Britain's nuclear warheads could be triggered .......

[STEED]

WHAT!!!:o :o

Britain's nuclear warheads could be triggered by road crash: New Scientist
LONDON, July 5 (AFP) Jul 05, 2006
Britain's Trident nuclear warheads could be partially detonated in a road pileup or plane crash, unleashing lethal doses of radiation, the British weekly New Scientist said on Wednesday.

The warheads, designed to produce a blast equivalent to up to 100,000 tonnes of TNT, are deployed aboard Royal Navy (http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060705181031.k62pku04.html#) submarines but are regularly transported to weapons facilities in Britain and the United States for checks.
The Ministry of Defence has always insisted that these transit operations are safe because a warhead's plutonium core must be compressed symmetrically by conventional explosives in order to deliver a nuclear blast.
Bombs are designed to be "single-point safe," meaning that a knock on a single point should not trigger all the explosives around the core.
But a report to be published in this Saturday's New Scientist, citing what it says is a newly-declassified defence ministry document, says that extreme accidents could result in a partial nuclear explosion, an event called an "inadvertent yield".
The report estimates the annual risk of an "inadvertent yield" in Britain at 2.4 per billion, New Scientist says. Most of the risk would come from the possibility of a plane smashing into a convoy.
Even though the Ministry of Defence in this document quantifies the risk as "tolerable", it also acknowledges that if such an incident happened there would be "potentially high off-site consequences," inflicting radiation doses of up to 10 sieverts to people in the vicinity, New Scientist says.
According to British health standards, people exposed to four sieverts of radiation have a 50-percent risk of dying, while six sieverts is lethal.
The document concludes that contingency plans for responding to an "inadvertent yield" are adequate, although it does not spell them out, according to the New Scientist report.
Reacting to the report, a Ministry of Defence spokesman told AFP: "A nuclear bomb-type explosion is not possible because the warheads are transported unarmed.
"Britain's safety record on nuclear transportation is second-to-none."




http://www.spacewar.com/2006/060705181031.k62pku04.html

[snowsub]

Well then just drive safely around them then :rotfl:

Seriously, you'd have to be blind not to notice a truck with hazard symbols all over it escorted by armed soldiers.

But I suppose some people would be thinking "get out of my way, I pay my taxes.... lookout comming thr....Boom!"

[The Avon Lady]

Obviously, the concern here is not obnoxious drivers.

All you need is someone on the ground to convey the transport's location to someone at an airfield, ready to takeoff in a fuel and explosive laden private jet or similar.

Or someone or several people waiting along the transportation route with a serious shoulder supported AT launcher.

Doesn't take much imagination. :nope:

[Iku-turso]

Obviously, the concern here is not obnoxious drivers.

No,but left-sided traffic is.

[The Avon Lady]

Obviously, the concern here is not obnoxious drivers.
No,but left-sided traffic is.
You mean American tourists on UK roads. :doh:

[STEED]

Obviously, the concern here is not obnoxious drivers.
No,but left-sided traffic is.
You mean American tourists on UK roads. :doh:

:rotfl: :rotfl:

[tycho102]

The reason a plane could setoff a nuke is the same reason a sub's nuclear reactor could set one off.

If the missile was doused in burning fuel (or the hot slag of a critical pile), the compression explosives could ignite. It wouldn't be nearly as efficient as a full detonation, since there's also a small particle accelerator that works to reduce the necessary critical mass.

It's one of those really funky things that Phd's are paid to think about whenever something goes to the feasibility phase. There are contingency plans for one of our spy sats going down in Iran or North Korea, one of our nuke subs suffering a meltdown in Chinese waters, and the Space Shuttle having to make an emergency abort onto the African continent with classified gear aboard.

[micky1up]

absolute crap many things have to get triggered in the correct order for a detonation i could probably find a scientist who could tell you black was white


and you clear dont know the world of difference between a nuke weapon and a nuclear power plant if your going to protest get your basic facts right at least and the basic fact is no major superpowers have attacked each other directley since ww2 and nukes have stopped that from happening

[SUBMAN1]

Are we even having a serious discussion about this? 1 in 2.4 billion? On top of that, you will only get a partial detonation (Impossible to achieve a real thermonuclear detonation, this would just be a fizzle and very small and insignificant). And to top it off - you need to be standing near the trucks to get your 10 sieverts.

So lets analyze this statistically. You have a few shipments/transports each year would mean we all have to be alive for approximately 800,000,000 years with current road and plane transportation before something statistically might even happen!

So, lets get off the anti nuke demostrators hype, and get on with a real conversation.

-S

PS. Lets talk about antimatter bombs (a real weapon) since nukes suck and are puny anyway.

[SUBMAN1]

One more thing - if we aren't safely sending our puny nukes through matter transporters in 800 million years time, we deserve to get a fizzle to maybe knock us on the head and get on with some real science.

-S

PS. THe point is, if our tech hasn't advanced enough to have us leave the planet - we are already in the stone age and not going anywhere anyway.

[Godalmighty83]

sounds like a lot of 'ifs' and 'coulds' and 'mays' to me.

[SUBMAN1]

sounds like a lot of 'ifs' and 'coulds' and 'mays' to me.
I think a proper definition would be a statistical impossibility, hyped up by the anti nuke left.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

One more thought just popped into my mind - Before we have our first theoretical accidental fizzle from a transported nuke in the UK (Approximately 800 million years from now based on 2.4 billion to one odds), it is a gurantee that our earth will be hit with a world devastating asteroid first and there will be no more nukes left to worry about.

Current estimates for our next collision (it may miss us by 40 miles - which is nothing, but that is unlikely) is April the 13th, 2029 (And yes, it is a Friday the 13th). That day, there is a very real chance that life as we know it on this Earth may not exist. I think it is time we start worrying about a real threat.

-S

PS. Nukes are not going to help us on this one - they may only make a deadly threat worse by breaking it up into many smaller peices that are already on a collision course. Something must be done to counter this threat right now!

PPS. Current data shows that it may miss us! By 18,000 miles! Still, what about the next one? This is just one pepple on the beach. We still need a defense.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/13may_2004mn4.htm

[scandium]

sounds like a lot of 'ifs' and 'coulds' and 'mays' to me.
I think a proper definition would be a statistical impossibility, hyped up by the anti nuke left.

-S
Without getting into the merits of the article itself, its worth mentioning that it is based on a forthcoming report to be published in the New Scientist, not on 'hype' from the "anti nuke left".

This is a common theme in your postings, and I'm not sure why you feel the need to attribute everything you see as bad in the world, or that you disagree with, to the "left" (outside of your technology posts, which often make for good reading as you seem to be both knowledgeable and a fellow enthusiast). Granted there have certainly been some bad ideas to spring forth from this political sphere, but they are really not responsible for everything that is wrong with the world. :D

[SUBMAN1]

sounds like a lot of 'ifs' and 'coulds' and 'mays' to me.
I think a proper definition would be a statistical impossibility, hyped up by the anti nuke left.

-S
Without getting into the merits of the article itself, its worth mentioning that it is based on a forthcoming report to be published in the New Scientist, not on 'hype' from the "anti nuke left".

This is a common theme in your postings, and I'm not sure why you feel the need to attribute everything you see as bad in the world, or that you disagree with, to the "left" (outside of your technology posts, which often make for good reading as you seem to be both knowledgeable and a fellow enthusiast). Granted there have certainly been some bad ideas to spring forth from this political sphere, but they are really not responsible for everything that is wrong with the world. :D
No offense, but if you understand the difference between left and right and liberal and conservative, this issue is a left wing whacko (Not left wing normal) type approach. A right wing whacko however is much different and also a whacko just as much as the guys on the very far left. Middle ground is the most sane ground of all. Left wing whackos are very anti weapon and this falls in that line of reasoning.

I have no agenda against left wing whackos that are any worse than any agenda against right wing whackos. All whackos are whackos - period. Are we clear?

The reason I bring this up is the author of the new scientist article must then be a left wing whacko to try and bring up a discussion about a statistical impossibility. That is the biggest buch of BS I have ever heard. Lets freak out the public about something that might happen every 800 million years if transportation systems advance no further than they do today. As transportation systems advance - say 50 years from now, this statistic will go to 1 in 10 billion years or higher!

Just trying to put things into perspective - and yes, many of the world problems are irrationally based and brought on by some whacko! :p

-S

PS. You aren't some whacko are you? I might have to get ugly on you is you are! :p

[bradclark1]

I also read somewhere that when someone on a plane flushes the commode someone on the ground might be hit by flying s#!t.
You have to think about these possibilities when you leave home. :huh:
Thats why I hardly ever leave home. I don't want to be hit by flying
s#it. If some fell from 13,000 feet it would be frozen enough to go through your head and out your butt. :know:

[scandium]

No offense, but if you understand the difference between left and right and liberal and conservative, this issue is a left wing whacko (Not left wing normal) type approach.
None taken, and I do understand the differences between these political orientations.

A right wing whacko however is much different and also a whacko just as much as the guys on the very far left. Middle ground is the most sane ground of all. Left wing whackos are very anti weapon and this falls in that line of reasoning.
Again, fair enough and I don't disagree.

I have no agenda against left wing whackos that are any worse than any agenda against right wing whackos. All whackos are whackos - period. Are we clear?
As daylight.

The reason I bring this up is the author of the new scientist article must then be a left wing whacko to try and bring up a discussion about a statistical impossibility. That is the biggest buch of BS I have ever heard. Lets freak out the public about something that might happen every 800 million years if transportation systems advance no further than they do today. As transportation systems advance - say 50 years from now, this statistic will go to 1 in 10 billion years or higher!

Just trying to put things into perspective - and yes, many of the world problems are irrationally based and brought on by some whacko! :p
Sometimes. Sometimes the World's problems are created by those who are too rational and whose very rationality either prevent them from recognizing the problem (Chamberlain with the threat posed by Hitler) or from being creative enough to think outside the box in finding a solution (the succession of well-meaning politicians who've unsuccessfully tried to find a solution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) - but perhaps this is neither here nor there. ;)

PS. You aren't some whacko are you? I might have to get ugly on you is you are! :p
No worries there, though my personal politics are left-oriented they are not that extreme and I am quite rational (though were I completely insane I would probably not myself know it). :up:

[SUBMAN1]

No offense, but if you understand the difference between left and right and liberal and conservative, this issue is a left wing whacko (Not left wing normal) type approach.
None taken, and I do understand the differences between these political orientations.

A right wing whacko however is much different and also a whacko just as much as the guys on the very far left. Middle ground is the most sane ground of all. Left wing whackos are very anti weapon and this falls in that line of reasoning.
Again, fair enough and I don't disagree.

I have no agenda against left wing whackos that are any worse than any agenda against right wing whackos. All whackos are whackos - period. Are we clear?
As daylight.

The reason I bring this up is the author of the new scientist article must then be a left wing whacko to try and bring up a discussion about a statistical impossibility. That is the biggest buch of BS I have ever heard. Lets freak out the public about something that might happen every 800 million years if transportation systems advance no further than they do today. As transportation systems advance - say 50 years from now, this statistic will go to 1 in 10 billion years or higher!

Just trying to put things into perspective - and yes, many of the world problems are irrationally based and brought on by some whacko! :p
Sometimes. Sometimes the World's problems are created by those who are too rational and whose very rationality either prevent them from recognizing the problem (Chamberlain with the threat posed by Hitler) or from being creative enough to think outside the box in finding a solution (the succession of well-meaning politicians who've unsuccessfully tried to find a solution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) - but perhaps this is neither here nor there. ;)

PS. You aren't some whacko are you? I might have to get ugly on you is you are! :p
No worries there, though my personal politics are left-oriented they are not that extreme and I am quite rational (though were I completely insane I would probably not myself know it). :up:
I think Chamberlain had his hands tied and was unable to respond or risk provoking a premature response from Hitler which may have actually given Hitler enough time to do the job he set out to do. I think things happened rather well for the outcome of WWII could have been much worse!

So I opt for the neither here no there approach!

-S

[scandium]

I also read somewhere that when someone on a plane flushes the commode someone on the ground might be hit by flying s#!t.
You have to think about these possibilities when you leave home. :huh:
Thats why I hardly ever leave home. I don't want to be hit by flying
s#it. If some fell from 13,000 feet it would be frozen enough to go through your head and out your butt. :know:

I wish I could find the article, but not too long ago there was something like this that had actually happened (it hit a house or something, causing some property damage and terrorizing the occupants) :lol:.

In a similar vein, living near the ocean where we have a very large seagull population, getting spattered by bird droppings is more likely, and no less disgusting, concern. :ping: Though at least it would not be lethal. :lol:

[bradclark1]

In a similar vein, living near the ocean where we have a very large seagull population, getting spattered by bird droppings is more likely, and no less disgusting, concern. :ping: Though at least it would not be lethal. :lol:

Yeah, I live near the ocean. We have huge sea gulls here. No skinny ones. It's the left over french fries and Big Macs that people feed them. You just have to keep an eye out for dropping/flying organic matter. Thats another reason I rarely leave the house. :)

[SUBMAN1]

In a similar vein, living near the ocean where we have a very large seagull population, getting spattered by bird droppings is more likely, and no less disgusting, concern. :ping: Though at least it would not be lethal. :lol:
Yeah, I live near the ocean. We have huge sea gulls here. No skinny ones. It's the left over french fries and Big Macs that people feed them. You just have to keep an eye out for dropping/flying organic matter. Thats another reason I rarely leave the house. :)

THey grow things bigger on the West coast - you do not want to be hit by flying seagull sh*t over here - it would devestate your life! :p

-S

[MadMike]

One point safety tests performed at the Nevada Test Site confirm the safety of US and British nuclear warheads. The article is pure BS.
Numerous US nuclear weapons have undergone high explosive (non-nuclear) detonations or burning in aircraft accidents, for example-

The 1966 Thule Greenland accident with a B-52 carrying four B28FI bombs hit the ice travelling over 450 mph. Guess what? Due to design features there was no nuclear energy release despite the weapons all being in close proximity to each other (on a clip-in). Obviously, there was a high explosive detonation in all four weapons that resulted in plutonium contamination, but absolutely no possibility of a high yield nuclear detonation (there was no low order nuclear energy release to the best of my knowledge).
Other accidents include a B-58 Hustler carrying five weapons (it caught fire during an alert on the ground), A B-52 carrying two weapons crashing in Maryland, another in Kentucky after colliding with a KC-135, the Palomares accident (B-52 colliding with KC-135), Thor missile blowing up on the launch pad on Johnston Island during the atmospheric test series in 1962, yada yada.
Anyone close enough in this "accident scenario" is going to die from the crash, burning jet fuel, or high explosive detonation (not any initial radiation release).

Yours, Mike

[bradclark1]

Nukes just don't go boom over anything. A specific sequence has to happen.

[Godalmighty83]

you have to have a rod of plutonium in one hand and a lump of uranium in the other, then clap really hard.

at least its that simple as far as all the anti-nuke enviromentalists are concerned, they think everything vaguely radiation based is a potential chernoble. noone tell them about the radioactive material in smoke detectors for gods sake.

[MadMike]

"tell them about the radioactive material in smoke detectors for gods sake."

Good one, Godalmighty83.

Wanna know your annual radiation dosage from natural and man-made materials?

http://newnet.lanl.gov/main.htm


Yours, Mike

[SUBMAN1]

you have to have a rod of plutonium in one hand and a lump of uranium in the other, then clap really hard.

at least its that simple as far as all the anti-nuke enviromentalists are concerned, they think everything vaguely radiation based is a potential chernoble. noone tell them about the radioactive material in smoke detectors for gods sake.
You are so 1940's! Get with the 2000's! We play soccer out here!

-S :p

[snowsub]

Isn't there a bomb that fell into a swamp in florida and has been there ever since, appartently they looked for it but never found, after all these years and it's still ok (probably a little rusted but you get that :lol: )

There's like 5 or 6 awol bombs about the place in continental US :hmm:

[MadMike]

Actually, there are-

1. Mk15 thermonuclear bomb (minus nuclear capsule) that's sitting somewhere in the mud off Tybee Sound, Georgia. Obviously incapable of a nuclear explosion.

2. B43 thermonuclear bomb (along with A-4 Skyhawk and pilot) that fell off an aircraft carrier "more than 500 miles from land". Actually it's off the coast of Japan, but 500 miles from the Chinese mainland in about 10,000 feet of water.

3 and 4. Two Mk5 bombs jettisoned from a C-124 off the US east coast. No high exposive detonation observed (no nuclear capsules installed).

5. Mk7 Betty anti-submarine weapon aboard P-5M that ditched in Whidbey Island, Washington (nuclear capsule not installed).

6. Goldsboro, NC- B-52 broke up in mid-air after structural failure, one bomb recovered but the portion of another (the secondary, which contains uranium and isn't capable of a nuclear explosion) could not be recovered after extensive digging.

7 and 8. Two W34 warheads purportedly lost aboard USS Scorpion, off the Azores.

9 and 10. Two nuclear capsules that were aboard a B-47 Stratojet that was lost over the Med.

Now, wonder how many missing nukes are scattered about the ocean floor compliments of the Soviet Navy?

Yours, Mike