U.S. Prepares to Get Nuked

There's an important story in the NYT about new efforts from the U.S. national laboratories to retain and improve their ability to identify nuclear fallout. In a nutshell, any fissionable materials turned into a nuclear weapon will be composed of a specific ratio of various radionuclides, which form a sort of signature, which can be used to identify the source of the fissionable material. The problem is, naturally, that you're probably doing this after the detonation.

Comments

Nuked not

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I think the US is more preparing for radioactive fallouts from "dirty" bombs, i.e. sacks full of radioactive crap with a conventional explosive in then to spread the crap.

I don't think any terrorist group has the expertise, materials or facilities to build a nuclear device, much less deliver it, unless Pakistan helps.

Re:Nuked not

[gregopad39]

The objective of this skill - is to find the "fingerprint" of the bomb or dirty bomb - and using this information - perform a return to sender operation. In most cases this will be a parking lot after we are through.

Re:Nuked not

[dnahelix]

or North Korea... or Iran... or China...

Re:Nuked not

[Rob Riggs]

North Korea and Iran don't have delivery systems that can reach the US

I would count passenger airplanes and container ships, among many other forms of commerical transport, as intercontinental nuclear delivery systems. Remember, no one thought that al Queda had cruise missile capability before 9/11.

Re:Nuked not

[badasscat]

In most cases this will be a parking lot after we are through.

In other words, you are saying US will commit mass murder in revenge?

You say this as if simply repeating the notion will convince us all of how implausible or horrible it is. I am sure the original poster realized what he/she was saying, and I'm sure we all know what a horrible thought it is. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen, or that it wouldn't be supported by a lot of people in this country.

Nukes are not something just anybody can put together. A comparatively small number of countries can do it (relative to the total number of countries in the world), let alone individuals or small groups of people, however well financed they are. The best any of these groups can probably do is pay another country enough money to lend them materials and expertise. This is what we're really afraid of - that or that a nuke gets stolen from an unwitting country.

If it turns out a state had provided material or know-how to terrorists for building a nuclear bomb that was subsequently used in the US, and that's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I and every other sane person in this country would rightly expect a massive military response. Now, I'm not saying a nuclear response, but in the days of the Cold War that was the generally accepted outcome - one country nukes another and in turn gets nuked back. Everybody knew it would happen; it wasn't questioned. That mutually assured destruction kept anybody from pulling the trigger - or so the thought went. Would we have used the a-bomb in Japan if we thought we'd get a-bombed back? I doubt it.

The same would hold now. The fact that another country thinks we could identify them and would respond in kind would hopefully be some form of deterrent. And if we didn't respond in kind, they should consider themselves lucky they're dealing with a country more merciful than most. In any case, if a city were wiped out along with the millions of people inhabiting it, and another country were identified as the real culprit behind it, well, I don't think there would be much crying over any military response we would choose to wield.

OK - Spend it!

[michael path]

A couple items caught my attention.

This is actually done with PREVENTION in mind. Given an existing legitamite threat, this is well-spent money. This isn't just anti-terror, as nations like North Korea are perfectly capable of this level of threat, and wouldn't be without an excuse to excercise it (Bush's infamous "axis of evil" comment?).

I've not been a fan of how much or even how we've been spending to fight terror (see http://www.costofwar.com for what else we could have bought), but I would consider with what information and resources American enemies have that I'm not opposed to spending my tax dollars on such a program.

Yes, obviously we'd have to be nuked for this to pay off directly for us. However, in the case of such an incident, it'd be tremendous if we didn't run around like chickens with their heads detached. There were some lessons learned in 9/11 that are worth recalling.

Re:At least

[Homology]

The internet will survive it... right?

I suppose it must be considered a progress for you to laugh about it, but I lived though those times and I'm still scared.

Bullsh*t

[marcus]

I have a delivery system that can reach from almost anywhere in the world to almost anywhere else.

It's called a shipping container. After that, call your favorite UPS, FedX, hell even the USPS will deliver a decent sized package.

Duh.

Even if the lowly customs officer scans the box and detects radiation upon receipt what does he do? What kind of damage would a 10KT warhead do at the dockside in Los Angeles?

Bad idea - it's part of their armageddon scenario.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Drop a nuke on Mecca first ... And make it clear their God is dead or never existed like everyone else's.

Bad idea. The destruction of Mecca by the Infidels is part of their armageddon scenario. Which continues, by the way, with the second coming of Jesus (whom they refer to as the prophet Issa, a particluarly holy man, whom they believe went bodily to heaven and will be back shortly before the end).

Playing into that scenario would essentially require the bulk of the Islamic world (most of which consider terrorism to be heresy) to go on a holy war against the bombers and their allies.

Given that (if I recall correctly) there's over a Billion of 'em last count, and they DO beileve that dying in a war to defend the faith is a ticket to paradise, this would be very very bad.

By the way, It's not "their" God. It's "our" God. Assuming you and I are both Christian and/or Jewish. (Of course that might be problematic, given your statment about the non-existence and/or death of God.)

"Allah" is just Arabic for "God" - specifically the Arabic pronounciation of the word that Hebrew pronounces "Yahweh", which became "Jehova" in English translations. It's the word that is used by Arabic-speaking Muslums, Jews, and Christians alike when referring to God.

You know, if you really believe there IS no God, or that God is dead, then you're playing into another part of the scenario. Their version of armageddon is the war between the UNfaithful and the "people of the book" - members of EVERY divinely-inspired religion, along with everybody who converts to any of 'em along the way (with Jesus back to give the last word on it all).

Drop that bomb and you're exactly what they've been waiting for.

Nip it in the bud.

You're about 1,500 years too late.

But maybe we can nip YOUR idea in the bud. Before you set off WW III in the form of the sixth Crusade.

You should be more scared...

[Graelin]

You obviously grew up in the cold war. You know what it's like to have a vast array of global-killer weapons pointed in your general direction.

Today's youth takes this fore granted. I saw a comment on here a few days back along the lines of "Well, let's throw a few nukes at one spot on Mars and see what happens." Today's youth read about Fat Boy and think "Wow, that's a cool bomb." But they should really be thinking "Wow, we did that? Could that happen to us?"

I'm frightened to see what happens when my generation doubles in age, and qualifies for positions of power over these kinds of weapons. They do not know better and unless something horrific happens, I doubt they will within the next 25 years.

The same thing goes for those countries just now joining the nuclear family. Some of these countries are lead by people who do know better and think that's all the more reason to use them.

May you live in interesting times? We're well beyond that now.

Re:You should be more scared...

[secolactico]

You might be underestimating the younger generation.

They do not know better and unless something horrific happens, I doubt they will within the next 25 years

On the other hand, they might be able to take unbiased decision regarding nuclear power. When you and I think of nukes, we remember the fear and that might keep us from viable nuclear solutions (it's not just bombs, you know) to a number of today's problems.

Today's youth takes this fore granted. I saw a comment on here a few days back along the lines of "Well, let's throw a few nukes at one spot on Mars and see what happens."

Every generation has jackasses. Ours has it, our parent's has (had?) it. And they usually are the ones that speak louder and without thinking. Not having a reference to the original post, however, I cannot comment further without knowing the context.

Re:Never happen...

[alexborges]

I love americans... "We would annihilate them" ....

Right... in global thermo nuclear war (like, HELLO, with China), you do not annihilate anything. In this scenario, you are in NORAD or you are dead.

So, perhaps you should say:

My president would annihilate them, or, the powers that be would destroy the world because of this or something that actually resembles reality, instead of the stuff you see in fox news.

"xyz deserved to be nuked"

[gobbo]

Questions for you to research (you wouldn't believe my conclusions anyway, nor should you):

Was the attack really sneak, and intended to be so? Did the US also draw Japan into war using pressure around oil and rubber resources, as well as deception?

Did attacking a military base require revenge in the form of destroying cities? (Your suggestion is that it did.)

Given that Hirohito was actually offered a realistic opportunity to surrender, would it have been possible for him given internal politics? If not, did the US military know that?

Was it necessary to detonate over a city? Why not out past Tokyo harbour, in full view? Consider it a warning shot, factor in cultural elements.

Given that one is convinced that nuking a city was necessary, was it necessary to nuke a second city?

Was there intent and significant motivation to conduct these detonations as experiments?

I suggest that your research not focus on reportage coming out of the fog of war or patriotism, but on declassified documents and their analyses by scholars.

Good luck. (One might then apply the results of above questions to the people of Bikini, the Aleuts, the Navaho, etc., including those the French, English, and Russians experimented on, just for a bigger picture.)

Re:"xyz deserved to be nuked"

[gobbo]

Many of the responses to my questions were as vehemently defensive as I predicted, though I was not trolling, I truly want to know the answer to these questions -- though I don't expect to find them on /.

Disclaimer: I am not "swallowing the left-wing crap you are fed" (you flaming donut) -- I am truly skeptical of history written by victors, as well as that written by the victors' critics who do not have the full story due to secrecy, so I am not "implying conclusions." Skepticism is the fundament of an open mind. I believe we can't really answer these questions since the picture is larger and far more complex (and in some cases, more privately interpersonal) than we can grasp with the available materials.

My line of questioning is admittedly somewhat leading, since I think it's more important to provoke discussion on the ethics of the situation in terms of what were current standards and in terms of what is now acceptable, than it is to argue about things we don't have enough information about. My real point: I'm tired of patriotic jingoism spouted through the standard but impoverished versions of history, which are then used to obscure current ethical problems, like who should be nuked, or have nukes.

I agree with those who point out that firebombing was commonplace; Dresden was as much a catastrophe to those on the ground as Nagasaki. And, I think that Nanking (yes I'm familiar with this horror) was worse than either, on par with Kampuchea. I even accept the assertion (hinted at in this thread but not stated) that the bombings shook Nippon into a more beneficial cultural framework.

The victors did horrific things too. They may or may not have been morally justified then, I reserve judgement. However, these kinds of mass destructions aren't morally justifiable now, regardless of the behaviour of the 'other side.'

Some posters propose that the strategic movement of Soviet troops precipitated some pretty drastic moves on the Pacific theatre chess board, culminating in the Bombs. This makes lots of sense given what info we have, though I doubt the Soviets fully understood the janus-nature of bushido on-and-off the home islands, so might have taken much longer to subjugate Nippon than predicted.

Don't assume that the history you get about top-secret war projects (like how they start and end) is anything like disclosure; none of the posters point out that the US was an imperial power in imperial Nippon's back yard, and that confrontation was inevitable.

The general populace of the USA haven't owned up to their own atrocities, or do a bad job justifying them, yet love to yell about others'; so any arguments about Japanese atrocities with respect to american atrocities are disingenuous. War is hell. What does that have to do with honour? Well, lots, in theory.

Most 'Americans' naturalize and universalize their own cultural responses to international political situations, with great consistency, and get very huffy when others question them, especially the contradictions. This is astonishingly consistent in an ethnically diverse land founded on slavery and cheap imported labour, but there it is. Something endemic to 'imperial' centres, I think. Kudos to those who don't go with the flow.

I think that the combination of the world's largest stockpiles of WMD's, biological/chem weapons, and high-tech mercenary military, with the kind of foaming-at-the-mouth nationalism (that is actually quite muted on /. in comparison to US society at large), is potentially as dangerous and berserk as any political entity in history. Well, worse, I guess, since nuclear holocaust has been just around the next corner since my birth.

Hysteria - Nukes are just big bombs

[fyngyrz]

The problem with nukes is not that you die. It's not that you might not die, and be injured. Those characteristics are 100% shared with "normal" weapons.

What am I talking about? Ask a "suvivor" of a Vietnam-era napalming how their injuries feel. If they're still around - just because you survive the original splash doesn't mean you're going to live long, or well. Or, ask a survivor of stepping on a land mine how it feels to stump around on those splintered bones. Or, ask a vet with a good chunk of their brain blown away how they feel - if, of course, their hearing centers still function, and if they can communicate back.

Beginning to get my point? Being injured is horrible. Losing people is horrible. Neither is the exclusive domain of nukes.

There's more, though.

By now, some of you will be muttering darkly about the sheer numbers of deaths and injuries. That's not unique to nukes, either. Check your history. 1943 Hamburg firestorm: 40,000 killed. February 1945, Berlin: 25,000 killed. February 1945: Dresden: 30,000 killed. Total number killed by US bombings (in Germany) is generally accepted to be 800,000 to a million people, depending on your cites. I can absolutely promise you that not one of those people - or the people they left behind - give a rat's buttocks if fission was involved or not. Dead is dead. Burned is burned. Crippled is crippled.

Now we get to the fallout-fearing ranters. Well, this one's actually pretty simple to dispose of. So far (for the US testing only) we know of 911 nuclear weapons tests in Nevada, 106 in the Pacific, and 10 more in various other US locations (Alaska, New Mexico, Mississippi and Colorado.) These vary from airbursts to underground and varied in yield from fractions of a KT to 15 megatons. You'll notice that we're still here, Nevada in particular is doing pretty well, there are still edible fish and lots of other pretty healthy flora and fauna in the Pacific and generally speaking (considering 911 events) there is very little of interest going on related to all that activity. Of course, I've not mentioned the Soviet and Chinese and French and anyone else who has taken the liberty to pop off a nuclear device. Which I probably should do a little, because some of those were a lot larger than the US ones: The Soviets in particular hold the record as far as I know for the biggest bang, and they lit of about 715 weapons, not counting little guys, but counting "fizzles." And again, the world is still here, and people mostly think about Nagasaki and Hiroshima when they think about the effects of nuclear weapons.

Turns out, that's the right way to think, because nuclear weapons going off in populated centers are the really "annoying" thing. Lots and lots of dead and injured people at once, huge cleanup job, big risk of disease, injury to industrial and social infrastructure.

Think back. When those planes flew into the WTC, we lost 3,000 people, and a few buildings, and a few businesses got hammered. Now if you sit back and count people, and buildings, and businesses, you gain the perspective that this was in fact a tiny, tiny, tiny pinprick, albeit on a nerve - the NYC business district. But the social and business infrastructure damage was HUGE. President Bush mobilized, and used, the military, in several venues over a long period of time. The US economy took a shock which I maintain it has not recovered from to this day - though that's very much an IMHO - and the news, and the public, could talk of little else. Imagine the US public reaction to a firestorm (non-nuclear) that killed 25,000 people. It seems to me that we'd "melt down", socially and economically. A nuke would do the same.

That, /.'ers, is the real problem. America is one hell of a lot softer than its size, bellicose ranting, economic "might" and world police presence makes people think it is. I think if a nuke went off, the problem wouldn't be the direct effects. The problem would be the breakdown of everything else.

The thing that irritat