The US armed forces: the last people to entrust nukes to

[Matt]

So yeah, pretty much exactly like the LHC then.

-m

[Rikadyn]

If you arm a bomb, then drop it, it goes boom. A Nuclear bomb makes a bigger boom, but that's not the point.

There is a major difference between armed and working.

[Keab42]

It is only by understanding something that we understand the inherent danger in it. Yes some of their actions (not locating lost bombs for instance) are a bit farcical, as other have pointed out it is only through the testing that was carried out that they know that such things are a bad idea.

Look at X-Rays. When they were first invented they were used as a novelty, people willingly exposed themselves to dangerous doses. It was only later that the true danger of them became more widely understood.

[Season's Beatings]

http://scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/2007/06/munitions_dumping_at_sea.php

It gets better. The US has also seasoned all the fish in the sea with mustard. Gas.

[taza]

Also, the chances of said bombs exploding is... remote at best.

In fact, I'd take a guess that a natural nuclear bomb forming and exploding is more likely than those things exploding. MAKING them go boom in the first place is a tricky process, and a hard hit or a lightning strike isn't anywhere close to enough to have a buried-for-decades nuclear bomb explode.

Leaking is a totally different story, however.

[Smeghead]

Remember, when the American's first discovered gamma rays coming from black holes they believed the Russians had a base on the far side of the moon and testing nukes there.

...wait what?... Really?

Well not that surprising of an assumption. The US Military had actual plans of building a base on the moon in the 50s and 60s that would be surrounded by nuclear mines.

It could also be like the microwave videos. Instead of: what food do we nuke now? It is: Where do we nuke now?

Mars. Lets heat that sucker up. Nothing bad could ever come from that.


Well it was just one of the reasons. As mentioned before the whole "using nukes for construction" In the US it was known as Operation Plowshare, where they planned to make a harbor in Alaska using a series of nuclear detonations, but that in turn was more of a reversal for another plan which was to widen the Panama Canal.

Luckily all these plans were scrapped in the 1970s (although apparently there are some who still want to do it) but over 20 tests were conducted, and they all proved that the fallout was to unpredictable and far more widespread then previously thought.

The treaty to stop tests in orbit and the atmosphere was signed in 63, but by then both the Us and the USSR had been testing loads of nukes in orbit since back in 58. The problem I have was the fact of how uncontrollable these tests turned out to be. After test one, they realized that the EMP was far grater then what they had thought and it had damaged a lot of civilian power supply.

Its that the effect of the EMP was so widespread that it was almost impossible to do a test like this without causing damage to the civilian population somewhere, or without destroying satellites that just happen to be too close.
Knowing this from day 1, they still carried on. The fallout wasn't as easy to detect, but the damage it did to power supply for cities was seen instantly.

Its the fact that they apparently accepted that civilians would have to get dragged into the effects of the tests that surprises me, and carried on. Remember this is without the fallout in mind.

[Alja-Markir]

It wasn't all that many years ago that American test bombings in Canada, along with American mandated missile silos, was a rather sore topic to the Canadian people.

Nuclear weapons are an aberration. There is no acceptable defense for them. The excuse for the tests that occured is that of gaining knowledge, but the same knowledge could have been gained over a longer, less politically convenient period of time, with lesser impact on the environment AND on human society as a whole. Except for the Cold War, the men and women responsible for nuclear testing would never have been allowed to conduct them.

The Cold War is over. I've spent most of my life living in its shadow, my society shaped by the outdated thinking and habits that the world grew accustomed to over nearly half a century. I doubt by my dying day its influence will be completely gone. But the dead wars of the past need not haunt us unduly, and it is our duty to ourselves and future generations to exorcize these spectres to the best of our ability, that we might one day truly be free of them.

~Alja~

Edited for a subtle typo that annoyed me.

[Smeghead]

Also, the chances of said bombs exploding is... remote at best.

It doesn't have to go nuclear. In the incidents in Spain and Greenland, the bombs didn't go nuclear, but rather it was the TNT detonators that exploded; destroying the bombs.

The detonators could go off by being in fire, and if a plane crashes there is likely to be fire about. And if a bomb is destroyed this way it is still going to contaminate a big area, and if its in a city it is going to be very costly and hazardus to people.

Don't forget Manhattan Project scientists laying wagers on whether the first-ever nuclear test would incinerate the entirety of Earth's atmosphere.

That was fun.

I was just about to make that same comment. I assume the bets were pretty tongue-in-cheek about the whole thing.

I'm kind of the same way about the whole 2012 thing. I'm perfectly willing to bet tons of money on the world not ending because if I'm wrong there will be no one left alive for me to owe money to

[taza]

Nuclear weapons are an aberration. There is no acceptable defense for them.

An aberration? To look at history, nuclear weapons are merely a continuation of a trend, and the fact that they haven't been used is the aberration.

Maybe "abomination" would fit your intended meaning better?

[Geoff_B]

But the dead wars of the past need not haunt us unduly, and it is our duty to ourselves and future generations to exorcize these spectres to the best of our ability, that we might one day truly be free of them.[/i]

Unfortunately I don't think this is ever going to happen. To me the point of nuclear weapons today isn't to use them, it's to prevent them from being used. It's the fact that we can say "if you do this to us we can do it ten times more to you" that prevents a war from happening.

If we did go for disarmament it would only work if everyone gave up their weapons at the same time. Can you see countries like Iran or North Korea going for that? If everyone else disarms but one country doesn't that country could basically hold the world to ransom on the premise that they have the ultimate weapon and now there is no reason for them not to use it, as nothing that could be done to them could possibly be any worse than what they could do to anyone else.

So as much as we may hate the idea, in this day and age they're a necessity. I wholeheartedly agree that hopefully they'll never be used, however right now I don't see how we can live without them.

That's my opinion at least. It's probably completely wrong, in which case I'd be happy if someone were to show me how it's wrong.

[Psyclone]

It's true that complete disarmament would be a bad idea, but America has enough nukes to destroy every country on earth several time over. Surely we don't need ALL of them?

[Metcarfre]

How many nukes do North Korea/Iran/China/etc. have mounted on ICBMs/SLBMs? Ten, twenty each?

I would be totally in favour of the US, Russia, and other relatively peaceful nuclear powers (UK, France, etc.) eliminating the majority of their ICBM and SLBM capacity in a multilateral way.

You could keep the aircraft-delivered weapons (you already paid how many billions for the B2s anyways?). That way if one of those dick nations decide to pop one of your cities, they know they'll still get glassed.

All WITHOUT this whole MAD situation where it's nuclear winter for the whole earth if some guy accidentally presses a button.

[Geoff_B]

I agree that some disarmament is a valid step forward, but the point I was making was about complete disarmament, in response to Alja's post.

[empath]

Well, there a LOT more to go through than 'accidentally pressing a button' but there's also the factor of the AGE of the ICBM 'fleet' - those things are essentially rusting away in their silos; quite apart from the warheads, who wants rocket fuel in their groundwater?

How much money could the U.S. alone save in maintenance costs of phasing out SAC?

Oh, wait - Republiclowns have Boeing/Northrop/Grumman's hand shoved up their ass and can't see any solution to ALL the world's ills (health, economic, political) that can't be solved without shovelling a few more trillion (dammit, I swore there'd never be a day I'd use 'billion' in everyday conversation) dollars down their masters' pieholes.



Damn, now I'm bummed out again...wonder if there's any new soothing cuteness around?

[plummeting_sloth]

http://scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/2007/06/munitions_dumping_at_sea.php

It gets better. The US has also seasoned all the fish in the sea with mustard. Gas.

That, and the fucking VX that also was dumped (yes, it was "treated" first but that shit should have been vaporized) was mainly the idea/ implementation of Dow Chemical, not the Army. The mustard gas shells that were buried around Maryland though... that, sigh, was the Army (and their removal was part of my old departments work)

Also, I should add that I do find all the "The US is so stupid and insane to have all these nukes around" discussions a little annoying to have around a period of the largest disarmament in the last 20 years lead by a president that lists total disarmament as one of his goals. And for which he was pilloried for.

[Psyclone]

Well, as I've said before, I don't think total disarmament is a great idea right now, especially with the threat of Iran. It's a nice goal, though.

[Dutch guy]

Even IF iran got a nuke, and even IF they decided to use it, the US has many more weapons at it disposal and is very unlikely to actually use a nuke in retaliation. Heck, just dropping one of their new super big thermobaric bombs in the center of a densely populated city is going to have just about the same effect, but without the after effects of radiation and fallout.

The US army has been geared and trained towards precision strikes and "high-speed warfare" for quite some time now. It has developed tactics for these situations that don't need or use nukes.

[Rikadyn]

The Iran Nuke threat is much like the Iraq WMD threat. Sadly it polls about the same too (something like 70% of people polled are in favor of attacking Iran, which was the same % of people in favor of attacking Iraq). It's just a load of propaganda.

[Dutch guy]

The Iran Nuke threat is much like the Iraq WMD threat. Sadly it polls about the same too (something like 70% of people polled are in favor of attacking Iran, which was the same % of people in favor of attacking Iraq). It's just a load of propaganda.

And, paraphrasing an engineer from Urenco (uranium enrichment plant in the Netherlands), "Enriching Uranium isn't that hard. Enriching it enough to be usable in a nuclear plant requires mostly a competent level of engineering and quality control. Enriching uranium to the purity needed for a nuclear weapon is a whole different story. You need finely designed centrifuge cascades with minimal losses, very precise control electronics to keep everything running, a very competent engineering crew to keep things running and a lot of patience when you inevitably screw something up. The likelyhood of Iran managing a centrifuge cascade for enrichment to powerplant levels is pretty good. They can probably manage it with the info they have. Getting the extra step to enrichment for nuclear weapons is probably going to be more bother than its worth for them"

I'm all for getting out of Iran's business and just let them mess around with whatever they want in their nuclear program. Even if they do manage to build a nuclear weapon, big woop, the chances of them actually having the balls to use it other than a single test shot is pretty damn slim.

[sdhonda]

I'm all for getting out of Iran's business and just let them mess around with whatever they want in their nuclear program. Even if they do manage to build a nuclear weapon, big woop, the chances of them actually having the balls to use it other than a single test shot is pretty damn slim.

That is probably true, but imagine that you are an Israeli head of state: Would you really bet your life, and the lives of your people, including their yet unborn children, on such a thing? Particularly after the Holocaust?

[Dutch guy]

I agree, that's gonna complicate matters. But screaming: AAAHHHHHH, NOOOO, YOU CAN'T HAVE A NUKE, WE DON'T TRUST YOU. STOP IT RIGHT NOW is not really going to improve cooperation or Irans willingness to accept foreign aid in simply developing peaceful nuclear power applications or give up their program entirely either.

[Smeghead]

Yeah, I see the risk of Iran using a nuke as highly remote.

Iran is mostly hostile against Israel and are more or less an ideal supporter for the palestinian state. So what are they gonna do? Nuke Israel, killing tons of Palestinians as well and contaminating the country so that no one can live there for decades?

I don't see that being a very popular idea amongst the palestinians

[2stepz]

As someone who spent 5 years in the nuclear weapons industry, I suggest you find the whole story before you start making judgments.

There is a huge amount of reparations that you are not giving the slightest credit, nor are your "facts" correct.

Be assured that 1) Nuclear Weapons are not controlled by the department of defense. There is a separate CIVILIAN agency that manages the sustainment of current stockpile and cleanup of previous nuclear activity. 2) Areas of prior contamination are surrounded by government lands requiring a extremely high degree of security clearance and need of access before someone is allowed inside. The safety and security of these areas are HIGHLY regulated. 3.) The stockpile is shrinking. Weapons are actively being decommissioned and disassembled.

If I were allowed to speak freely, I could cut apart the initial statement line by line, and hand your ass back to you in a small box. However, I cannot say more without potentially violating security measures, so I will stop here.

[empath]

Yup; flowchart time, peoplez...

[Smeghead]

2) Areas of prior contamination are surrounded by government lands requiring a extremely high degree of security clearance and need of access before someone is allowed inside. The safety and security of these areas are HIGHLY regulated

But the thing with radioactive contamination is that it is very much at the mercy of the elements, meaning that if a radioactive leakage from a lost bomb or dumped waste occured; it would be up to wind and the currents; meaning that a large area could be affected.

With luck the currents would carry the contaminated water out to sea (but then a leakage could continue for a long time, so it is unlikely that luck would always be there.

I'm not questioning that the government would do all it could to clean up a contamination; I doubt they would want there to be radioactive beaches around. But the thing I'm confused about is that apparently there seems to be mistakes from the past, just left there to become contamination problems in the future.

Like say the lost Savanna bomb.
Someone claimed to have found it in 2004, and thats apparently the last anyone has heard about that. Did anyone confirm that the bomb was found? Did anyone remove it? 8 years is a long time to do that, but as far as we know, nothing has been done.

3.) The stockpile is shrinking. Weapons are actively being decommissioned and disassembled.

I never said anything about that. I know that the stockpile is shrinking, after all there have been agreements in the post-cold war era to reduce the nuclear stockpiles in both the US and Russia (and I assume some other nuclear nations as well).

Also; surely you can find someway to say something? I mean there has to be official/historical things you can point to that aren't in any way secret.