quade 4 #1 March 27, 2008 First read this. Not to put too fine a point on the subtlety of my question here but . . . WTF do you mean? 60 f'in' DAYS?!? Why wouldn't this information be INSTANTLY at the hands of the people responsible at a moments notice?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 March 27, 2008 QuoteFirst read this. Not to put too fine a point on the subtlety of my question here but . . . WTF do you mean? 60 f'in' DAYS?!? Why wouldn't this information be INSTANTLY at the hands of the people responsible at a moments notice? This is an "eyes on" physical inventory. 100% Serial Number accountability means that the OIC will physically look at each component, touch it, and verify the serial number with the inventory sheet. It doesn't matter when the last accountability was conducted. I'm surprised they'll be able to complete it in 60 days.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #3 March 27, 2008 QuoteI'm surprised they'll be able to complete it in 60 days. According to Wikipedia (ok, laugh all you want but it's close enough for this estimate) there are 4,075 active and a number of (I assume) inactive nukes that brings the total up to 5,535. It's not like ONE guy is going to count all of them. The OIC at each facility is. Let's say it's a submarine, there is a finite amount that should be on-board. The Captain checks each one. I'm not sure what exactly is involved, but it sure a hell shouldn't take 60 days to figure out if everything is where it's supposed to be. Multiply that by every facility and I can't think of a logical reason why this would take more than a week even under the worst conditions I can imagine. Failure to comply; dereliction of duty.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 March 27, 2008 Paul - wouldn't you want to bring in somebody who is NOT signed for them to do the inventory? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 March 27, 2008 I assume whatever the procedure is, it has a form of checks and balances in place. Yes, it probably does take more than one person per facility. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #6 March 27, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm surprised they'll be able to complete it in 60 days. According to Wikipedia (ok, laugh all you want but it's close enough for this estimate) there are 4,075 active and a number of (I assume) inactive nukes that brings the total up to 5,535. It's not like ONE guy is going to count all of them. The OIC at each facility is. Let's say it's a submarine, there is a finite amount that should be on-board. The Captain checks each one. I'm not sure what exactly is involved, but it sure a hell shouldn't take 60 days to figure out if everything is where it's supposed to be. Multiply that by every facility and I can't think of a logical reason why this would take more than a week even under the worst conditions I can imagine. Failure to comply; dereliction of duty. Well, I know you read the article. It's not just the weapons, but it is also all related components. So, that would mean keys, locks, code cards, computer drives, vehicles, air craft, missiles, fuses, casings, not to mention the weapons that are deployed in missile fields throughout the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, etc., logs of procedures, manuals, etc. If there is a special pen that needs to be used as part of the "process" for tracking or maintaining, that pen will need to be accounted for -- CONUS and OCONUS. Even if it was just the weapons, given how widely they are deployed, and given the level of exposure - meaning field grade officers are going to be verifying this (likely O5 and up) - it's still a process that will take weeks.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #7 March 27, 2008 Yes, but I think you miss my point. Let's account for all the nukes NOW and worry about the peripheral later in the 60 day report.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #8 March 27, 2008 QuoteYes, but I think you miss my point. Let's account for all the nukes NOW and worry about the peripheral later in the 60 day report. This mess is because of a peripheral though. I agree, the nukes are the important part, but they are useless without their peripherals. In fact, some of the peripherals are arguably more important than the nuke.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #9 March 27, 2008 Yes, but I think you miss my point. Let's account for all the nukes NOW and worry about the peripheral later in the 60 day report. Quote As the article said the 60 days is because of all the sub-components, the major end items(nukes) are already acounted for, with the exception of incidents like the one that caused this inventory they are always accounted for. It's not like someone looked into a warehouse and said "wow, could've sworn we had more missiles in here last night, guess we'll wait for the next inventory to confirm". It's all the odds and ends like the fuze heads which were shipped out that take so long to account for, no one is wondering if there is a missing nuke and waiting 60 days for an answer. The sub-component list for things like this are insanely long, setting up the layout for the inspection takes more time than the inspection itself!History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #10 March 27, 2008 Quote . . . the major end items(nukes) are already acounted for, with the exception of incidents like the one that caused this inventory they are always accounted for. It's not like someone looked into a warehouse and said "wow, could've sworn we had more missiles in here last night, guess we'll wait for the next inventory to confirm". Minot. I think that alone disproves your point. I also think that would have been enough to already tighten the procedures, but I guess not.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #11 March 28, 2008 The procedures can be tightened as much as you want, but "thousands of parts" is still "thousands of parts". Doing a full hands on inventory takes time.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jasmin 0 #12 March 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm surprised they'll be able to complete it in 60 days. According to Wikipedia (ok, laugh all you want but it's close enough for this estimate) there are 4,075 active and a number of (I assume) inactive nukes that brings the total up to 5,535. Myeh, try doubling it. I prefer the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist over Wikipedia for reliability on numbers....5163 active/deployed, almost as many responsive/inactive. http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/3605g0m20h18877w/fulltext.pdfxj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jasmin 0 #13 March 28, 2008 Quote I agree, the nukes are the important part, but they are useless without their peripherals. In fact, some of the peripherals are arguably more important than the nuke. Seriously. What drugs are you on? I'll grant you missiles and other delivery devices (eg aircraft) are worth a notable mention. But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. Heck, two Japanese civillians managed to do so with a bucket, a container and enough concentrate solution they inadvertantly achieved critical mass. (How many people can say they've seen Cerenkov in their eyeballs?) But that's just my $0.02 worth....xj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #14 March 28, 2008 Quote First read this. Not to put too fine a point on the subtlety of my question here but . . . WTF do you mean? 60 f'in' DAYS?!? Why wouldn't this information be INSTANTLY at the hands of the people responsible at a moments notice? Maybe they count slowly. More than 10 and the shoes have to come off.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #15 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote I agree, the nukes are the important part, but they are useless without their peripherals. In fact, some of the peripherals are arguably more important than the nuke. Seriously. What drugs are you on? Sober as a judge. Quote I'll grant you missiles and other delivery devices (eg aircraft) are worth a notable mention. Hardened detonators and precisely cut explosives used as lenses in compression devices are what force the reaction and thus, the explosion of a nuclear device -- the "mushroom cloud". That is the context I am talking from. Quote But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. I don't dispute that, but those that want to make the "ultimate" mess don't want a "dirty bomb" they want Hiroshima. China didn't steal our technology so they could have an arsenal of dirty bombs. They did it so they have an arsenal of sufficient deterrent to cause maximum damage. Those are finely tuned devices. The plutonium core is useless without the thousands of components that will force its reaction. Quote Heck, two Japanese civillians managed to do so with a bucket, a container and enough concentrate solution they inadvertantly achieved critical mass. You sorta backed my point with this one. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #16 March 28, 2008 Quote The sub-component list for things like this are insanely long, setting up the layout for the inspection takes more time than the inspection itself! Yeah...laying out all the Minuteman III's out of their silos... Seriously, just flying around to count every warhead, every missile, etc... Glad I'm in the Army.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #17 March 28, 2008 I think you guys are being a little conservative with the numbers. Remember.. in your time there are only about 5000 of the things. ACTIVE.. in MY USAF there were more than 10 times as many... you dont think all those parts REALLLY got destroyed do you. I know they munched some of the rockets themselves... but all the other components I would bet..... are still out there if needed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #18 March 28, 2008 Minot. I think that alone disproves your point.Quote No, you're absolutely right, I haven't personally been through countless knee-jerk reaction inventories after something was misplaced, i have no idea how these things work.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #19 March 28, 2008 QuoteMinot. I think that alone disproves your point.Quote No, you're absolutely right, I haven't personally been through countless knee-jerk reaction inventories after something was misplaced, i have no idea how these things work. I was responding to how well each and every warhead is completely under control and in a known location at all times. Clearly the Minot incident proves that theory wrong.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #20 March 28, 2008 I was responding to how well each and every warhead is completely under control and in a known location at all times. Clearly the Minot incident proves that theory wrong. Quote I've talked to people who have been stationed at the facilities where they store em, and the level of security and control measures they have are insane, I don't think one incident is indicitive of how ALL nukes are handled.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #21 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote First read this. Not to put too fine a point on the subtlety of my question here but . . . WTF do you mean? 60 f'in' DAYS?!? Why wouldn't this information be INSTANTLY at the hands of the people responsible at a moments notice? Maybe they count slowly. More than 10 and the shoes have to come off. And then they get sent to Iraq, right? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jasmin 0 #22 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. I don't dispute that, but those that want to make the "ultimate" mess don't want a "dirty bomb" they want Hiroshima. China didn't steal our technology so they could have an arsenal of dirty bombs. They did it so they have an arsenal of sufficient deterrent to cause maximum damage. Those are finely tuned devices. The plutonium core is useless without the thousands of components that will force its reaction. Dirty bomb? Save time and access a medical physics department.... Now, back to our semantics argument I have no problem with the assertion that a lump of Pu or U is relatively useless by itself. But I think we're both aware that they're not stored as an unenriched lump. So the part I'm grilling you over is the lack of logic in asserting that such items are useless without American military peripherals. Not everyone needs "a manual" in order to do something interesting with enriched material...If they did, IAEA inspections (and counter-proliferation efforts) would merely need to focus on auditing files, not facilities! So, going back to my point in mentioning the Japanese criticality incident; if two technicians can accidentally achieve critical mass with a bucket, the real nightmare is knowing that the wrong knowledgable person (A Q Khan) started out with a lump and some borrowed paperwork on centrifuges and built a successful program from these small beginnings; now imagine what his ilk could do with a bomb (ie geometry handed to them on a platter) merely missing the casing, codes and manuals. Edited to add: And on that note, goodnight gentlemen!xj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #23 March 28, 2008 They need to do a detailed inventory because suddeny it appears very credible that if some in Kurdistan decided to be a wise guy and cross off MICROWAVE OVEN on the invoice and write in NUCLEAR WARHEAD; some moron in our bureacracy just might ship it to him. "But boss, the paperwork said - 'Fill as requested' - so I did."" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #24 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote Quote But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. I don't dispute that, but those that want to make the "ultimate" mess don't want a "dirty bomb" they want Hiroshima. China didn't steal our technology so they could have an arsenal of dirty bombs. They did it so they have an arsenal of sufficient deterrent to cause maximum damage. Those are finely tuned devices. The plutonium core is useless without the thousands of components that will force its reaction. Dirty bomb? Save time and access a medical physics department.... Now, back to our semantics argument I have no problem with the assertion that a lump of Pu or U is relatively useless by itself. But I think we're both aware that they're not stored as an unenriched lump. So the part I'm grilling you over is the lack of logic in asserting that such items are useless without American military peripherals. Not everyone needs "a manual" in order to do something interesting with enriched material...If they did, IAEA inspections (and counter-proliferation efforts) would merely need to focus on auditing files, not facilities! So, going back to my point in mentioning the Japanese criticality incident; if two technicians can accidentally achieve critical mass with a bucket, the real nightmare is knowing that the wrong knowledgable person (A Q Khan) started out with a lump and some borrowed paperwork on centrifuges and built a successful program from these small beginnings; now imagine what his ilk could do with a bomb (ie geometry handed to them on a platter) merely missing the casing, codes and manuals. Edited to add: And on that note, goodnight gentlemen! I am not a nuclear physicist but my understanding is that with the current enrichment level of HEU available, making a Little Boy sized boom is relatively easy without any super hi-tech wizardry, firing sets, design codes, etc. Manhattan Project physicist and Nobel prizewinner Luis Alvarez said "... would have a good chance of setting off a high yield explosion simply by dropping one half of the material on the other half" when talking about the quality of HEU available in 1987. Cochran and McKinzie at the NRDC pretty much confirmed that statement by calculations using the Los Alamos software code.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #25 March 28, 2008 QuoteI think you guys are being a little conservative with the numbers. Remember.. in your time there are only about 5000 of the things. ACTIVE.. in MY USAF there were more than 10 times as many... you dont think all those parts REALLLY got destroyed do you. I know they munched some of the rockets themselves... but all the other components I would bet..... are still out there if needed. Oh, I understand what you're saying completely. That's why I stated at the beginning of the thread, I'm surprised they have only 60 days...including preparation of the report.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
quade 4 #10 March 27, 2008 Quote . . . the major end items(nukes) are already acounted for, with the exception of incidents like the one that caused this inventory they are always accounted for. It's not like someone looked into a warehouse and said "wow, could've sworn we had more missiles in here last night, guess we'll wait for the next inventory to confirm". Minot. I think that alone disproves your point. I also think that would have been enough to already tighten the procedures, but I guess not.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #11 March 28, 2008 The procedures can be tightened as much as you want, but "thousands of parts" is still "thousands of parts". Doing a full hands on inventory takes time.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jasmin 0 #12 March 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm surprised they'll be able to complete it in 60 days. According to Wikipedia (ok, laugh all you want but it's close enough for this estimate) there are 4,075 active and a number of (I assume) inactive nukes that brings the total up to 5,535. Myeh, try doubling it. I prefer the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist over Wikipedia for reliability on numbers....5163 active/deployed, almost as many responsive/inactive. http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/3605g0m20h18877w/fulltext.pdfxj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jasmin 0 #13 March 28, 2008 Quote I agree, the nukes are the important part, but they are useless without their peripherals. In fact, some of the peripherals are arguably more important than the nuke. Seriously. What drugs are you on? I'll grant you missiles and other delivery devices (eg aircraft) are worth a notable mention. But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. Heck, two Japanese civillians managed to do so with a bucket, a container and enough concentrate solution they inadvertantly achieved critical mass. (How many people can say they've seen Cerenkov in their eyeballs?) But that's just my $0.02 worth....xj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #14 March 28, 2008 Quote First read this. Not to put too fine a point on the subtlety of my question here but . . . WTF do you mean? 60 f'in' DAYS?!? Why wouldn't this information be INSTANTLY at the hands of the people responsible at a moments notice? Maybe they count slowly. More than 10 and the shoes have to come off.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #15 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote I agree, the nukes are the important part, but they are useless without their peripherals. In fact, some of the peripherals are arguably more important than the nuke. Seriously. What drugs are you on? Sober as a judge. Quote I'll grant you missiles and other delivery devices (eg aircraft) are worth a notable mention. Hardened detonators and precisely cut explosives used as lenses in compression devices are what force the reaction and thus, the explosion of a nuclear device -- the "mushroom cloud". That is the context I am talking from. Quote But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. I don't dispute that, but those that want to make the "ultimate" mess don't want a "dirty bomb" they want Hiroshima. China didn't steal our technology so they could have an arsenal of dirty bombs. They did it so they have an arsenal of sufficient deterrent to cause maximum damage. Those are finely tuned devices. The plutonium core is useless without the thousands of components that will force its reaction. Quote Heck, two Japanese civillians managed to do so with a bucket, a container and enough concentrate solution they inadvertantly achieved critical mass. You sorta backed my point with this one. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #16 March 28, 2008 Quote The sub-component list for things like this are insanely long, setting up the layout for the inspection takes more time than the inspection itself! Yeah...laying out all the Minuteman III's out of their silos... Seriously, just flying around to count every warhead, every missile, etc... Glad I'm in the Army.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #17 March 28, 2008 I think you guys are being a little conservative with the numbers. Remember.. in your time there are only about 5000 of the things. ACTIVE.. in MY USAF there were more than 10 times as many... you dont think all those parts REALLLY got destroyed do you. I know they munched some of the rockets themselves... but all the other components I would bet..... are still out there if needed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #18 March 28, 2008 Minot. I think that alone disproves your point.Quote No, you're absolutely right, I haven't personally been through countless knee-jerk reaction inventories after something was misplaced, i have no idea how these things work.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #19 March 28, 2008 QuoteMinot. I think that alone disproves your point.Quote No, you're absolutely right, I haven't personally been through countless knee-jerk reaction inventories after something was misplaced, i have no idea how these things work. I was responding to how well each and every warhead is completely under control and in a known location at all times. Clearly the Minot incident proves that theory wrong.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #20 March 28, 2008 I was responding to how well each and every warhead is completely under control and in a known location at all times. Clearly the Minot incident proves that theory wrong. Quote I've talked to people who have been stationed at the facilities where they store em, and the level of security and control measures they have are insane, I don't think one incident is indicitive of how ALL nukes are handled.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #21 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote First read this. Not to put too fine a point on the subtlety of my question here but . . . WTF do you mean? 60 f'in' DAYS?!? Why wouldn't this information be INSTANTLY at the hands of the people responsible at a moments notice? Maybe they count slowly. More than 10 and the shoes have to come off. And then they get sent to Iraq, right? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jasmin 0 #22 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. I don't dispute that, but those that want to make the "ultimate" mess don't want a "dirty bomb" they want Hiroshima. China didn't steal our technology so they could have an arsenal of dirty bombs. They did it so they have an arsenal of sufficient deterrent to cause maximum damage. Those are finely tuned devices. The plutonium core is useless without the thousands of components that will force its reaction. Dirty bomb? Save time and access a medical physics department.... Now, back to our semantics argument I have no problem with the assertion that a lump of Pu or U is relatively useless by itself. But I think we're both aware that they're not stored as an unenriched lump. So the part I'm grilling you over is the lack of logic in asserting that such items are useless without American military peripherals. Not everyone needs "a manual" in order to do something interesting with enriched material...If they did, IAEA inspections (and counter-proliferation efforts) would merely need to focus on auditing files, not facilities! So, going back to my point in mentioning the Japanese criticality incident; if two technicians can accidentally achieve critical mass with a bucket, the real nightmare is knowing that the wrong knowledgable person (A Q Khan) started out with a lump and some borrowed paperwork on centrifuges and built a successful program from these small beginnings; now imagine what his ilk could do with a bomb (ie geometry handed to them on a platter) merely missing the casing, codes and manuals. Edited to add: And on that note, goodnight gentlemen!xj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #23 March 28, 2008 They need to do a detailed inventory because suddeny it appears very credible that if some in Kurdistan decided to be a wise guy and cross off MICROWAVE OVEN on the invoice and write in NUCLEAR WARHEAD; some moron in our bureacracy just might ship it to him. "But boss, the paperwork said - 'Fill as requested' - so I did."" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #24 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote Quote But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. I don't dispute that, but those that want to make the "ultimate" mess don't want a "dirty bomb" they want Hiroshima. China didn't steal our technology so they could have an arsenal of dirty bombs. They did it so they have an arsenal of sufficient deterrent to cause maximum damage. Those are finely tuned devices. The plutonium core is useless without the thousands of components that will force its reaction. Dirty bomb? Save time and access a medical physics department.... Now, back to our semantics argument I have no problem with the assertion that a lump of Pu or U is relatively useless by itself. But I think we're both aware that they're not stored as an unenriched lump. So the part I'm grilling you over is the lack of logic in asserting that such items are useless without American military peripherals. Not everyone needs "a manual" in order to do something interesting with enriched material...If they did, IAEA inspections (and counter-proliferation efforts) would merely need to focus on auditing files, not facilities! So, going back to my point in mentioning the Japanese criticality incident; if two technicians can accidentally achieve critical mass with a bucket, the real nightmare is knowing that the wrong knowledgable person (A Q Khan) started out with a lump and some borrowed paperwork on centrifuges and built a successful program from these small beginnings; now imagine what his ilk could do with a bomb (ie geometry handed to them on a platter) merely missing the casing, codes and manuals. Edited to add: And on that note, goodnight gentlemen! I am not a nuclear physicist but my understanding is that with the current enrichment level of HEU available, making a Little Boy sized boom is relatively easy without any super hi-tech wizardry, firing sets, design codes, etc. Manhattan Project physicist and Nobel prizewinner Luis Alvarez said "... would have a good chance of setting off a high yield explosion simply by dropping one half of the material on the other half" when talking about the quality of HEU available in 1987. Cochran and McKinzie at the NRDC pretty much confirmed that statement by calculations using the Los Alamos software code.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #25 March 28, 2008 QuoteI think you guys are being a little conservative with the numbers. Remember.. in your time there are only about 5000 of the things. ACTIVE.. in MY USAF there were more than 10 times as many... you dont think all those parts REALLLY got destroyed do you. I know they munched some of the rockets themselves... but all the other components I would bet..... are still out there if needed. Oh, I understand what you're saying completely. That's why I stated at the beginning of the thread, I'm surprised they have only 60 days...including preparation of the report.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
quade 4 #19 March 28, 2008 QuoteMinot. I think that alone disproves your point.Quote No, you're absolutely right, I haven't personally been through countless knee-jerk reaction inventories after something was misplaced, i have no idea how these things work. I was responding to how well each and every warhead is completely under control and in a known location at all times. Clearly the Minot incident proves that theory wrong.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #20 March 28, 2008 I was responding to how well each and every warhead is completely under control and in a known location at all times. Clearly the Minot incident proves that theory wrong. Quote I've talked to people who have been stationed at the facilities where they store em, and the level of security and control measures they have are insane, I don't think one incident is indicitive of how ALL nukes are handled.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #21 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote First read this. Not to put too fine a point on the subtlety of my question here but . . . WTF do you mean? 60 f'in' DAYS?!? Why wouldn't this information be INSTANTLY at the hands of the people responsible at a moments notice? Maybe they count slowly. More than 10 and the shoes have to come off. And then they get sent to Iraq, right? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jasmin 0 #22 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. I don't dispute that, but those that want to make the "ultimate" mess don't want a "dirty bomb" they want Hiroshima. China didn't steal our technology so they could have an arsenal of dirty bombs. They did it so they have an arsenal of sufficient deterrent to cause maximum damage. Those are finely tuned devices. The plutonium core is useless without the thousands of components that will force its reaction. Dirty bomb? Save time and access a medical physics department.... Now, back to our semantics argument I have no problem with the assertion that a lump of Pu or U is relatively useless by itself. But I think we're both aware that they're not stored as an unenriched lump. So the part I'm grilling you over is the lack of logic in asserting that such items are useless without American military peripherals. Not everyone needs "a manual" in order to do something interesting with enriched material...If they did, IAEA inspections (and counter-proliferation efforts) would merely need to focus on auditing files, not facilities! So, going back to my point in mentioning the Japanese criticality incident; if two technicians can accidentally achieve critical mass with a bucket, the real nightmare is knowing that the wrong knowledgable person (A Q Khan) started out with a lump and some borrowed paperwork on centrifuges and built a successful program from these small beginnings; now imagine what his ilk could do with a bomb (ie geometry handed to them on a platter) merely missing the casing, codes and manuals. Edited to add: And on that note, goodnight gentlemen!xj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #23 March 28, 2008 They need to do a detailed inventory because suddeny it appears very credible that if some in Kurdistan decided to be a wise guy and cross off MICROWAVE OVEN on the invoice and write in NUCLEAR WARHEAD; some moron in our bureacracy just might ship it to him. "But boss, the paperwork said - 'Fill as requested' - so I did."" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #24 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote Quote But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. I don't dispute that, but those that want to make the "ultimate" mess don't want a "dirty bomb" they want Hiroshima. China didn't steal our technology so they could have an arsenal of dirty bombs. They did it so they have an arsenal of sufficient deterrent to cause maximum damage. Those are finely tuned devices. The plutonium core is useless without the thousands of components that will force its reaction. Dirty bomb? Save time and access a medical physics department.... Now, back to our semantics argument I have no problem with the assertion that a lump of Pu or U is relatively useless by itself. But I think we're both aware that they're not stored as an unenriched lump. So the part I'm grilling you over is the lack of logic in asserting that such items are useless without American military peripherals. Not everyone needs "a manual" in order to do something interesting with enriched material...If they did, IAEA inspections (and counter-proliferation efforts) would merely need to focus on auditing files, not facilities! So, going back to my point in mentioning the Japanese criticality incident; if two technicians can accidentally achieve critical mass with a bucket, the real nightmare is knowing that the wrong knowledgable person (A Q Khan) started out with a lump and some borrowed paperwork on centrifuges and built a successful program from these small beginnings; now imagine what his ilk could do with a bomb (ie geometry handed to them on a platter) merely missing the casing, codes and manuals. Edited to add: And on that note, goodnight gentlemen! I am not a nuclear physicist but my understanding is that with the current enrichment level of HEU available, making a Little Boy sized boom is relatively easy without any super hi-tech wizardry, firing sets, design codes, etc. Manhattan Project physicist and Nobel prizewinner Luis Alvarez said "... would have a good chance of setting off a high yield explosion simply by dropping one half of the material on the other half" when talking about the quality of HEU available in 1987. Cochran and McKinzie at the NRDC pretty much confirmed that statement by calculations using the Los Alamos software code.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #25 March 28, 2008 QuoteI think you guys are being a little conservative with the numbers. Remember.. in your time there are only about 5000 of the things. ACTIVE.. in MY USAF there were more than 10 times as many... you dont think all those parts REALLLY got destroyed do you. I know they munched some of the rockets themselves... but all the other components I would bet..... are still out there if needed. Oh, I understand what you're saying completely. That's why I stated at the beginning of the thread, I'm surprised they have only 60 days...including preparation of the report.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
GQ_jumper 4 #20 March 28, 2008 I was responding to how well each and every warhead is completely under control and in a known location at all times. Clearly the Minot incident proves that theory wrong. Quote I've talked to people who have been stationed at the facilities where they store em, and the level of security and control measures they have are insane, I don't think one incident is indicitive of how ALL nukes are handled.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #21 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote First read this. Not to put too fine a point on the subtlety of my question here but . . . WTF do you mean? 60 f'in' DAYS?!? Why wouldn't this information be INSTANTLY at the hands of the people responsible at a moments notice? Maybe they count slowly. More than 10 and the shoes have to come off. And then they get sent to Iraq, right? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jasmin 0 #22 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. I don't dispute that, but those that want to make the "ultimate" mess don't want a "dirty bomb" they want Hiroshima. China didn't steal our technology so they could have an arsenal of dirty bombs. They did it so they have an arsenal of sufficient deterrent to cause maximum damage. Those are finely tuned devices. The plutonium core is useless without the thousands of components that will force its reaction. Dirty bomb? Save time and access a medical physics department.... Now, back to our semantics argument I have no problem with the assertion that a lump of Pu or U is relatively useless by itself. But I think we're both aware that they're not stored as an unenriched lump. So the part I'm grilling you over is the lack of logic in asserting that such items are useless without American military peripherals. Not everyone needs "a manual" in order to do something interesting with enriched material...If they did, IAEA inspections (and counter-proliferation efforts) would merely need to focus on auditing files, not facilities! So, going back to my point in mentioning the Japanese criticality incident; if two technicians can accidentally achieve critical mass with a bucket, the real nightmare is knowing that the wrong knowledgable person (A Q Khan) started out with a lump and some borrowed paperwork on centrifuges and built a successful program from these small beginnings; now imagine what his ilk could do with a bomb (ie geometry handed to them on a platter) merely missing the casing, codes and manuals. Edited to add: And on that note, goodnight gentlemen!xj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #23 March 28, 2008 They need to do a detailed inventory because suddeny it appears very credible that if some in Kurdistan decided to be a wise guy and cross off MICROWAVE OVEN on the invoice and write in NUCLEAR WARHEAD; some moron in our bureacracy just might ship it to him. "But boss, the paperwork said - 'Fill as requested' - so I did."" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #24 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote Quote But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. I don't dispute that, but those that want to make the "ultimate" mess don't want a "dirty bomb" they want Hiroshima. China didn't steal our technology so they could have an arsenal of dirty bombs. They did it so they have an arsenal of sufficient deterrent to cause maximum damage. Those are finely tuned devices. The plutonium core is useless without the thousands of components that will force its reaction. Dirty bomb? Save time and access a medical physics department.... Now, back to our semantics argument I have no problem with the assertion that a lump of Pu or U is relatively useless by itself. But I think we're both aware that they're not stored as an unenriched lump. So the part I'm grilling you over is the lack of logic in asserting that such items are useless without American military peripherals. Not everyone needs "a manual" in order to do something interesting with enriched material...If they did, IAEA inspections (and counter-proliferation efforts) would merely need to focus on auditing files, not facilities! So, going back to my point in mentioning the Japanese criticality incident; if two technicians can accidentally achieve critical mass with a bucket, the real nightmare is knowing that the wrong knowledgable person (A Q Khan) started out with a lump and some borrowed paperwork on centrifuges and built a successful program from these small beginnings; now imagine what his ilk could do with a bomb (ie geometry handed to them on a platter) merely missing the casing, codes and manuals. Edited to add: And on that note, goodnight gentlemen! I am not a nuclear physicist but my understanding is that with the current enrichment level of HEU available, making a Little Boy sized boom is relatively easy without any super hi-tech wizardry, firing sets, design codes, etc. Manhattan Project physicist and Nobel prizewinner Luis Alvarez said "... would have a good chance of setting off a high yield explosion simply by dropping one half of the material on the other half" when talking about the quality of HEU available in 1987. Cochran and McKinzie at the NRDC pretty much confirmed that statement by calculations using the Los Alamos software code.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #25 March 28, 2008 QuoteI think you guys are being a little conservative with the numbers. Remember.. in your time there are only about 5000 of the things. ACTIVE.. in MY USAF there were more than 10 times as many... you dont think all those parts REALLLY got destroyed do you. I know they munched some of the rockets themselves... but all the other components I would bet..... are still out there if needed. Oh, I understand what you're saying completely. That's why I stated at the beginning of the thread, I'm surprised they have only 60 days...including preparation of the report.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnealtx 0 #21 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote First read this. Not to put too fine a point on the subtlety of my question here but . . . WTF do you mean? 60 f'in' DAYS?!? Why wouldn't this information be INSTANTLY at the hands of the people responsible at a moments notice? Maybe they count slowly. More than 10 and the shoes have to come off. And then they get sent to Iraq, right? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jasmin 0 #22 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. I don't dispute that, but those that want to make the "ultimate" mess don't want a "dirty bomb" they want Hiroshima. China didn't steal our technology so they could have an arsenal of dirty bombs. They did it so they have an arsenal of sufficient deterrent to cause maximum damage. Those are finely tuned devices. The plutonium core is useless without the thousands of components that will force its reaction. Dirty bomb? Save time and access a medical physics department.... Now, back to our semantics argument I have no problem with the assertion that a lump of Pu or U is relatively useless by itself. But I think we're both aware that they're not stored as an unenriched lump. So the part I'm grilling you over is the lack of logic in asserting that such items are useless without American military peripherals. Not everyone needs "a manual" in order to do something interesting with enriched material...If they did, IAEA inspections (and counter-proliferation efforts) would merely need to focus on auditing files, not facilities! So, going back to my point in mentioning the Japanese criticality incident; if two technicians can accidentally achieve critical mass with a bucket, the real nightmare is knowing that the wrong knowledgable person (A Q Khan) started out with a lump and some borrowed paperwork on centrifuges and built a successful program from these small beginnings; now imagine what his ilk could do with a bomb (ie geometry handed to them on a platter) merely missing the casing, codes and manuals. Edited to add: And on that note, goodnight gentlemen!xj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #23 March 28, 2008 They need to do a detailed inventory because suddeny it appears very credible that if some in Kurdistan decided to be a wise guy and cross off MICROWAVE OVEN on the invoice and write in NUCLEAR WARHEAD; some moron in our bureacracy just might ship it to him. "But boss, the paperwork said - 'Fill as requested' - so I did."" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #24 March 28, 2008 Quote Quote Quote But someone worth their salt can make a bloody big mess out of a few kg of the right material without needing to resort to playing with the peripherals. I don't dispute that, but those that want to make the "ultimate" mess don't want a "dirty bomb" they want Hiroshima. China didn't steal our technology so they could have an arsenal of dirty bombs. They did it so they have an arsenal of sufficient deterrent to cause maximum damage. Those are finely tuned devices. The plutonium core is useless without the thousands of components that will force its reaction. Dirty bomb? Save time and access a medical physics department.... Now, back to our semantics argument I have no problem with the assertion that a lump of Pu or U is relatively useless by itself. But I think we're both aware that they're not stored as an unenriched lump. So the part I'm grilling you over is the lack of logic in asserting that such items are useless without American military peripherals. Not everyone needs "a manual" in order to do something interesting with enriched material...If they did, IAEA inspections (and counter-proliferation efforts) would merely need to focus on auditing files, not facilities! So, going back to my point in mentioning the Japanese criticality incident; if two technicians can accidentally achieve critical mass with a bucket, the real nightmare is knowing that the wrong knowledgable person (A Q Khan) started out with a lump and some borrowed paperwork on centrifuges and built a successful program from these small beginnings; now imagine what his ilk could do with a bomb (ie geometry handed to them on a platter) merely missing the casing, codes and manuals. Edited to add: And on that note, goodnight gentlemen! I am not a nuclear physicist but my understanding is that with the current enrichment level of HEU available, making a Little Boy sized boom is relatively easy without any super hi-tech wizardry, firing sets, design codes, etc. Manhattan Project physicist and Nobel prizewinner Luis Alvarez said "... would have a good chance of setting off a high yield explosion simply by dropping one half of the material on the other half" when talking about the quality of HEU available in 1987. Cochran and McKinzie at the NRDC pretty much confirmed that statement by calculations using the Los Alamos software code.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #25 March 28, 2008 QuoteI think you guys are being a little conservative with the numbers. Remember.. in your time there are only about 5000 of the things. ACTIVE.. in MY USAF there were more than 10 times as many... you dont think all those parts REALLLY got destroyed do you. I know they munched some of the rockets themselves... but all the other components I would bet..... are still out there if needed. Oh, I understand what you're saying completely. That's why I stated at the beginning of the thread, I'm surprised they have only 60 days...including preparation of the report.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
