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

[STEED]

WHAT!!!

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 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.

[Iku-turso]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Obviously, the concern here is not obnoxious drivers.

No,but left-sided traffic is.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Iku-turso

No,but left-sided traffic is.

You mean American tourists on UK roads.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

You mean American tourists on UK roads.

: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]

Originally Posted by Godalmighty83

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/y2...ay_2004mn4.htm

[scandium]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by scandium

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.

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