Davy Crockett - King of the wild frontier?

[dragoner]

The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System(s) was a tactical nuclear recoilless gun (smoothbore) for firing the M-388 nuclear projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

Hrmm ... stats 2-4km range, but: Both recoilless guns proved to have poor accuracy in testing, so the shell's greatest effect would have been its extreme radiation hazard.

The M-388 would produce an almost instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 m).

Ouch.

Never, ever, tell your players about this.

 

[F33D]

Years and years ago I watched a film where one of these was test fired. Pretty scary.

 

[Reynard]

These are the weapons you smuggle to your enemies.

 

[dragoner]

From what I hear, it is best to use them non-LoS, like over a hill.

 

[phavoc]

Traveller nukes are supposed to be "cleaner" than ours. Though I suppose lots depends on the intent and the tech.

 

[heron61]

Traveller nukes are supposed to be "cleaner" than ours. Though I suppose lots depends on the intent and the tech.

It's not the clean in this case as much as the fact that the radius for of dangerous levels of radiation is not all that much smaller than the range of the weapon.

 

[heron61]

Traveller nukes are supposed to be "cleaner" than ours. Though I suppose lots depends on the intent and the tech.

It's not the clean in this case as much as the fact that the radius for of dangerous levels of radiation is not all that much smaller than the range of the weapon.

 

[F33D]

You don't want "clean". You want high rad to kill people. :shock:

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System(s) was a tactical nuclear recoilless gun (smoothbore) for firing the M-388 nuclear projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

Hrmm ... stats 2-4km range, but: Both recoilless guns proved to have poor accuracy in testing, so the shell's greatest effect would have been its extreme radiation hazard.

The M-388 would produce an almost instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 m).

Ouch.

Never, ever, tell your players about this.

I don't think ole Davy had a weapon like that.

 

[phavoc]

"Clean" in that the secondary radiation is kept minimal, but the lethality is still there. Remember how in the 50s and 60s atomic power was slated for everything from planes that used reactors to being used to widen the Panama Canal. The only problem was the spread of irradiated material.

Neutron warheads have a high lethality with a lower amount of secondary radiation. I'm not sure if you could build a totally "clean" nuke, but who knows? They haz jump drives in the future, and fusion power too!

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I think "clean nukes" are called asteroids!

You don't want "clean". You want high rad to kill people. :shock:

Why? Why make what your trying to conquer worthless and uninhabitable? Would Napoleon have wanted to render all of Europe uninhabitable so no one could live there?

I like this picture of Napoleon by the way, is seems to be a portrait or a real man rather than a dignified symbol. If you actually met Napoleon on a bad day, he might look like this.

 

[F33D]

I think "clean nukes" are called asteroids!

You don't want "clean". You want high rad to kill people. :shock:

Why? Why make what your trying to conquer worthless and uninhabitable? Would Napoleon have wanted to render all of Europe uninhabitable so no one could live there?

You've been reading too much unscientific news crap/propaganda. Are Nagasaki & Hiroshima worthless and uninhabitable? It is simply amazing what people ingest without thinking or analyzing...

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I think "clean nukes" are called asteroids!

You don't want "clean". You want high rad to kill people. :shock:

Why? Why make what your trying to conquer worthless and uninhabitable? Would Napoleon have wanted to render all of Europe uninhabitable so no one could live there?

You've been reading too much unscientific news crap/propaganda. Are Nagasaki & Hiroshima worthless and uninhabitable? It is simply amazing what people ingest without thinking or analyzing...

They were small nuclear bombs, the Bikini atoll however where many thermonuclear bombs were tested is still uninhabitable, its entire population had to be evacuated and resettled.

 

[F33D]

Why? Why make what your trying to conquer worthless and uninhabitable?

You've been reading too much unscientific news crap/propaganda. Are Nagasaki & Hiroshima worthless and uninhabitable? It is simply amazing what people ingest without thinking or analyzing...

They were small nuclear bombs,

And these are about the same or smaller. Answer the question and quit obfuscating.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Why? Why make what your trying to conquer worthless and uninhabitable?

You've been reading too much unscientific news crap/propaganda. Are Nagasaki & Hiroshima worthless and uninhabitable? It is simply amazing what people ingest without thinking or analyzing...

They were small nuclear bombs,

And these are about the same or smaller. Answer the question and quit obfuscating.

The Bikini tests contaminated the soil Hiroshima had to be decontaminated before it could be rebuilt and repopulated. Bikini got hit with multiple nukes not just one.

 

[F33D]

Hiroshima had to be decontaminated before it could be rebuilt and repopulated.

Bzzzt! Wrong. Rebuilding was happening by the time Japan surrendered. With NO soil decontamination first. Just ask the GI's who were stationed there after the war.

There's is a box of Rice-a-foni backstage for you. :lol:

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Hiroshima had to be decontaminated before it could be rebuilt and repopulated.

Bzzzt! Wrong. Rebuilding was happening by the time Japan surrendered. With NO soil decontamination first. Just ask the GI's who were stationed there after the war.

There's is a box of Rice-a-foni backstage for you. :lol:

Yeah, perhaps your right, people just suffered a higher incidence of cancer and birth defects afterwards.

The problem with nukes is they only take 30 minutes to reach their targets, and those GI's that got sent there suffered from radioactive contamination, as the authorities who sent them didn't know any better. An asteroid can take from months to years to reach its target, and the closer it gets, the harder it is to deflect. A nuclear exchange requires a lot of snap judgements about who did what, and the decisions must be made before the missiles arrive, this allows for chances of miscalculation. Asteroids have excellent 2nd strike capability, missiles are best for surprise attacks, the missiles are located on the Earth's surface and there is the ever present temptation to strike first in hopes of catching the enemy off guard, with asteroids its different, they are scatter all throughout the solar system, hard to do a pre-emptive strike on those. Also nuclear weapons make a better terrorist weapon than asteroids. One can't smuggle an asteroid into a city in a backpack or a truck, they depend of high velocity and mass to delive a kinetic impact on a city leaving no messy radiation. Isn't it enough just to vaporize people in a fireball, of what military value is there in making people suffer from radiation poisoning rather than just vaporizing them in an explosion. all this stuff about losing hair, and vomiting before you die is of no military value whatsoever.

 

[phavoc]

The big question is how is the nuke detonated? Nagasaki and Hiroshima were air-bursts, and thus do the least amount of radiation contamination in the long term. I believe the Davy Crockett was a contact nuke, which is the 2nd dirtiest version of a nuke. The dirtiest being one that is designed to irradiate as much ground as possible while spreading nuclear material such as uranium or plutonium.

The US sent in teams about 30 days after the bombings and they found relatively low levels of radiation present in the ground. Most of the particulate matter had been carried off by the cloud and distributed over a very large area. But if you happened to survive the blast the damage was already done to your body. Long term studies showed that children born from survivors didn't have the feared genetic defects that some might think they would. Japan could thank thalidomide and mercury for that later on.

We do know we've made some areas of the planet uninhabitable by nuke testing, but usually those nukes were very large, much larger than what we are talking about here. From what I recall reading about Traveller nukes, they are 'clean' in that they emit very low levels of radionuclides and thus don't contaminate the surroundings as much (there's always some contamination).

 

[wbnc]

I believe the Davy Crockett was a contact nuke, which is the 2nd dirtiest version of a nuke.

the warhead was a dual setting type, If I read the article right...It could be set for High, or low detonation.

The Davy Crocket was a desperation weapon at best. Tactically it's only real use would be to break massive assaults by numerically superior forces. It was too short ranged and to inaccurate for use as a super bunker buster.

Honest John missiles, and Atomic Annie howitzers were longer range and fire far more powerful rounds. The Howitzer was a failure since it was heavy and hard to move around to avoid enemy artillery.

the scariest weapon oif this type..Is the 155mm Nuclear shell..it is small accurate, and can be fired from a mobile gun system which can fire and move to avoid enemy return fire.

 

[F33D]

The Davy Crocket was a desperation weapon at best. Tactically it's only real use would be to break massive assaults by numerically superior forces.

That is ALL it was designed for. It's only real use was exactly as was ordered.