The M29 Davy Crockett

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

M29 DAVY CROCKETT WEAPON SYSTEM M64 Recoilless Gun, Part of the M29 Davy Crockett A recoilless gun or rifle is a lightweight weapon that fires a heavier projectile that would be impractical to fire from a recoiling weapon M64 Recoilless Gun on bracket mount Loading 279mm projectile of comparable size. Technically, only devices that use a rifled barrel are recoilless rifles. Smoothbore variants are recoilless guns. M29 Davy Crockett The M29 Davy Crockett is an open-breech, re- coilless, smooth bore, single shot, low-angle fire, Loading propellant charge muzzle-loaded weapon with a 155mm barrel. The M29 Davy Crockett weapon system utilizes projectile, atomic, supercaliber, 279mm, M388. Atomic projectile M388 is a 51 pound, fin-stabi- lized, low-drag projectile which uses a W54-2 Loaded M29 Davy Crockett. The M388 279mm nuclear warhead. atomic projectile is attached to the M2 Loading M2 launching piston/spigot cylinder launching piston/spigot cylinder. Within the M388 projectile is the W54-2 nuclear warhead. Unloaded M29 Davy Crockett {includes the M64 recoilless gun on a bracket mount, plus (1) the gun barrel seated M2 launching piston/spigot cylinder and (2) either of two fixed propellant charges/cartridges, M76 (or M94) "Zone I" or M77 "Zone II", seated in the M64's chamber}. The principal US means of delivering nuclear weapons in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s was with heavy bombers dropping bombs each large enough to devastate an entire city. The accompanying US nuclear deterrent theory was equally straightforward: if the Soviet Union attacked in Europe, massive retalia- tion would destroy all the invader's industrial centers and military bases. In the late 1940s the Soviet armed forces deployed large numbers of divi- sions with plenty of armor, all support- Davey Crockett M388 Nuclear Recoilless Launcher in a modern-day museum. ed by a considerable air force. NATO was outnumbered on the ground, and the subsequent Soviet development The M29 Davy Crockett of its own nuclear weapons canceled American strategic supremacy in & the Era of Battlefield Atomic Weapons that field. In the 1950s, therefore, the US Army decided “tactical” nuclear A Davy Crockett fully deployed. By Timothy J. Kutta weapons would have to be used to defeat the Soviets in the field, in detail, battlefield conditions. That new Each battlegroup (BG) had about he United States committed in the event of war, but by itself it had determined the only way to stop if they invaded NATO territory. organizational scheme was known as 1,500 personnel, and the theory was itself to defending Western added no new divisions to the order of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe They were said to be “tactical” “Pentomic,” due to the fact each of each division’s BG would disperse away T Europe from Soviet attack battle. It wasn’t until the Korean War was via the use of nuclear weapons. in that they would be used against the reorganized infantry and airborne from each other in the event of enemy when, on 4 April 1949, it formed the the US actually expanded its ground Even after the Korean War expansion, advancing enemy forces as opposed divisions contained five “maneuver nuclear attack but re-concentrate North Atlantic Treaty Organization force. Prior to that, Joint War Plan that policy remained officially in to his homeland cities. The army battlegroups.” They replaced the when it was time to counterattack. (NATO). That consolidated US, JSPC-496.1, codenamed “Broiler,” place for much of the Cold War. therefore also began to reorganize former three-regiment structure. Each BG could be reinforced with European and Canadian commands which was issued on 8 November 1947, its divisions to fight under nuclear artillery, reconnaissance, armor and 36 MODERN WAR 15 | JAN–FEB 2015 MODERN WAR 15 | JAN–FEB 2015 37 other attachments, drawn from the destroyed. To give units more depth, had a bore diameter of just over three rod. When the charge was ignited, division or higher echelons as needed therefore, the army had to come up inches and, again, that was too small. it fi red the projectile out to a range on a mission-by-mission basis. That with a tactical nuclear weapon that The weapons experts then of 1.5 miles. Tests on the gun were larger number of maneuver units per was small, light and highly mobile. turned to the trench mortar designs successful, and the army accepted it division (fi ve BG as opposed to three The fi rst challenge was producing of World War I. The resultant new as the “M28 Davy Crockett Weapons regiments) was supposed to provide a small nuclear shell. After much weapon's basic design called for it System.” It was named after the for quicker reaction countering work and many designs, an explosive to fi re a large rod onto which was legendary American frontiersmen who enemy thrusts and exploiting fl eeting nuclear core was developed that fi tted an 82mm mortar round. One was then a cultural icon because of a opportunities. In the event of a was only 10.75 inches in diameter end of the rod was dropped into the popular movie and television series. nuclear strike, not all the dispersed BG and 15.7 inches in length, weighing mortar barrel. The other end, which The M28 system consisted of would be destroyed and the surviving 23 lbs. That warhead would yield extended past the barrel, had the a gun, tripod and projectile with a units would continue operations. a 10 to 20 ton nuclear explosion, round attached. Because only the total weight of about 170 lbs. It was The army next decided to integrate and the shell casing developed for rod had to fi t inside the mortar, the designed to be transported by jeep or artillery units capable of fi ring nuclear it was 31 inches long and 11 inches round could be of a larger size. other small vehicle, though it was also shells into the new divisions. A new (280mm) in diameter. It was said to Using that as a foundation, the man-portable for short distances. 280mm cannon was designed and des- look like a “watermelon with fi ns.” army designed a 120mm recoilless The M388 round was designed to ignated the M-65. It could fi re a Mark 9 The army originally intended to smoothbore gun that could be loaded detonate 20 feet above the ground. The nuclear shell to a maximum range of 19 use a bazooka to deliver the warhead; with either one of two powder charges. resultant explosion would instantly miles; however, the “Atomic Cannon,” however, that weapon was too small to A long 120mm rod was loaded into kill anyone within 150 yards of the as it was known, was also a vulnerable properly fi t the round, and it couldn’t the barrel with the end extended detonation point and seriously wound target. Further, there were only 20 of provide suffi cient range even if it did. slightly past the muzzle. An 11 inch those out to about 700 yards. That the big guns in the entire US arsenal, The next larger weapon was the recoil- diameter M388 nuclear projectile would give any small US ground unit and they could only move (slowly) with less rifl e. The standard 75mm only was then attached to the end of the considerable fi repower, but it also the aid of specially built tractors. The meant the fi ring team would be dan- Soviets considered the Mark 9s prime gerously close to its own blast zone. targets, and planned to take them out US weapons experts therefore in the fi rst strike of any war. Even a decided to increase the range by 17 July 1962. Little Feller well concealed gun might only get off I test of the M29 at the developing a 155mm recoilless a shot or two before it was located and Nevada Test Site was version. That increase allowed for A view of the jeep-mounted version the last atmospheric nuclear detonation by the United States. The M29's 50-pound M54 warhead packed an explosive punch equal to 10 to 20 tons of TNT. Shown here mounted on an M116 armored personnel carrier, the M29 was meant to be fi red from mountings on jeeps or APCs, or from a dismounted tripod. The larger vehicle-mounted version The powerful but slow-to-move atomic cannon. 38 MODERN WAR 15 | JAN–FEB 2015 This three-man crew seems skeptical of the whole idea. The warhead followed the same Of course, the Davy Crockett ended A cover shot of the FM23-30 Davy trajectory as the spotting gun round. up never being employed in combat. Crockett operator's manual. Once the range was determined, By the early 1970s the balance the crew loaded a round and set the of power was again shifting. NATO division-brigade-battalion organiza- yield, which could be 10 or 20 tons of introduced a new generation of tion. With that reorganization the Davy explosive power. That was small for a improved tanks, such as the US M-60, Crockett was withdrawn from Europe nuclear weapon, but powerful when the German Leopard and the British and then from the entire US Army. viewed from the small-unit level. While Chieftain, which could hold their own By 1971 they had all been retired. tests demonstrated the Davy Crockett against large Soviet armored forma- The effectiveness of the system, wasn’t especially accurate, its designers tions. Other non-nuclear weapons, as well as the practicability of the didn’t consider that to be a fl aw given such as helicopter gunships and wire- decision to place nuclear weapons in each warhead’s area of destruction.
Recommended publications
  • What Should Be Done About Tactical Nuclear Weapons?

    What Should Be Done About Tactical Nuclear Weapons?

    THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES What Should Be Done About Tactical Nuclear Weapons? GEORGE LEWIS & ANDREA GABBITAS WITH ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY BY: EDWARD ROWNY & JOHN WOODWORTH OCCASIONAL PAPER What Should Be Done About Tactical Nuclear Weapons? George Lewis & Andrea Gabbitas With Additional Commentary By: Edward Rowny & John Woodworth MARCH 1999 OCCASIONAL PAPER For further information about the Atlantic Council of the United States and/or its Program on International Security, please call (202) 778-4968. Information on Atlantic Council programs and publications is available on the world wide web at http://www.acus.org Requests or comments may be sent to the Atlantic Council via Internet at [email protected] THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES 10TH FLOOR, 910 17TH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 CONTENTS Foreword by David C. Acheson……..…….………………………………………….…iv Executive Summary………………………………………………………………….. vi Problems of Definition……………………………………………………………. 1 History of Tactical Nuclear Weapons……………..……….………….………….... 4 The Current State of Tactical Nuclear Weapons…………………………….…….. 6 United States………..………………………………………………………... 6 Russia………………………………….…………………………………...… 7 Other Countries……………….………………………………………………8 Recent Discussions and Proposals on TNWs……….………………………….…... 8 Synthesis…………………..……………………………………………….…….. 11 Why Keep TNWs?……………………………………………………..…….. 11 Why Limit TNWs?…………………………………………………………….15 Why Now?……...……………………………………………………………17 A Specific Proposal………………………………………………………………..18 Phase 1.……………………………………………………………………21 Phase
  • Heater Element Specifications Bulletin Number 592

    Heater Element Specifications Bulletin Number 592

    Technical Data Heater Element Specifications Bulletin Number 592 Topic Page Description 2 Heater Element Selection Procedure 2 Index to Heater Element Selection Tables 5 Heater Element Selection Tables 6 Additional Resources These documents contain additional information concerning related products from Rockwell Automation. Resource Description Industrial Automation Wiring and Grounding Guidelines, publication 1770-4.1 Provides general guidelines for installing a Rockwell Automation industrial system. Product Certifications website, http://www.ab.com Provides declarations of conformity, certificates, and other certification details. You can view or download publications at http://www.rockwellautomation.com/literature/. To order paper copies of technical documentation, contact your local Allen-Bradley distributor or Rockwell Automation sales representative. For Application on Bulletin 100/500/609/1200 Line Starters Heater Element Specifications Eutectic Alloy Overload Relay Heater Elements Type J — CLASS 10 Type P — CLASS 20 (Bul. 600 ONLY) Type W — CLASS 20 Type WL — CLASS 30 Note: Heater Element Type W/WL does not currently meet the material Type W Heater Elements restrictions related to EU ROHS Description The following is for motors rated for Continuous Duty: For motors with marked service factor of not less than 1.15, or Overload Relay Class Designation motors with a marked temperature rise not over +40 °C United States Industry Standards (NEMA ICS 2 Part 4) designate an (+104 °F), apply application rules 1 through 3. Apply application overload relay by a class number indicating the maximum time in rules 2 and 3 when the temperature difference does not exceed seconds at which it will trip when carrying a current equal to 600 +10 °C (+18 °F).
  • Influencer Poll: Likelihood to Recommend & Support

    Influencer Poll: Likelihood to Recommend & Support

    Wave 56 Influencer Poll Update January 2018 Public Release Influencer Poll: Likelihood to Recommend & Support 1 Likelihood to Recommend and Support Military Service Likelihood to Recommend and Support Military Service 80% 71% 70% 71% 70% 66% 66% 66% 67% 63% 63% 63% 64% 61% 63% 60% 50% 46% 47% 47% 45% 44% 42% 43% 42% 39% 38% 40% 35% 32% 33% 34% 34% 30% 20% 10% Likely to Recommend: % Likely/Very Likely Likely to Support: % Agree/Strongly Agree Yearly Quarterly 0% Jan–Mar 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Likely to Recommend Military Service Likely to Support Decision to Join § Influencers’ likelihood to support the decision to join the Military increased significantly from 67% in 2015 to 70% in 2016. § However, Influencers’ likelihood to support the decision to join the Military remained stable in January–March 2017. = Significantly change from previous poll Source: Military Ad Tracking Study (Influencer Market) Wave 56 2 Questions: q1a–c: “Suppose [relation] came to you for advice about various post-high school options. How likely is it that you would recommend joining a Military Service such as the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard?” q2ff: “If [relation] told me they were planning to join the Military, I would support their decision.” Likelihood to Recommend Military Service By Influencer Type Likelihood to Recommend Military Service 80% 70% 63% 59% 59% 60% 58% 60% 57% 56% 57% 55% 54% 53% 48% 55% 50% 54% 47% 52% 51% 44% 51% 47% 42% 42% 42% 49% 41% 43% 42% 45% 45% 46% 40% 42% 37% 41% 39% 41% 38% 38% 38% 37% 37% 39% 34% 35% 34% 30% 33% 33% 32% 33% 32% 31% 32% 31% 31% 31% 32% 20% 25% 25% 24% 31% 29% 10% % Likely/Very Likely Yearly Quarterly 0% Jan–Mar 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Fathers Mothers Grandparents Other Influencers § Influencers’ likelihood to recommend military service remained stable in January–March 2017 for all influencer groups.
  • Sgs01fenstermacher.Pdf

    Sgs01fenstermacher.Pdf

    - ! ,:. Sciena & Global Security, 1990, Volume I, ppo187-223 Pbotooopying permitt£d by license only Reprints available directly from the publisher C>1990 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers SoA. Printed in the United States of America The Effects of Nuclear Test-ban Regimes on Th ird -generation-wea pon I n novation Dan L. Fenstermache~ The primary reason that we are pursuing nuclear directed energy weapons is to understand the Soviets' capability to design and deploy similar weapons,which would put the US strategic deterrent force or a future defensivesystem at risk. Former US Energy Secretary John S. Herrington' It is by no means certain that a Comprehensive Test Ban would prevent the Soviets from developing a new generation of nuclear weapons, although that would assuredly be the effect of a total testing ban on the US. Former Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Donald Kerrt Under the rationale of assessing potential Soviet threats, several third-generation- weapon concepts are being actively studied in the US. This paper presents a technical analysis of the physical principles and likely capabilities of three nuclear directed-energy concepts (x-my lasers, nuclear kinetic-energy weapons, and micro- wave devices) and describes the implications for their development of threshold test bans at thresholds above and below 1 kiloton, Inertial Confinement Fusion, special- ized non-nuclear weapon effects simulation, and seismically quiet containment a. Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. Princeton University. Princeton. NJ 08544 Some of ftJ/s research was undertaken while on feUol,I,Shlpat ftJe Center for Science and International Affairs. Kennedy School of Government.
  • The Weird Nukes of Yesteryear

    The Weird Nukes of Yesteryear

    The Cold War produced some oddball weapons. Here are three of them. The “Davy Crockett,” shown here mounted on a tripod at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, was the smallest nuclear warhead ever developed by the US. The Weird Nukes DOD photo end of a series of thermonuclear bombs initiated in 1950. This followed the Soviet detonation of an atomic bomb of Yesteryear in 1949, several years before Western By Norman Polmar and Robert S. Norris intelligence agencies expected such an event. y the time the Cold War reached some concern about whether they could It was the era of “bigger is better.” its height in the late 1960s, the be carried in aircraft, due to size. The The zenith of “big bombs” would be American nuclear arsenal had “Little Boy” dropped on Hiroshima seen on Oct. 30, 1961, when the Soviet grown to more than 31,000 tipped the scales at 9,700 pounds, and Union detonated (at Novaya Zemlya in Bweapons. The Army, Navy, Air Force, the “Fat Man” dropped on Nagasaki the Arctic) a thermonuclear bomb that and even the Marine Corps worked weighed 10,300 pounds. The immediate produced an explosion equivalent to to acquire weapons for the “nuclear follow-on bombs were about the same 58 megatons—the largest man-made battlefield,” whether in the air, on the size or smaller. explosion ever achieved. Soviet Premier ground, on water, or underwater. However, the development of ther- Nikita Khrushchev would later write Three of the more unusual—and in monuclear or hydrogen bombs led to in his memoirs: “It was colossal, just the end impractical—of these weapons much larger weapons, with the largest incredible! Our experts later explained were the enormous Mk 17 hydrogen US nuclear weapon being the Mk 17 to me that if you took into account the bomb, the Navy’s drone anti-submarine hydrogen bomb.
  • Report- Non Strategic Nuclear Weapons

    Report- Non Strategic Nuclear Weapons

    Federation of American Scientists Special Report No 3 May 2012 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons By HANS M. KRISTENSEN 1 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons May 2012 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons By HANS M. KRISTENSEN Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org 2 Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons May 2012 Acknowledgments e following people provided valuable input and edits: Katie Colten, Mary-Kate Cunningham, Robert Nurick, Stephen Pifer, Nathan Pollard, and other reviewers who wish to remain anonymous. is report was made possible by generous support from the Ploughshares Fund. Analysis of satellite imagery was done with support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Image: personnel of the 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano Air Base in Italy load a B61 nuclear bomb trainer onto a F-16 fighter-bomber (Image: U.S. Air Force). 3 Federation of American Scientists www.FAS.org Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons May 2012 About FAS Founded in 1945 by many of the scientists who built the first atomic bombs, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is devoted to the belief that scientists, engineers, and other technically trained people have the ethical obligation to ensure that the technological fruits of their intellect and labor are applied to the benefit of humankind. e founding mission was to prevent nuclear war. While nuclear security remains a major objective of FAS today, the organization has expanded its critical work to issues at the intersection of science and security. FAS publications are produced to increase the understanding of policymakers, the public, and the press about urgent issues in science and security policy.
  • Strategy in the New Era of Tactical Nuclear Weapons

    Strategy in the New Era of Tactical Nuclear Weapons

    STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLY - PERSPECTIVE Strategy in the New Era of Tactical Nuclear Weapons COL JOSEPH D. BECKER, USA Abstract Post–Cold War strategic discourse, primarily among Russian strate- gists, has challenged the precept that nuclear weapons are not useful tools of warfare or statecraft. To reduce the likelihood that such ideas will ever be tested in practice, the US must openly address hard-case scenarios and develop a coherent strategy sufficient to give adversaries pause. This article posits that the key to successfully deterring the use of tactical nuclear weapons lies not in winning an arms race but in the clear articulation of a purpose and intent that directs all aspects of US policy toward the preven- tion of nuclear war and leaves no exploitable openings for opportunistic challengers. Further, an ideal strategy would be crafted to reduce—not increase—the salience of nuclear weapons in geopolitics. The article con- siders three possible approaches to a strategy for tactical nuclear weapons, but the most desirable and effective will be a “strategy of non-use” based upon credible and well- prepared alternatives to a nuclear response. ***** he end of the Cold War ushered in a new era suggesting the pos- sibility that nuclear weapons could become a relic of the past. Prominent leaders, including US president Barack Obama, cam- paigned vociferously for measures to abolish the world’s nuclear stock- T1 piles. However, instead of moving toward a world of “nuclear zero,” the US and Russia have proceeded with nuclear modernization and capability development, and even China is quietly expanding its nuclear arsenal.
  • Nuclear Weapons Databook, Volume I 3 Stockpile

    Nuclear Weapons Databook, Volume I 3 Stockpile

    3 Stockpile Chapter Three USNuclear Stockpile This section describes the 24 types of warheads cur- enriched uranium (oralloy) as its nuclear fissile material rently in the U.S. nuclear stockpile. As of 1983, the total and is considered volatile and unsafe. As a result, its number of warheads was an estimated 26,000. They are nuclear materials and fuzes are kept separately from the made in a wide variety of configurations with over 50 artillery projectile. The W33 can be used in two differ- different modifications and yields. The smallest war- ent yield configurations and requires the assembly and head is the man-portable nuclear land mine, known as insertion of distinct "pits" (nuclear materials cores) with the "Special Atomic Demolition Munition" (SADM). the amount of materials determining a "low" or '4high'' The SADM weighs only 58.5 pounds and has an explo- yield. sive yield (W54) equivalent to as little as 10 tons of TNT, In contrast, the newest of the nuclear warheads is the The largest yield is found in the 165 ton TITAN I1 mis- W80,5 a thermonuclear warhead built for the long-range sile, which carries a four ton nuclear warhead (W53) Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) and first deployed equal in explosive capability to 9 million tons of TNT, in late 1981. The W80 warhead has a yield equivalent to The nuclear weapons stockpile officially includes 200 kilotons of TNT (more than 20 times greater than the only those nuclear missile reentry vehicles, bombs, artil- W33), weighs about the same as the W33, utilizes the lery projectiles, and atomic demolition munitions that same material (oralloy), and, through improvements in are in "active service."l Active service means those electronics such as fuzing and miniaturization, repre- which are in the custody of the Department of Defense sents close to the limits of technology in building a high and considered "war reserve weapons." Excluded are yield, safe, small warhead.
  • PC Cake Pump

    PC Cake Pump

    PC Cake Pump 60 Hz 1339-00 en Installation, Operating and Maintenance Instructions 310190010011 US 03.2020 310190010011 www.sulzer.com 4 Installation, Operating and Maintenance Instructions (Original Instructions) PC Cake Pump PC Cake Pump Table of contents 1. Installation .............................................................................................................................................6 1.1 Installation and safety recommendations ............................................................................................... 6 1.1.1 General ..................................................................................................................................................6 1.1.2 System design & installation .................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Handling ..................................................................................................................................................6 1.3 Storage and infrequent operation ........................................................................................................... 7 1.3.1 Short term storage ..................................................................................................................................7 1.3.2 Long term storage ...................................................................................................................................7 1.4 Electrical .................................................................................................................................................7
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    Table of Contents Beds 2 Bars 98 Dressers, Night Stands, Chest 47 Bar Stools 99 Wardrobes 54 Accent Chairs 104 Cabinets, Bookshelves 64 Ottomans 107 Computer Desks 69 Recliners 115 Office Chairs 74 Sofa Sets 116 TV Stands 84 Futons 118 Coffee Tables 90 Kitchen 122 Dinettes 94 Accessories 131 WWW.HODEDAH.COM 1 Ivory Bronze Black • Metal Day Bed HIDB707 • H46.3” W78” D40.5” • Available in Black, Bronze & Ivory WWW.HODEDAH.COM 2 Bronze Black IvoryIvory • Metal Day Bed • H38” W78” D40.5” HIDB808 • Available in Black, Bronze & Ivory WWW.HODEDAH.COM 3 • Metal Day Bed HIDB909 • H37.4” W78” D40.5” • Available in Charcoal, Silver, Black & Ivory Ivory WWW.HODEDAH.COM 4 • Metal Bed Finished in Metallic Silver HI905 • Twin H45.3” W39.5” D78” Silver • Full H45.3” W54.5” D78” • Queen H45.3” W60.5” D83.2” WWW.HODEDAH.COM 5 • Metal Bed Finished in Metallic Charcoal HI910 • Twin H39.4” W39.5” D78” Charcoal • Full H39.4” W54.52” D78” • Queen 39.4” W60.5” D83.2” WWW.HODEDAH.COM 6 • Metal Bed Finished in White HI910 • Twin H39.4” W39.5” D78” White • Full H39.4” W54.52” D78” • Queen 39.4” W60.5” D83.2” WWW.HODEDAH.COM 7 • Metal Bed Finished in Metallic Bronze HI915 • Twin H43.3” W39.5” D78” Bronze • Full H43.3” W54.5” D78” • Queen H43.3” W60.5” D83.2” WWW.HODEDAH.COM 8 • Metal Bed Finished in Metallic Charcoal HI920 • Twin H43.3” W39.5” D78” Charcoal • Full H43.3” W54.5” D78” • Queen H43.3” W60.5” D83.2” WWW.HODEDAH.COM 9 • Metal Bed Finished in Metallic Charcoal HI925 • Twin H39.4” W39.8” D78.7” Charcoal • Full H39.4” W55” D78.7” • Queen H39.4” W60.9” D83.9”
  • 8:10 PM 5/31/2018 Page 1 Iowa Senior Games - 6/10/2018 Meet Program

    8:10 PM 5/31/2018 Page 1 Iowa Senior Games - 6/10/2018 Meet Program

    Iowa Sports Foundation-WinterIASrGames - Organization License HY-TEK's MM 7.0 - 8:10 PM 5/31/2018 Page 1 Iowa Senior Games - 6/10/2018 Meet Program Heat 3 of 3 Finals Event 1 Mixed 50-99 500 Yard Freestyle 1 Brown, David M72 IADSM Lane Name Age Team Seed Time 2 Utsinger, Don M71 IAURB Heat 1 of 3 Finals 3 Rullan, Ruben M77 IAURB 1 Kealy, Tom M62 IACR 4 Monroe SR, Thomas M78 AZGLD 2 Touchton, Keith M62 IAWDM 5 Maggert, Ivan M78 NELCN 3 Clark, David M61 IABON 6 Johnson, Ruth W85 IADAV 4 Phelps, Robert M61 IACR 5 Kealy, Daniel M60 IADSM Event 4 Mixed 50-99 100 Yard Backstroke Heat 2 of 3 Finals Lane Name Age Team Seed Time 1 Smith, Elizabeth W66 IADSM Heat 1 of 4 Finals 2 Hauber, Cindy W65 IAAME 1 Barger, Joe M52 IACR 3 Burch, Joyce W63 IAPEL 2 Kealy, Daniel M60 IADSM 4 Carr, Theresa W63 IAOTT 3 Happel, Diane W54 IAFTD 5 Kealy, Ann W59 IAMAR 4 Dingeman, Jean W54 IAPEL 6 Dingeman, Jean W54 IAPEL 5 Kealy, Ann W59 IAMAR Heat 3 of 3 Finals Heat 2 of 4 Finals 1 Johnson, Ruth W85 IADAV 1 Kealy, Diane W61 WIHAR 2 Smith, Pat W71 IACR 2 Botts, Dannette W60 IANEW 3 Larsen, Barbara W71 MNROC 3 Burch, Joyce W63 IAPEL 4 Rullan, Ruben M77 IAURB 4 Smith, Elizabeth W66 IADSM 5 Maggert, Ivan M78 NELCN 5 Loring, Karen W68 AZSCW 6 Hauber, Cindy W65 IAAME Event 2 Mixed 50-99 200 Yard IM Heat 3 of 4 Finals Lane Name Age Team Seed Time 1 Smith, Ronald M74 IAWDM Heat 1 of 2 Finals 2 Utsinger, Don M71 IAURB 1 Happel, Diane W54 IAFTD 3 Schenck, Alan M72 IACLR 2 Fisk, Debbie W61 IAWAU 4 Brown, David M72 IADSM 3 Burke, John M57 IAPEL 5 Bower, Norm M65 IADAV 4 Wells,
  • 1. Nuclear Weapons

    1. Nuclear Weapons

    1. Nuclear weapons Prepared by the Nuclear Weapons Databook staff, Washington, DC' I. Introduction It is difficult to characterize 1989. It was a year during which the entire foundation of the cold war seemed to crumble and the most fundamental assumptions about East-West relations and military strategy required a complete reappraisal. Even a narrow assessment of the nuclear weapon developments of 1989 must take into account the extraordinary political changes in Eastern Europe, the overwhelming economic and political pressures to reduce military expenditure and forces, and the unprecedented level of co-operation between the USA and the USSR. It appears that these developments may permit a fundamental change in the nuclear postures and practices of the nuclear weapon states. Against this backdrop, future historians may see 1989 as the year in which the post-World War IT era ended and a new era began. Even without this new situation the defence budgets of the five nuclear weapon nations in general and the budgets for nuclear weapons in particular are becoming severely constrained. For the fifth year in a row the US military budget declined, as measured in constant dollars. The Soviet Government stated, and the US Government apparently agrees, that Soviet military spending was less in 1989 than it was in 1988. France is now feel- ing the effect of its economic constraints, especially visible in the nuclear weapon programme. Nevertheless, nuclear weapon modernization continued in all five of the acknowledged nuclear weapon states: the USA, the USSR, the UK, France and China. In the USA there was a decrease in the strategic arsenal because of bomb and submarine retirements.