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

is this really new?

[Shakrai]

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.

Ever read Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" (no seeing the movie does not count). They used a similar method (I admit the science of it was over my head) to figure out that the fissionable material in the bomb that was detonated in Denver actually came from the US. They were also able to learn other interesting stuff about the bomb -- granted this is a work of fiction but if the science is more or less accurate (any nuclear physicists here who care to comment?) then I don't see any reason to assume we can't do this in the real world. I do know for a fact that you can learn an amazing amount of information about the type of bomb, material used, etc etc when a conventional bomb goes off. No reason to assume nukes are any different.

With the nuclear threat that we are currently facing I don't see why this should surprise anyone. Let's all pray like hell we never need to use any of these procedures.

Re:is this really new?

[RobertFisher]

Forget Tom Clancy. There is a much better story from the Cold War, and it is all true.

Shortly after WWII, the United States decided that it should monitor dust particulates in the upper atmosphere to test for the possibility of an above-ground test by Soviets. The program itself was highly contoversial; Oppenheimer (falsely) thought the radioactive material would go into the atmosphere in a gaseous phase, and diffuse away so rapidly that it would never be detected. This turned out to be incorrect because a significant amount of radioactive material enters into solid particulates, which can float in long-lived clouds hanging in the upper atmosphere for weeks or months. Cold War generations knew this phenomenon as a terrifying, bone-chilling household word : fallout.

Still others in the military (noteable General Groves) smugly thought that it would take the Soviets decades to catch up, and hence there was no rush in setting up a detection system.

Much to everyone's shock and surprise, a scant few weeks after the program was initiated, positive results came back from the chemical analysis of the upper-atmosphere dust gathered on one mission. Hans Bethe and other experts were called in to interpret the findings. Not only could they determine the yield of the blast, but they could also infer the date (and hence, approximately, from prevelant winds, the location) of the blast, and even the composition and design of the device.

The implications were clear. Someone had filched the US design from the Manhattan Project, and the Soviets had the information. The seeds of the Cold War and McCarthyism were sown.

The most amazing twist to this story is that if the US had delayed its fallout survaillance program by just a few months, the Cold War would have been delayed by years -- until the Soviets tested their next device. That is not to say that there would never have been a Cold War. But the US would have lived on in its smug complacency for years longer, and McCarthyism as we know it today wouldn't have occurred as it did at that time. History might have turned out quite differently indeed...

If you find this story fascinating, you would get a kick out of reading "Dark Sun," which contains this en To answer the poster's question, clearly none of this is new. The point of the article is that much of the vigilance and expertise was allowed to dissipate after the Cold War ended. Now, post-9/11, the incentives for due dilligence are back...

Re:Nuked not

[Ricin]

"I think the US is more preparing for radioactive fallouts from "dirty" bombs"

I don't think so. A dirty bomb could be anything. It's better compared to conventionally exploding rad waste to make it disperse than to a nuclear explosion.

There are basically only a few types of nukes and by looking at the composition of fission products (iodine, cesium and a whole lot more) as well as transuranics (uranium, plutonium and heavier isotopes) it's likely that they can work back to the materials used.

Add to that that you can bet they know all about other countries' bomb designs and specs, or at least quite a lot, then yes it's not a stretch that one can trace where it (originally) came from. Think former soviet states, or even the US itself. It's assumed there is a black market and weapon trade seems to be booming, one wonders why...

The bright side is that a nuke might be not worth it in terms of scale and complexity for a terrorist group although it would depend on who's on who's payroll. It's my sad opinion that if the puppet masters want it to happen, it will.

If interested on my site at www.ricin.com/nuke is some (older) stuff about nuclear proliferation and safeguards. I was laughed at in 1996 by the same kind of people who are now on the fearmongering warwhipping police-us-more-please trip. Specifically the idea of a dirty bomb was considered ludricous. How times change.

Last Word on Nuclear Missle Threats

[siferhex]

These sum it up very authoritatively if you would like some citable sources.

Foreign Missile Developmentsand the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015

APS Study Group on Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense

We can never build a foolproof system. The technical hurdles involved are immense and expensive, while the countermeasures are relatively simple and inexpensive.

How much money will it take to convince you that you're safe?
Why don't we buy North Korea if we're willing to spend billions of dollars a year on safety? Im sure the people in North Korea wouldn't mind not starving.

Re:You should be more scared...

[rscrawford]

Back in 2001, when India and Pakistan were having their latest round of "Did too! Did not!", after the Indian parliament had been hit by an assassin who may or may not have been Pakistani, I engaged in discussion on a mailing list with a very young Indian man. I made some comment like, "It seems to me like India is just itching for a fight." A provocative comment, I know. His response was, "I'd rather drop nuclear bombs than see that sort of terrorism happen again."

My jaw just about hit my keyboard. I nearly asked him if he knew what the real consequences of even a limited nuclear exchange would be; obviously, of course, he didn't.

But, then, I went to high school during the 80s, got to see The Day After and Threads and Testament on television. Most younger people I know now have never thought about these issues.

Re:You should be more scared...

[srcosmo]

What I want to know is: where has all the outrage over nuclear weapons gone?

It seems that back in the USSR vs. America days, the West had an obsession with nuclear annihilation, despite the improbability of such an exchange between the big powers.

But as it stands now, several countries who either have or are attempting to obtain nuclear weapons just might be crazy enough to use them. How safe are we with Kim Jong Il and some shady supreme religious leaders in command of nuclear missiles?

So why aren't we as worried as we used to be?

Israel has been fighting with its arms tied

[jgardn]

Israel has yet to open a can of you-know-what on the terrorists. Military estimations said that Israel alone could've taken out Saddam, as well as all neighboring countries who support him. You don't think Israel has nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver all of them on a moments notice?

The US has been pleading with Israel for restraint from day one. We are still hypocritically encouraging them to be calm, promising them that an American response will be more effective than a Zionist one. Ariel Sharon -- the Churchill of Israel -- is preaching restraint, because he knows what is in store for the terrorists at the hands of the Americans. This is the same Ariel Sharon that single-handedly defeated Egypt! He knows Israel is in a far stronger position now, and his enemies are much weaker.

You do not understand the essence of terrorism. You think people flock to terrorists when they see their friends who engage in terrorist acts get mercilessly shredded to black bits of burning flesh by missiles. On the contrary, they run and hide when they hear the soldiers coming down the road. No promise of virgins in the afterlife is worth waking up to a helicopter at your balcony, or facing a squad of American soldiers sending their regards from President Bush. Remember why Saddam said he surrendered peacefully: "Would you want to fight these guys?" Why do you think Libya is coming clean all of a sudden? I am sure it has nothing to do with President Bush's Texas charm or cowboy hat.

Moscow cringed when President Reagan swore he would build up the arsenal and use it if necessary. Hitler squirmed when Churchill announced his resolve to fight at all costs and never surrender. Osama bin Laden is hiding in shame, worrying every day if some soldiers in desert camouflage are going to find him that day, and bring him out to answer for his crimes.

If being slaughtered by the Americans and Israelis is so helpful to terrorists, why aren't they out in the open, encouraging us to launch an all-out frontal assault on their HQ? After all, if we wipe them all out in one grand armaggedon style battle, won't their numbers swell with energetic youths who want to die fighting as well?

They fear retaliation. Their numbers are dropping, and those who are in want out. Look at what is happening in Baghdad and Tikrit. One by one, Saddam's supporters are either dying or promising to lay down their arms. One by one, they see their comrades get shot to pieces or tracked down mercilessly and hunted like rabbits. Soon, there will be no more of Saddam or Osama's supporters in Iraq. If there are, they will be hiding again, no longer setting off car bombs or laying ambushes for supply trucks carrying medicine and school supplies. And when they go back to hiding and stop blowing our children up, then we will have won the war on terror.

The best strategy in war is to avoid war is possible, but when that strategy fails, the next best thing is to win overwhelmingly. Bury the brave ones. Take out their captains and generals. Leave only the cowards who refused to fight. Send them back to repopulate their country, and raise a generation of cowards who won't dare oppose you again. And make certain that the country becomes your ally so that they don't plot against you again.

parent post wrong on many points

[gomel]

disclaimer: i appologise to anyone, except jgardn, who will read this rant. it's a rebuke to the parent post, and by definition "garbage in, a lot of messy cleaning out". if you are halfways informed about politics and history, you probably do not need to read it. flag this as flamebait, if you will.
================
i have many questions for you.

Israel has yet to open a can of you-know-what on the terrorists.

can of worms? i assume you mean using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against terrorist. please explain how. who would you target? terrorist are individuals hiding among the population. would you use WMD (emphasis on MASS) against them? wouldn't that be genocide?

Military estimations said that Israel alone could've taken out Saddam, as well as all neighboring countries who support him.

this thread was about terrorist, but you changed the topic to Saddam. was Saddam a convicted terrorist? or was he a national dictator, previously a CIA asset (assasin) ? which neighboring countries were supporting Saddam? Iran? no. S.Arabia? no. Turkey? no. Jordan? no. kuwait? no. egypt? no. Syria? probably yes, they made business deals with him. but you said COUNTRIES, and one hit does not make a plural.

You don't think Israel has nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver all of them on a moments notice?

what is your sabre-rattling good for? why would Israel want to use it's 200 warheads to turn 100 million Arabs, Turks or Persians into black glass craters? is that a solution to terrorism? is killing some potential 5.000 terrorist (my estimate) worth the 'colateral damage'? maybe you think that all those people do not deserve to live any longer?


The US has been pleading with Israel for restraint from day one. We are still hypocritically encouraging them to be calm, promising them that an American response will be more effective than a Zionist one.

you make something up. restraint from striking against whom? you are very cryptic. I know, that the US has been pleading Israel not to strike back at Iraq in case of SCUD attacks. Saddam would like to ignite a holy war against Jews, which would press other Muslim countries to support him. clearly not a positive outcome. OTOH, if you mean Palestinian terrorist, the US has NEVER promised Israel that it would strike against them. now that would be a stupid strategy.


Ariel Sharon -- the Churchill of Israel -- is preaching restraint, because he knows what is in store for the terrorists at the hands of the Americans.

Ariel Sharon has provoked the current intifada, after that he won the elections as the 'general-iron-fist' candidate. again, the US will not strike at Palestinian terrorist in Set Bank or Gaza. never. this would be symbolic for a judeo-christian crusade in the Holy Land against Muslims. You seem to be unaware of the global implications of such a situation.

This is the same Ariel Sharon that single-handedly defeated Egypt! He knows Israel is in a far stronger position now, and his enemies are much weaker.
Egypt was not a terrorist enemy to Israel. it was a nationalistic country. the reasons were also very different. military means are not effective against urban-based terrorist. you can send an army into Afghanistan, but you can not send them inside a city like Kair or Islamabad.

You do not understand the essence of terrorism. You think people flock to terrorists when they see their friends who engage in terrorist acts get mercilessly shredded to black bits of burning flesh by missiles.
no, you do not understand terrorism at all. there are different reasons why people become terrorist. there are also different types of terrorism.

1) revenge (like for losing your entire family to an rocket attack)(Palestine, Chechnia)
2) ideology (indoctrination, cultural hostility) (AL-Kaida, Rote Armee Front)
3) assymetric warfare (if your nation has no army, bombs are the only means of