![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... In article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: It has been quite a few years since I sat through the very basic lectures we received on the SADM (being in the very last EOBC class to go through that phase), but IIRC the PAL was set up such that failure to input the proper code would result in the device inerting itself. From my recollection of open sources, the inerting was of the arming mechanism, not the actual nuclear components. In other words, to use it, you'd have to build and reinstall at least an entirely new arming and firing system, but the physics package was intact. In contrast, some later PALs were supposed to damage the nuclear components to a point that they would only be useful as (possibly contaminated) raw materials. One example cited was that a neutron-absorbing safety wire or rod, normally retracted from the inside of the hollow pit during the firing process, could be broken off inside the pit if the PAL decided there was an unauthorized firing attempt. I don't know. This has gotten way beyond my actual knowledge, which was limited to what little they taught us during that couple of days at the ADM training site, and what little I have read in open sources since then (which you have totake with a grain of salt, since a couple of the leading sources could not even agree on the critter's actual weight with and without its casing). They did not get very specific with the PAL details, as we had no need to know them, other than to mention that it would render the device unusable if the code was improperly input (I would presume it gave you X attempts to get it right). Heck, even the calculations we ran for the depth of placment were all based upon theoretical/assumed yields--they did not give out the actual yields except as a rather wide range within which the actual values fell. The last overseas ADM company drew down while I was still on active duty, IIRC, quickly followed by the last ADM company army-wide (which was located at FT Hood, again IIRC). My last active duty company CO had been assigned to the one in Italy--he never provided any details, either (understandably) other than to say that the biggest thing he as a lieutenant did was repetitive inspections and inventories of the weapons they had custody of (SADM and MADM). Brooks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|