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: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.