• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Chance Of Nuclear War Is Greater Than You Think

The US Air Force has launched an investigation into a dozen airmen at a nuclear missile base for alleged use of illegal drugs, in some cases possibly including cocaine.

The drug investigation at FE Warren Air Force Base, located near Cheyenne, Wyoming, is home of the 90th Missile Wing, was announced on Friday by Gen Robin Rand, the four-star commander of Air Force Global Strike Command.

“This is very important to me that we get to the bottom of this,” he told the Associated Press. “We have a special trust with our nation, with our public, with the mission that we do in Air Force Global Strike Command.” ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...acility-for-using-illegal-drugs-a6939141.html
 
Michael BeschlossVerified account‏@BeschlossDC
JFK asks his mother (after Cuban Missile Crisis) not to contact Nikita Khrushchev again without asking him first:



0
 
The question in FT340's Mythconceptions column asks if it's true if nuclear bunkers are now useless because bombs have become so massively powerful that they wouldn't stand a chance anymore. Is this true? I know a good way to find out, only it's also an extremely bad way to find out...
 
GNC said:
The question in FT340's Mythconceptions column asks if it's true if nuclear bunkers are now useless because bombs have become so massively powerful that they wouldn't stand a chance anymore. Is this true? I know a good way to find out, only it's also an extremely bad way to find out...
Click to expand...
The bunkers are useful against conventional weaponry, and they keep people safe from radioactive fallout.
So they still have a use, even in a nuclear war.
Mind you, if a nuke or two went off in Britain, after emerging from bomb shelters, we wouldn't be able to use the land for farming (not for a long while anyway).
 
Mythopoeika said:
The bunkers are useful against conventional weaponry, and they keep people safe from radioactive fallout.
So they still have a use, even in a nuclear war.
Mind you, if a nuke or two went off in Britain, after emerging from bomb shelters, we wouldn't be able to use the land for farming (not for a long while anyway).
Click to expand...

Would they be resistant to an attack from the modern bunker-buster bombs?
 
Decades Later, Sickness Among Airmen After a Hydrogen Bomb Accident

Alarms sounded on United States Air Force bases in Spain and officers began packing all the low-ranking troops they could grab onto buses for a secret mission. There were cooks, grocery clerks and even musicians from the Air Force band.

It was a late winter night in 1966 and a fully loaded B-52 bomber on a Cold War nuclear patrol had collided with a refueling jet high over the Spanish coast, freeing four hydrogen bombs that went tumbling toward a farming village called Palomares, a patchwork of small fields and tile-roofed white houses in an out-of-the-way corner of Spain’s rugged southern coast that had changed little since Roman times.

It was one of the biggest nuclear accidents in history, and the United States wanted it cleaned up quickly and quietly. But if the men getting onto buses were told anything about the Air Force’s plan for them to clean up spilled radioactive material, it was usually, “Don’t worry.”

“There was no talk about radiation or plutonium or anything else,” said Frank B. Thompson, a then 22-year-old trombone player who spent days searching contaminated fields without protective equipment or even a change of clothes. “They told us it was safe, and we were dumb enough, I guess, to believe them.” ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/u...-accident.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Vid at link.
 
They were lied to. :banghead:
 
GNC said:
The question in FT340's Mythconceptions column asks if it's true if nuclear bunkers are now useless because bombs have become so massively powerful that they wouldn't stand a chance anymore. Is this true? I know a good way to find out, only it's also an extremely bad way to find out...
Click to expand...

I think it's untrue. I believe the bombs have become smaller as guidance systems have become more sophisticated. You don't need a huge monster if you know where a smaller version is going to land to within a couple of meters.

I'm not suggesting that there are no huge 'city killer' bombs still out there, but that, as you're not meant to make anymore, a lot have been scaled down.
 
oldrover said:
I think it's untrue. I believe the bombs have become smaller as guidance systems have become more sophisticated. You don't need a huge monster if you know where a smaller version is going to land to within a couple of meters.
Click to expand...
Same is true of naval gunnery. You only need a few guns if you hit what you aim at 99% of the time. Dreadnoughts needed vast batteries of guns simply because they didn't often hit what they were aiming at.
 
Exactly. Thinking about it though, what I posted applies only as far as I know to the U.S.

As for Russia, the only other truly viable nuclear power, I've no idea. But I must say that personally, I'm not convinced that they still have a viable capability to deliver these things long range.
 
oldrover said:
As for Russia, the only other truly viable nuclear power, I've no idea. But I must say that personally, I'm not convinced that they still have a viable capability to deliver these things long range.
Click to expand...
Even though it appears that they still have some of the best rocket scientists in the world?
 
Mythopoeika said:
Even though it appears that they still have some of the best rocket scientists in the world?
Click to expand...

Yep. I don't believe there's anything to support the idea that they've maintained anything like parity with the U.S.

I certainly don't dispute that they have the necessary know how, or skill though. Not for a second. Rather that, unlike the U.S, a significant enough money is channeled into weapons maintenance.
 
oldrover said:
Yep. I don't believe there's anything to support the idea that they've maintained anything like parity with the U.S.

I certainly don't dispute that they have the necessary know how, or skill though. Not for a second. Rather that, unlike the U.S, a significant enough money is channeled into weapons maintenance.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I see your point. That's certainly true. There are so many derelict military facilities all over Russia, and stuff they spent millions on has been left to rot.
 
Their stockpile is rubbish, Quantity over quality (a WW2 mentality, not necessarily wrong) but their latest stuff is OK.
 
In the 1970s and 80s, crews sat at constant readiness in nuclear missile silos buried in the Arizona desert. What would have happened if they had got the order to launch?

  • By Richard Hollingham / Images by Chris Hinkle
1 August 2016
Yvonne Morris had three minutes to get to work at the start of her shift. Any longer between phoning through her secret code at the perimeter gate and descending a set of stairs and she would have been arrested, at the very least.

Morris was one of the first female crew commanders of a Titan 2 nuclear missile silo. Stationed with the 390th Strategic Missile Wing in Tucson, Arizona between 1980 and 1984, she was responsible for three other crew members and a nine-megaton nuclear weapon.

“Even though our primary mission was peace through deterrence by preventing World War Three,” she says, “in the event we failed, we had to be ready to launch at all times in retaliation.”

From the early 1960s to the mid-80s, the city of Tucson was circled by 18 Titan 2 nuclear missile silos. Their location meant this and would have been a prime Soviet target. Today, only one silo remains – preserved as the Titan Missile Museum, a national monument with Morris as director. Time stopped here in 1982, preserving the site – complete with decommissioned missile – as a chilling reminder of cold war preparations for the end of the world.

“The three minutes to get to the silo is a built in security protocol,” Morris explains. “If we didn’t make it in three minutes, the crew underground assumes there is some sort of security situation topside.” ...

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160729-the-hidden-base-that-could-have-ended-the-world?ocid=twfut
 
Neither China nor Russia need nuclear bombs when they can switch off our internet.


This country is fucked then.
 
This seems to be the closest to a general thread for nuclear weapons. Lawrence Livermore National Lab has posted previously classified video of nuclear tests to youtube, including many airborne tests.

 
According to one comment, the largest nuclear bomb currently available is 1,325 times more powerful than the explosion in that video, which would seem unnecessary unless you have a few spare planets.
 
Yithian said:
According to one comment, the largest nuclear bomb currently available is 1,325 times more powerful than the explosion in that video, which would seem unnecessary unless you have a few spare planets.
Click to expand...

Definitely a tad OTT.

What would/could you with such a bomb?

Real Dr Strangelove stuff.

 
AgProv said:
And on that note... as they say on tvtropes, Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement applies.

I do think that after the collapse of old certainties in the 1990's, it's fairly safe to assume a lot of formerly Soviet nukes may not have been rigorously accounted for. OK; radioactive material decays, and nukes need regular refurbishment for the fissile material to retain its potency. After twenty-odd years, anything that dissappeared at the time of the collapse of the USSR is most likely to be not in tip-top condition, if it did not fall into the hands of people with the know-how and resources to maintain the works. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that there's enough unaccounted radioactive stuff floating around for suitably inclined people to make a cheap dirty bomb of some sort, recycling 1994's state-of-the-art into something cruder and necessarily lower-tech, but in its way just good enough. I hope I'm wrong; but ISIS or similar fanatic group with a dirty bomb is a horrifying thought. Some of the right-wing Christian militias in the USA of the sort who want to give God a nudge about Armageddon, for instance. And on that very cheerful note.... goodnight....
Click to expand...
Why would it require 'regular refurbishment'?According to wikipedia, plutonium-239, the most common fissile material has a half-life of over 24,000 years. The uranium isotope (U-235) used in fission weapons has a half-life of 710 million years. That doesn't sound to me like the fissile material needs periodic updates.

Granted, there might be other update requirements for a suitcase nuke, but the fissile material is not it.
 
gerhard1 said:
Why would it require 'regular refurbishment'?According to wikipedia, plutonium-239, the most common fissile material has a half-life of over 24,000 years. The uranium isotope (U-235) used in fission weapons has a half-life of 710 million years. That doesn't sound to me like the fissile material needs periodic updates.

Granted, there might be other update requirements for a suitcase nuke, but the fissile material is not it.
Click to expand...
Yep.
It's possible that all the electronics on the bomb needs replacing/updating periodically, perhaps due to decay of components or degradation from radiation exposure.
 
Not about nuclear war but it is about nuclear weapons so I reckon it fits here.

A facility that handles the cores of U.S. nuclear weapons has been mostly closed since 2013 over its inability to control worker safety risks
By The Center for Public Integrity, R. Jeffrey Smith, Patrick MaloneJun. 30, 2017 , 8:00 AM

In mid-2013, four federal nuclear safety experts brought an alarming message to the top official in charge of America’s warhead production: Los Alamos National Laboratory, the nation’s sole site for making and testing a key nuclear bomb part, wasn’t taking needed safety precautions. The lab, they said, was ill-prepared to prevent an accident that could kill lab workers, and potentially others nearby.

Some safety infractions had already occurred at the lab that year. But Neile Miller, who was then the acting head of the National Nuclear Security Administration in Washington, says those experts specifically told her that Los Alamos didn’t have enough personnel who knew how to handle plutonium so it didn’t accidentally go “critical” and start an uncontrolled chain reaction.

Such chain reactions generate intense bursts of deadly radiation, and over the last half-century have claimed nearly two dozen lives. The precise consequences, Miller said in a recent interview, “did not need an explanation. You don’t want an accident involving criticality and plutonium.” Indeed, Miller said, criticality “is one of those trigger words” that immediately gets the attention of those responsible for preventing a nuclear weapons disaster. ...

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...lay-us-nuclear-warhead-testing-and-production
 
Last night was very eventful in Stockholm. We got what was in principle the three minute warning! I've left a post in the scary noises thread.
 
Perhaps sanity will prevail.

The top nuclear commander in the US says he would resist any "illegal" presidential order to launch a strike.

Air Force Gen John Hyten, said as head of the US Strategic Command he provided advice to a president and expected that a legal alternative would be found.

His comments come just days after US senators discussed a president's authority to launch a nuclear attack.

Some of them expressed concern that President Donald Trump might irresponsibly order such a strike.

Others though said a president must have the authority to act without meddling from lawyers. It was the first such hearing in more than 40 years.

In August, Mr Trump vowed to unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen" on North Korea if it threatened the US. ...

As for the legality of a strike, the general said that he had studied US laws of armed conflict for many years which stipulates key criteria the president must consider before launching any attack:

  • Necessity
  • Distinction
  • Proportionality
  • Unnecessary suffering
The armed conflict report quotes an International Court of Justice ruling which states that while the threat or use of nuclear weapons is not prohibited by international law, "the use of such weapons seems scarcely reconcilable with respect for the requirements of the law applicable in armed conflict". ...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42041975
 
You'd better watch out...

The world faces a "nuclear crisis" from a "bruised ego", the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) has warned in an apparent reference to US-North Korea tensions.

Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on Sunday, Ican's executive director Beatrice Fihn said "the deaths of millions may be one tiny tantrum away".

"We have a choice, the end of nuclear weapons or the end of us," she added.

Tensions over North Korea's weapons programme have risen in recent months.

The open hostility between US President Donald Trump and the North Korean leadership under Kim Jong-un has at times descended into personal attacks this year.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42298453
 
Admittedly it is a bit distressing to see such emotionally mature individuals as Trump and Un in leadership roles in a nuclear escalation situation. On the other hand, it all seems a bit WWF, i.e. geared towards a primitive audience.

The real issue is what North Korea hopes to achieve through its nuclear weapons program.

Clearly if North Korea uses its tiny nuclear arsenal it will rapidly turn into a very large piece of radioactive glass, and they know it.

So what do we know?

1. Un feels decidedly insecure as leader, and the nuclear weapons play well to his domestic audience as a blow to the USA's power that the USA can do very little about.
2. The execution of Un's uncle, Jang Song-thaek was a blow to China's influence, as he had a good deal of influence and was China's man.
3. Mutually Assured Destruction... sort of... NK doesn't have enough nuclear weapons to seriously damage the USA, but the USA certainly has enough weapons to annihilate NK. The longer NK is given to develop its nuclear arsenal, the more unassailable the regime becomes from foreign threats, and that plays well to the domestic audience too. Claims that NK has a hydrogen bomb however are utterly false; no test result so far has demonstrated those characteristics.
4. NK wants to cause diplomatic friction between the USA and China, South Korea and Japan. While the China/US relationship is important to both nations, it is also a tricky one. NK doesn't benefit from the relationship and as a result it wants to antagonize the USA and drive a wedge between the USA and China.
5. If NK goes to war with SK it has 500,000 artillery pieces pointing at Seoul across the DMZ. This is the primary strategic concern for the USA, not the nuclear weapons.

The USA's position is invidious. It doesn't want a nuclear armed NK. It doesn't want a new Korean War. It certainly doesn't want a nuclear war. The USA would like to see regime change in NK, but that seems unlikely in the short term.

China is in a position where NK is its wayward client state, and the "puppet is controlling the puppeteer". The USA would certainly not object to China exerting its influence on the peninsula. As a result the China/NK border has been quietly militarised recently, with both China and NK deploying troops into a face off.

For all the posturing, I think the NK issue is unlikely to develop into a war that serves nobody's interests. NK lacks the food to fight a war and the rest of the world sees it as a waste of lives, money and time.
 
Last edited:
AlchoPwn said:
For all the posturing, I think the NK issue is unlikely to develop into a war that serves nobody's interests. NK lacks the food to fight a war and the rest of the world sees it as a waste of lives, money and time.
Click to expand...
I'd endorse that, with the addendum that if NK becomes a nuisance to China, they'll squash NK like a bug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top