What do you think of Personal Nuclear Devices

2014-01-30T23:54:54-05:00

Nuclear Backpacks: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548830/How-American-troops-planned-stop-Soviet-invasion-nukes-strapped-back.html<br><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/30/article-2548830-1B1696F700000578-383_1024x615_large.jpg"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548830/How-American-troops-planned-stop-Soviet-invasion-nukes-strapped-back.html">How troops planned to stop Soviets with nukes strapped to their back</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">At the height of the Cold War the U.S. planned to send in troops wearing 58lb nuclear warheads strapped to their backs to prevent a Soviet invasion.</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 31 at 2014 12:00 AM

2014-01-31T00:00:29-05:00

This is very scary indeed. At one point the USSR had 50,000 nukes and at our own peak we had like 40,000. That is scary right there.

Response by CPO Jon Campbell made Feb 11 at 2014 2:47 PM

2014-02-11T14:47:56-05:00

This is a picture of my father-in-law taken in the opening days of Vietnam. The Davy Crocket tactical nuclear weapon shown mounted on the back of the Jeep would have been lethal to the crew that fired it and to anyone in a radius of about a mile. JFK saw these in Germany and was so disturbed by them that he ordered the removal of them from the US arsenal. It took years to get rid of them, but fortunately, one was never fired except in tests.<div>The Davy Crocket weapon required an expendable 3 man crew, so it wasn't a personal nuclear device, although those 3 guys might disagree. </div><div>This type of weapon is not that much different from a suicide vest as far as the moral issue is concerned. Knowing that you will die when you trigger the device requires a special type of dedication and belief system that can rationalize the personal cost and the morality of the cause. </div>

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2014 3:00 PM

2014-02-11T15:00:18-05:00

I think this may be our greatest fear now. Any nuclear capable nation could potentially develop and use these and it is the reason that anti-proliferation efforts by the UN are so important.

Response by LtCol David Gran made Feb 11 at 2014 3:18 PM

2014-02-11T15:18:54-05:00

This is one piece of gear that I wish technology didn't help it get smaller and lighter.  Hopefully there are not too many missing gear statements on them :-)

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Feb 11 at 2014 3:35 PM

2014-02-11T15:35:25-05:00

I think I'm going to start being a lot nicer to nerds. Like SUPER nice.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2014 6:28 PM

2014-02-11T18:28:27-05:00

<div>Gentlemen,</div><div><br></div>The Davy Crockett contained a W54 compact very low yield plutonium implosion type device to be launched from either a 120-millimeter (XM-28) or 155-millimeter (XM-29) recoilless rifle. It had a range of 1.24 miles (120 millimeter) to 2.49 miles (155 millimeter). The SADM contains a minor variant of the W54 tactical nuclear warhead.<div><br></div><div>As proven in field trials, with proper planning the crews detonating these devices could be protected.  However, when deployed in the Korean conflict to interdict troops coming south through the mountain passes, southerly winds definitely concerned enlisted men assigned to these crew served devices.  However, security was provided by a simple combination lock.<div><br></div><div>Some parties, including President Kennedy, felt the design of these devices intended to be transported, secured, and launched by enlisted personnel represented a serious breach of the doctrine of positive control over nuclear weapons by the national command authority.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Still, from a nursing perspective, we took an awful risk deploying personal nuclear devices.</div><div><br></div><div><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Tahoma; color: #444444">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54</p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Tahoma; color: #444444">http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=570</p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Tahoma; color: #444444">http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html<br></p><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Tahoma; color: #444444"><br></p></div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Home.gif"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html">List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">Principal Sources:Swords of Armageddon by Chuck Hansen, 1995U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History by Chuck Hansen, 1988Nuclear Weapons Databook: U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities by Thomas B. Co...</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Feb 11 at 2014 6:54 PM

2014-02-11T18:54:29-05:00

With GPS technology, we could program low yield devices to not detonate within a certain proximity of friendly forces.<br><br>Personally, I think a 25 or 40mm anti-tank munition would be damn sexy.<br>

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Feb 11 at 2014 7:31 PM

2014-02-11T19:31:32-05:00

If this is some thing that interests you, check out the book Codename Copperhead by SGM Garner. He was the first guy to jump a SADM. He did not know what he was jumping and blew all the laces out of his boots when he hit the ground. Apparently it was "man portable" in the cosmic sense. http://www.amazon.com/Code-Name-Copperhead-Joe-Garner/dp/ [login to see] <div><br></div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/gno/beacon/BeaconSprite-US-01-fw._V355247711_.png"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Code-Name-Copperhead-Joe-Garner/dp/ [login to see] ">Code Name: Copperhead: Joe R. Garner: [login to see] 354: Amazon.com: Books</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">Code Name: Copperhead [Joe R. Garner] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The top-secret missions of a Special Forces veteran are revealed for the first time in this memoir of perilou...</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2014 8:13 PM

2014-02-11T20:13:03-05:00

You guys didn't get one of these in your initial issue?  You know they're going to ask for it back when you separate....

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2014 10:01 PM

2014-02-11T22:01:49-05:00

<p>The biggest problem with entertaining the idea of 'small' tactical nukes - is that it would not stay at that level.  Escalation from its use on either side of the conflict would most likely lead us down the road that no one in their right mind wants to travel.  Also, if you look at some of this issues we've had with our own nukes through the years - I don't think having smaller ones that are even easier to 'misplace' is such a good thing to comtemplate.  </p><p>Our long time 'cold war' nemesis has had got a lot of trouble just keeping track of their big stuff and the items to make them.  The 'genie' needs to be kept where it belongs - under constant surveillance and locked down.  Having small nukes around will create a nightmare that is better left to sfi-fi writers then for us to actually experience.</p><p>There are plenty of 'non-nuke' items that work just as well without the mess or ramifications from its use.</p><p>Back in the cold war times - if our tactical nukes were going to be over run - they would fire them at the attackers (so they could'nt be used against us).  This would have started the escalation of nuclear exchange on both sides and spill over to other countries that had nukes that were going to be affected would have launched theirs as well - it's just a very bad scenario that should never came off the drawing boards.</p><p>Fast forward to todays situation with all of the different factions trying to via for their right to push their political/religious points of view on anyone that does not entertain them and you have a recipe for extreme disaster on a global scale. </p>

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2014 2:22 AM

2014-02-12T02:22:49-05:00

My cousin nearly died when a nuke exploded.   A Titan II missile.   They made a movie about it and 60 Minutes came (Dan Rather) because SAC was playing politics.    Mike is a good man and a very sharp NCO.   He was one of the few that survived but he had severe burns.<br><br>SrA Livingston died and he was a friend of mine for a few years.   Nukes are terrible in what they can do and they can cause incidents.   We took toxic corridors to alert the civilian population to potential leaks.<br><br>I even remember the day when I felt what felt like an earthquake.   A 700 ton concrete cover was broken up into pieces,   some as large as one ton.<br>

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Feb 14 at 2014 12:17 PM

2014-02-14T12:17:41-05:00

<span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: 16 [login to see] 334px;">I think everyone should be able to carry an "unlicensed nuclear</span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: 16 [login to see] 334px;"> accelerator on his back." - Ghostbusters, 1984</span><br>

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Feb 14 at 2014 12:36 PM

2014-02-14T12:36:17-05:00

Paratroopers toe the line on this one.  I am out because I'm a leg.  lol