaction generates far more energy (yeild) than the Fission Reaction .. but all of the fallout is coming from the Fission.

Now what were we discussiog prior to going down this monstrously deep rabbit hole ? You were telling me about how the F35 is a deterrent to Russia invading France

 

Your points about the size of the U.S. Army an Navy are valid.

But the Air Force for decades has canniablized some aircraft to keep others flying.

And while the original production age of the B-52 bombers is accurate it is misleading. All the B-52s currently flying today have been heavily rebuilt and upgraded over the years. As an Air Force official said regarding B-52s "If you have an old axe and 30 years later you replace the handle, and 10 years after that you replace the head, how old is your axe really?"

 

1. These are not my points. I have provided links to sources.
2. This is just my opinion - If you have a tomahawk (an ax, not a rocket), you can change the handle or warhead as much as you like, but if you try to resist the machine gun with the tomahawk, you will lose.
If you own a Ford T, you can polish its parts as much as you want, but you can't win 500 Indianapolis miles.
Or am I wrong?

 

1) Links are still largely to opinions.
2) You are wrong. To the second it depends. Remember that a substantial number of the cars in the Indianapolis 500 never even finish the race.

 

What does polishing the parts of a Ford T have to do with winning the 500 .. and it is not wrong .. that doing so will help you win the 500 ... unless "ALL" the cars don't finish .. in which case it still wasn't the polishing that helped you win .. it was the fact that the other cars didn't show up..

 

I can account for some of it. Carriers cost abou 3-4 billion.
The F35 program will ultimately cost over a trillion. There's
all those overseas bases. wages, fuel, new ships coming on
line, that new Virginia class sub cost nearly 3 billion each.
I am not in the military, don't even live in America, but even
I can see the eye watering cost of Pentagon procurements.

 

That's not the point.

For example you do know that the one trillion dollars for the F-35 program often given is for something like FIFTY years?

 

Sure I do.

That I definitely understand.

I know.

I've told you this over and over, with you repeatedly saying that I was wrong to say it.

Except it was you who was wrongly saying that the fallout comes from fusion, not me who was saying it.

No. I am correct.

Yes. I understand.

The secondary produces the heat after the primary has compressed it.

No, I am still correct.

It isn't.

Heat is produced inside the secondary after it has been compressed by the primary.

Already done, but here it is again (and note that my claim is that heat is not provided by the primary):

"Similarly, the secondary doesn’t consist purely of fusion fuel; layered within it is a fission 'spark plug,' consisting of either plutonium-239 or uranium-235. As the primary explosion compresses the fuel from the outside, the spark plug material becomes supercritical and fissions, heating the hydrogen from the inside and facilitating further fusion reactions."

Everything that I've said is true.

My claim is that heat from the primary is not involved. But see above.

 

I have not changed anything.

I fully understand nuclear weapons.

Since the primary does not contribute much to the yield, it does not cause much fallout.

Very little fission means very little fallout.

You left out the last step.

Fusion produces lots and lots of highly energetic neutrons. The fusion fuel is surrounded by uranium, which results in massive amounts of fission when all of those highly energetic neutrons collide with uranium nuclei.

That is where all the fission in a hydrogen bomb comes from.

Or, as that website that you linked to puts it:

"Fusion releases neutrons. These neutrons hit a layer of uranium surrounding the fusion fuel causing atoms in it to fission; this fissioning generally contributes more than half of the weapon's total explosive yield."

The Obama Administration built some nifty new tactical nukes with unprecedented accuracy so they can land direct hits on Russian troops and thus kill them without requiring a large yield.

One feature of these nukes is they have a clean yield and so can eliminate Russian invaders without contaminating the EU with lots of fallout.

 

Our B-52s will be launching brand new stealth cruise missiles well from beyond the range of enemy air defenses. This means that they remain an effective weapon.

If it becomes necessary for our bombers to penetrate enemy air defenses, that is where our 145 new stealth bombers will enter the picture.

 

Quit making up falsehoods -- projecting your failings onto others .. changing your story from one post to the next - now toddle off and troll elsewhere.

 

Ridiculously clueless .. you claimed the heat from fission was not involved in fusion .. what a laugh

You were told that the fallout from a groundburst is large crying
Wrong. If a bomb gets most of its yield from fusion there is very little fallout ..

LOL what a laugh .. hydrogen bombs get most of their yeild from Fusion .. an have big fallout. .. Preposterously false nonsense.

 

I am not a military tech bean counter. I suppose, if they cost about $100 million a piece,
and about $35,000 her hour to fly, and you factor in replacement, future orders, spares,
upgrading, training and the like the program is going to be super expensive. A trillion
dollars is a thousand billion, and over 50 years that's what, 20 billion a year?
One important way the USA overcame the USSR was in spending - the US economy
is much larger. The new Russian Sukhoi 75 Checkmate is comparable I suppose, and
Russians can't seem to afford it - even the current Sukhoi 57 is too expensive to build,
develope or fly.

 

You don't realize I suppose that even if by some miracle the U.S. does build 145 new B-3 stealth bombers that there is ZERO chance that all of them will be available for combat at once? Probably about 80-90 at most.

 

Which is exactly why they ordered 145, and not 80-90. Or even the 50 actually needed to do the job.