Embattled Lab Unveils New Nukes

dahamsta

Stuff like this really creeps me out, I actually had a shiver down my spine when I read it. You can see that moron and those pr1cks in the Whitehouse thinking to themselves: "Screw it, bomb Europe now and we'll deal with the consequences later."

adam

Embattled Lab Unveils New Nukes

By Noah Shachtman

01:18 AM Apr. 23, 2003 PT

The United States' arsenal of 10,000 nuclear weapons isn't enough. The country needs more bombs, and the place to make them is the scandal-plagued Los Alamos National Laboratory.

That seems to be the meaning behind yesterday's announcement by Los Alamos officials that the lab has constructed the first plutonium pit -- the deadly heart of a nuclear warhead -- that's bomb-ready.

It's been 14 years since the last one was completed. The United States hasn't had the ability to make the pits since the FBI stopped production at the Energy Department's Rocky Flats plant for environmental violations in 1989.

It's the opening trickle in what is scheduled to eventually become a torrent of new nuclear cores. For the next four years, Los Alamos will make about a half-dozen pits per year. After that, capacity will ramp up to 10 pits per year -- and then to as many as 500 new pits annually, as the new U.S. Modern Pit Facility comes online in 2018.

[...]

PHB

"Mr President!! We must not allow a mine-shaft gap!!!"

bonkey

Mind the Gap.

jc

bonkey

Seriously though...

doesnt this show just what a joke the non-proliferation treaties really are.

I mean come on.....we have "spare pits" in case the existing ones in missiles get worn out with age or something. We also have spare missile bodies, warhead components, launch and guidance components and engines.

But thats all ok, because as long as we dont actually clip all the pieces together, it aint a bomb, so it doesnt count.

No violation of the treaty here.

Uh-huh.

Just like the cutbacks agreed recently with the Russians do not require the destruction of the warheads...simply that the delivery mechanisms be destroyed.

"Jucking Foke" is what springs to mind.

jc

Sand

Madness really - how many fricking nukes do you need? christ there cant be a 1000 places you need to nuke all at once, let alone 10,000 or more.

woolymammoth

you might need em all if you wanted to carpet nuke a country. i wonder who the yanks have in mind. a big enough country i suppose if they're gonna make more nukes...

Sparks

Hmm.
Somewhere you'd have to carpet nuke... erm... 16,000 artillery pieces along the DPRK border.... :ninja:

bonkey

IMHO, the new warheads being produced are going to eventually turn out to be refined designs - possibly even the first generation of "tactical nuclear warheads", rather than "strategic" ones - i.e. clean(ish) battlefield nukes.

The US doesnt want to build up its arsenal of the same old stuff it already has...it wasnt to build new and cooler toys....preferably ones that it can use at some point without the world ending.


jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bonkey
IMHO, the new warheads being produced are going to eventually turn out to be refined designs - possibly even the first generation of "tactical nuclear warheads", rather than "strategic" ones - i.e. clean(ish) battlefield nukes.

But haven't these been around for a long time? Not necessarily "clean" but fireable as shells from artillery and small missiles.

imp

Actually I didn't think that the US-Russian agreement even needed delivery systems to be destroyed.

The news at the time said that it basically just meant that a third of their nuclear arsenals (i could be wrong with that figure) had to be removed from being immediately launch-capable and put into storage.

Hrm.

Is it me or do they really not need any more nukes though? The US I mean... they can already destroy the planet with the amount they have and I'm pretty sure that they could launch one to any particular point on the planet so why do they need more??

}:>

spongebob

Originally posted by bonkey
"tactical nuclear warheads",

These have been around since the 1950's in the form of depth charges torpedos and shells ???

I think the yanks are thinking of a mishmash of low(ish) yield situation specific devices such as

1. EMP devices with low radiation signatures, knocks electronics out
2. Neutron devices , very little destruction except to humans
3. Bunker Busters , the blast will be slightly underground and not an airburst. The radiation plume will be less than usual .

I do agree with Bonkey that these are indeed cool toys for the unreconstructed cold warriors in charge in Washington these days. It must remind them of Pappa Bush and his dearly held concept of a Winnable nuclear war.

Here you Will Find a good example of the absurd mindset behind the 'Winnable Nuclear War' concept when it was last let out of the bottle some 20 years back. A lot of these nutters are very close to or are actual members of the Baby Bush administration these days.

M

bonkey

Originally posted by Muck
These have been around since the 1950's in the form of depth charges torpedos and shells ???

I was of the impression that they been researched since then, but never implemented into the arsenal for a variety of reasons.

There was some furore ovewr this stuff when the US pulled out of the ABM treaty. They claimed they wanted to research things like sub-kiloton clean battlefield nukes and stuff like that (which is what I was more referring to). Funnily, I cant see how a Ballistic Missile Treaty should have affected that, but its probably in the small print somewhere.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

'fraid not. Some sicko did actually think them up

ozpass

Nah, I'm sad to say they exist. The basic construction is that of a hydrogen bomb but without the outer uranium casing.

Some kind of complex plutonium charge is used to start the fusion. Hence the fissile ingredients are kept to the minimum reducing radioactive contamination. All the useful buildings and infrastructure are kept (relatively) intact and the expendable human detritus is wiped out by the massive gamma radiation.

The good ol' US of A is rumoured to have been developing them since the early 80's after a moratorium on their development in 1970.