Mr. Wizard
International Hazard
Posts: 1042
Registered: 30-3-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Strangelove
You have to be a certain age or be an old movie fan to know the implications of that word: Dr. Strangelove. The link will explain it to a certain
extent.
http://makezine.com/images/07/strangelove.pdf
The references to chemistry sets got my attention. The last sentence is "The new generation of nuclear weaponeers grew up with video games, but was
not allowed to have chemistry sets. Are we any safer as a result?"
Navy Capt. George Malumphy: ‘My God, my God, my God!’
Attachment: strangelove.pdf (449kB)
This file has been downloaded 666 times
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Perhaps the captain was referring disparagingly to the dependence of post-unilateral test ban weapons designers on computer simulations to model
radiation effects on materials, and so on.
I have my own (layman's) concerns about possible long term unexpected effects which might impact on storage safety.
In the 1960s there were already several (more than one) accidents, fatal ones, involving unexpected chemical instability in nuclear lens materials,
specifically PBX-9404 modifications.
It has been reported that as a result of these accidents, the composition of the PBX-9404 was changed slightly, but due to the test ban no real test
could be made. The modified lens material was retrofitted to all our Sergeant missile warheads in Europe. A number of years later, one of the warheads
was tested. It failed to go off.
Fans of computer similation will be quick to point out that simulation software has greatly improved since 1965.
But I still wonder.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
vulture
Forum Gatekeeper
Posts: 3330
Registered: 25-5-2002
Location: France
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It's not really a problem that they might not work. The fact that they MIGHT work should be enough deterrent.
I thought test ban treaty only applied to atmospheric and exo-atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons? Or has underground testing been abolished
voluntarily?
One shouldn't accept or resort to the mutilation of science to appease the mentally impaired.
|
|
|
12AX7
Post Harlot
Posts: 4803
Registered: 8-3-2005
Location: oscillating
Member Is Offline
Mood: informative
|
|
Underground testing is also a no-no, except for naughty countries who want to (at least momentarily) drop the nuclear treaties and go do their own
thing (*cough* India, Pakistan, South Africa, North Korea, etc., at one time or another).
Tim
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
The NK "test" wasn't a test but a hoax, a bluff. No detonation and I doubt they even wasted of their fissile material on such a transparent fraud.
They merely set off a pile of HE in the rather vain hope that our remote sensors can't tell the difference. Silly wabbits. Tricks are for kids.
I guess you miss the point. The NPT regime is not working. The nations you mentioned (except NK) HAVE broken out, you didn't even mention Israel. The
only rogue member of the nuclear club to back away and unjoin is South Africa. (My theory is that the boers could not in all conscience pass nukes
along to their black successors.)
But Israel, India, and Pakistan are defacto members. Iran is creeping toward the threshold. North Korea would like to emulate them. The IAEA is
impotent, NPT is impotent. Iran if it succeeds will amply demonstrate the ineffectiveness of both. Briefly, until Israel turns it into green glass.
So, in conclusion, we have sacrificed our ability to really ensure safe storage of our own inventory on the altar of a NPT regime that reminds me of
levees and seawalls in New Orleans.
Not a good trade.
We won't "know" that simulation was inadequate till we have a nuke go off in storage, any more than the people of New Orleans "knew" that the seawalls
at Lake Pontchartrain were inadequate until they gave way. I wonder if the Army Corps of Engineers used software simulations to evaluate the effects
of a Category 5 hurricane?
Remember: it is not the oh so sacrosanct NPT regime that has kept the nuclear peace since the late 40s. Or whenever you want to date the ability of
the USSR to deliver a weapon. What keeps the nuclear peace is MAD. What keeps the bilateral nuclear peace in South Asia is MAD.
I say we are at more risk, IMO, from storage safety issues than we are from proliferation.
[Edited on 4-12-2007 by Sauron]
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
