Bye bye nuclear non-proliferation

[Oligo 1]

News item.

Ok, so in order to design, build and test new nukes, U.S. has to pull out of all the approppriate international agreements. They'll also set up a nice excuse for everybody else to build new nukes. The world will definitely not be a better place afterwards.

How can the world go to hell so fast, just when people were talking about "the end of history"?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

God-fucking-dammit.

[ralphwiggum 6]

if NK developes one, why not US?

[Oligo 1]

It would be interesting to know what happens if you try to destroy nuclear weapons in a storage bunker with nuclear weapons. I wonder whether the chain reaction could carry on to the fissile material of the stored bombs.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Feb. 20 2003,09:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if NK developes one, why not US? <span id='postcolor'>

U.S. already has enougn nukes to destroy the world ten times over. NK does not. Why would US need to build new nukes to compete with NK?

[theavonlady 2]

Well, I think it's OK. I have a hard time saying "non-ploriferation" - er ....................

[MrMilli 0]

5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 20 2003,085)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">God-fucking-dammit.<span id='postcolor'>

my thoughts exactly

[Spitfire 0]

Currently US is the last nation in the world to have any right telling other nations to scrap their nuclear/weapons of mass destruction -programs!

Not soon from now Arab countries will not be the only nations to despise USA.

[DarkLight 0]

Very true spitfire, it seems like the situation is getting even darker than before...

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It would be interesting to know what happens if you try to destroy nuclear weapons in a storage bunker with nuclear weapons. I wonder whether the chain reaction could carry on to the fissile material of the stored bombs.<span id='postcolor'>

Nah, it doesn't work like that. Nuclear weapons are very delicate things to detonate. It would either have to trigger the detonation system (Unlikely, as it'll vapourise it!, or perfectly compress the core from all directions at the same time. (Also very unlikely)

What it will do though is blast uranium all over the joint, and irradiate the area for the forseeable future.

[Spitfire 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Feb. 20 2003,17:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">or perfectly compress the core from all directions at the same time. (Also very unlikely)<span id='postcolor'>

I read somewhere that if the uranium/plutonium core mass is big enough, all it takes is a large caliber rifle round to start the reaction.

EDIT: hmm.. or then again it might have been a Tom Clancy or Clive Cussler novel and therefore not that reliable scientific source

[cam0flage 0]

Very alarming news . Does anybody have any idea how big warheads these nukes would carry? How many kilotons?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cam0flage @ Feb. 21 2003,02:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How many kilotons?<span id='postcolor'>

One.

You guys have only heard half the story. Rumsfeld said yesterday that there were no plans on the table for new nukes.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Is the source even reliable?

'Bush administration officials' Who are they exactly? Why are there no statements? Strange.............

Until we see an official release by the U.S. government saying that it is developing this stuff, then we shouldn't jump to conlusions.

I hope it isn't true.

Tyler

[supersheep 0]

well, it does say mini-nukes, so probly in the low kilotons range, like an artillery shell one. and it seems like everyone and their dog has or is developing some sort of nuclear programme. if iraq can make them while under the seriously heavy sanctions they're under and after having their nuclear reactor destroyed (thankfully), then i guess anyone can. but it doesn't make them right. maybe countries in regions where they need to fight against overwhelming odds to survive but why does the us need more? can't they just re-engineer their old ones? i think they're allowed do that

moral of the story: some countries can do what they want, and fuck all the treaties, public opinion and everything else that might make normal people think twice

[FSPilot 0]

It's not. Rumsfeld addressed it yesterday. Said it was just speculation and no plans were on the table.

I sure hope someone got fired over leaking this one. xD

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I sure hope someone got fired over leaking this one.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes i hope the name will be Rumsfeld.

What does it bring if anyone get´s fired ? It´s the plans I am worried about, not the person that brought it to public.

[FSPilot 0]

The person who brought it to the public should be fired because he abused his security clearance to leak confidential information to the media.

And there are no plans to be worried about. Rumsfeld said there were no plans on the table to develop these weapons. Basically they were just thinking out loud about it and someone blabbed to the media.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 20 2003,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The person who brought it to the public should be fired because he abused his security clearance to leak confidential information to the media.

And there are no plans to be worried about.  Rumsfeld said there were no plans on the table to develop these weapons.  Basically they were just thinking out loud about it and someone blabbed to the media.<span id='postcolor'>

Hey hey kids, time once again for DefinitionMan!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Main Entry: gull·ible

Variant(s): also gull·able /'g&-l&-b&l/

Function: adjective

Date: 1818

: easily duped or cheated

- gull·ibil·i·ty /"g&-l&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun

- gull·ibly /'g&-l&-blE/ adverb <span id='postcolor'>

You actually believe that Rumsfeld would have come out and said 'That's right, we're planning on making nuke bunker busters and other nifty nuke sghow stoppers' if they had these plans?

If you do, then see above...

Now, whether they ARE planning this sort of thing or not, I dont know. But it honestly wouldnt surprise me, consisidering the tenor that the Bush Administration has taken to pretty much all of its foreign policy. It seems like the 'kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out' mentality is firmly in place. So while this may just be sensationalism, I seriously doubt Rummy would have told us if it was true, and denyed it totally. Which, no surprise, he has done.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supersheep @ Feb. 20 2003,16:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well, it does say mini-nukes, so probly in the low kilotons range, like an artillery shell one.<span id='postcolor'>

You mean like the ones in Germany that the bundeswehr have?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

From a purely tactical standpoint, a low yield nuclear Daisycutter would be extremely useful. Deep-penetrating, hugely increased yield over a 2000-pounder for about the same weight, it would be incredibly useful- but that completely ignores all the other standpoints.

The first is the stigma. No matter how low-yield, a nuke is a nuke is a nuke, and we've spent the last 60 years learning that nukes are bad (which they are).

The second would be the political side. As a member said earlier, to legally develop these weapons, we'd have to pull out of several treaties, and that is very not good, especially considering the current world climate.

The third is the possible dilution of the common military opinion that we should never use nukes except as a last resort. If, suddenly, we have a nuke that can be viable for use in a non-traditional role (like tactical bunker-busting), then what's to stop us from using it more and more often? Suddenly the nuclear taboo will be broken, and what will stop other countries from using their nukes in a similar way?

And of course, there are standard environmental concerns. Fallout and other possible environmental disasters are almost as pronounced when you talk about smaller warheads as it is when you talk about the larger strategic nukes. Why? Because if strategic nukes start flying, you're pretty much fucked one way or the other, so any environmental concerns are at best academic, and at worst completely moot. In a tactical scenario, you are looking at the possibility that people will actually be alive afterwards, and be subject to the same effects that have been shown to occur in post-WWII Japan and also in Siberia during Russia's period of increased nuclear testing.

Yeah, it was leaked, but in this case I approve. Developing more nukes when we can blow up the world several times as it is, even when we don't have any specific enemy that poses a direct nuclear threat that we can't already counter... it's just fucked up, pure and simple. We can do the same thing with conventional munitions, and to put all these political and other factors on the line just because using the nuke would be easier is just (see above) fucked up.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 20 2003,23:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">From a purely tactical standpoint, a low yield nuclear Daisycutter would be extremely useful. Deep-penetrating, hugely increased yield over a 2000-pounder for about the same weight, it would be incredibly useful- but that completely ignores all the other standpoints.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL.

I read this paragraph and thought you'd lost your mind, Tex

Thankfully the rest of the post mirrors my own ways of thinking.

The Nuclear genie is out of the bottle. You can never put it back. But what we can do is make certain that these weapons are never ever used again. I think the horrific results of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs should stand as a example of the sheer horror of nuclear weapons, and strengthen the resolve to never use such a weapon, be it to bomb a city, or to bust a bunker. The slippery slope arguement may be logically unsound, but using ANY sort of nuclear device opens the door for the use of such devices by other, perhaps less scrupulous nations. After all, what if North Korea decides that US use of nuke bunker busters is a threat to the and they manages to detonate a nuke near a carrier battle group?

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Feb. 20 2003,16:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nah, it doesn't work like that. Nuclear weapons are very delicate things to detonate. It would either have to trigger the detonation system (Unlikely, as it'll vapourise it!, or perfectly compress the core from all directions at the same time. (Also very unlikely)<span id='postcolor'>

Nuclear weapons are a very delicate thing to detonate, because starting the chain reaction from scratch is very hard (you have to compress fissile material adequately so that there are enough free neutrons produced to start a chain reaction). However, detonating a nuke produces an intense burst of neutrons (the peak of the chain reaction) and there are no cooling rods or reactor shielding to absorb the bombardment. What's to stop these neutrols starting up all kinds of shit if there is more fissible material (e.g. other nukes) in close proximity?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 21 2003,07:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What's to stop these neutrols starting up all kinds of shit if there is more fissible material (e.g. other nukes) in close proximity?<span id='postcolor'>

You mean a nuclear secondary explosion? I can't say I'm well versed at all in the vagaries of nuclear physics, but it seems reasonable enough to me. I mean, other than the fact that the original nuclear blast will -if it penetrates correctly- always be sufficient to destroy the target without needing a secondary explosion to finish the job.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 21 2003,08:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You mean a nuclear secondary explosion? I can't say I'm well versed at all in the vagaries of nuclear physics, but it seems reasonable enough to me. I mean, other than the fact that the original nuclear blast will -if it penetrates correctly- always be sufficient to destroy the target without needing a secondary explosion to finish the job.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, a nuclear secondary explosion. But what I meant is that if you erase one of Saddam's nuclear storage bunkers with a deep-penetrating nuke you might get considerably more bang for your buck than expected = more fallout = more deaths and deformed children = more flak from the press.