Slashdot Mirror


Lost Nuclear Bomb Found Off Georgia Coast?

securitas writes "Both CNN and ABC News report that a hydrogen thermonuclear bomb lost off the Georgia coast in 1958 may have been found. The 'Mark 15, Mod 0' nuclear bomb was jettisoned into the Atlantic Ocean off Savannah after a B-47 bomber and an F-86 fighter collided in mid-air. 'The 7,600-pound, 12-foot-long thermonuclear bomb contained 400 pounds of high explosives as well as uranium' and it was found off Tybee Island by retired Air Force Lt. Colonel Derek Duke,, who said that radiation levels were from seven to 10 times higher than normal. If it is the bomb that Duke has found, the question now is what, if anything, should be done with it?"

30 of 820 comments (clear)

  1. Answer to this question by panxerox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "the question now is what, if anything, should be done with it?" Is it just me or does anybody think the answer to this question would be better arrived at by the US government than the "Other" people that would be interested in the device?

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
  2. I think.. by Pivot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those that decided to build this bomb should be forced to dive down to it themselves in a diving suit of choice and pick it up with their bare hands and bring it to the surface. Those who make a mess should be responsible for cleaning up after themselves. They're probably dead though.

    1. Re:I think.. by Alomex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those that decided to build this bomb

      It's called the American people. We decided as a whole that given the circumstances we had to build atomic bombs. Was that the right choice? I dunno, but don't kid yourself, we all acquiesced to this course of action with our votes.

    2. Re:I think.. by Caraig · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Those that decided to build this bomb

      It's called the American people.

      It's called Harry Truman.

      The Manahttan Project was one of the more secret projects undertaken by the US military during the Second World War, and remained secret even up until the dropping of Little Boy on Hiroshima and Fat Man on Nagasaki. I kind of doubt there was a referendum to the American people to even start the Manhattan Project, let alone drop atomic weapons on those two cities.

      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    3. Re:I think.. by Daniel+Ellard · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I dunno, but don't kid yourself, we all acquiesced to this course of action with our votes.

      I don't think that the vote was unanimous. Was there ever a referendum on this? Was someone elected on a "let's build atomic bombs platform"?

      In fact, I seem to recall that the first civilians to even be aware of the existence of the USA's atomic weapon program were residents of Hiroshima. By the first time the American public learned about Atomic weapons, the die was already cast.

      --
      Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
    4. Re:I think.. by bob+beta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't fool yourself. If there had been a referendum, a hundred bombs would have been dropped on as many cities in Japan. WWII-era America wasn't particularly pacifist. Hell, even most of the 'usual suspect' pacifists of today were involved because of the 'United Front' with the state that followed their favored system of political economy.

    5. Re:I think.. by dvdeug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By the first time the American public learned about Atomic weapons, the die was already cast.

      We had created two nukes and used them. We didn't have to build more. But the American people elected JFK in part because he tolds us that we needed to build more nukes to achieve parity with the Soviet Union. We elected Eisenhower who was building more nukes. If the American public hadn't wanted nukes, they had more than enough opportunity to tell their presidents and congressmen that.

      Not that America is alone in this; India, the UK, France and Israel are other democratic nations that chose to join the nuclear club, even knowing what they were capable of. Even after widespread knowledge of their nuclear programs, none of those nations has voted to dismantle their nukes.

    6. Re:I think.. by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The *civilian* population of Hiroshima, lets not forget.

      I have to pipe up here, just to make certain that particular important concepts are remembered; that surely, of all things, dropping a nuclear weapon on a civilian population is a crime against humanity.

      Just as much as rounding unarmed civilians up and sticking them in gas chambers is a crime against humanity, so is dropping a nuke on them.

      If that isn't a crime against humanity, then surely there is no such thing.

      For those butchers who would argue that thousands of American soldiers would surely have died in an attempt to invade Japan, yes thousands of American military personell would have died.

      Better the death of ten thousand soldiers than the nuking of an entire civilian population. The nuking of babies, old folk, pregnant women, children at school, nurses in the hospital. The list goes on. Innocent life for the lives of the military; the American military (primarily).

      "Those who live by the gun should damn well die by the gun. But those that live by the nuke would take everyone else down with them."

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  3. Don't just leave it there... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For one thing it's a danger to the local marine environment. There's no telling how long radiation levels in the area have been higher than normal, but leaving a nuke with decaying seals on it will do nothing for the area.

    And, for another thing, you want to go retrieve it before someone else does. Nuclear - or should that be "nu-cu-lar"? - material lying there just waiting to be had is a potential goldmine for a terrorist organisation, etc. The symbolism of using an American nuke to make the material for its own nuclear device, dirty bomb, or whatever against the very people that built it would be just the kind of thing that Al Qaeda would love.

    Bottom line: it's there, you know where it is, so go get it so it's out of play.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  4. Re:Get Rid Of It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obviously, we need to get it back and get rid of it. If an arab group or someone else with a chip on their shoulder got their filthy hands on it, there's no telling what could happen.

    Ummm, the mosque in my community is an arab group.

    Let's keep the racial bigotry, subconcious or not, to a minimum.

  5. disappointed in US government by theMerovingian · · Score: 5, Insightful


    I live in a country with a 300 billion dollar annual PEACETIME military budget, and they can't locate an accidentally dropped nuclear bomb in 12 feet of water to recover it?

    Instead, a hobbiest treasure hunter with a civilian boat and a WalMart geiger counter has to do the job for them and send the US military a GPS point.

    That makes me sick to my stomach, no wonder we can't find Osama or WMD's.

    Tell me again who's the real winner when it takes a 5 billion dollar nuclear aircraft carrier to deploy a 20 million dollar plane flown by a pilot with a million dollar education, dropping a ten thousand dollar bomb just to kill some Iraqi kid hiding in a hole with a $20 russian surplus rifle?

    This to me is symbolic of everything that's wrong with our bloated defense budget.

    Vote libertarian!! /rant

    --
    "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
    1. Re:disappointed in US government by dheltzel · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Tell me again who's the real winner when it takes a 5 billion dollar nuclear aircraft carrier to deploy a 20 million dollar plane flown by a pilot with a million dollar education, dropping a ten thousand dollar bomb just to kill some Iraqi kid hiding in a hole with a $20 russian surplus rifle?

      That's because Americans have an aversion to putting themselves in harms way to save money. An American soldiers life is worth untold millions in defense spending. You may not think so, but the majority of Americans do, and they vote to support that position. The Islamic fundamentalists have no such aversion, they willingly raise their children to hate non-Muslims so violently that they will strap bombs on themslves to make a statement, Americans just send in missiles and bombers. Sure they cost more than an American child on a suicide mission, but we are willing to pay that price.

      Besides, it's not like we're pouring the money down a rat hole, the defense industry produces lots of jobs and lots of tax revenue to support the costs. So does NASA and a lot of other "frivilous" govt programs. Better just get used to it, it's not likely to change soon. It sure doesn't matter in this regard who gets elected President, both candidates know how to spend your money to excess, it's just a matter of what they spend it on, not whether they will, that's a given.

    2. Re:disappointed in US government by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Tell me again who's the real winner when it takes a 5 billion dollar nuclear aircraft carrier to deploy a 20 million dollar plane flown by a pilot with a million dollar education, dropping a ten thousand dollar bomb just to kill some Iraqi kid hiding in a hole with a $20 russian surplus rifle?


      Believe it or not, the one who's not dead.
    3. Re:disappointed in US government by Archimonde · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [The Islamic fundamentalists] willingly raise their children to hate non-Muslims so violently that they will strap bombs on themslves to make a statement.

      Maybe yes, maybe no. But one thing is certain, if invaders bomb/kill all your innocent family including your 7 years old daughter whose birthday you celebrated yesterday, would you die to avenge them?

      I would.

      --
      Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
    4. Re:disappointed in US government by Shihar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While the US does not value and Iraqi life as much as one of their soldiers lives, they do put some value on an Iraqi life. If the US had fought Iraq with the mentality they used during either World War 2, I imagine uprising would be a thing of the past. During World War II the common tactic when fighting in Germany was to drive a jeep into a German town and tell the mayor that the Americans are coming into town and that he needs to either show where the German soldiers are or get them to leave. If the mayor failed to either get the soldiers to leave and didn't help the American's find them, then the Americans would level the entire town with artillery they got shot at. It was bloody, thoroughly inhuman by modern standards, and very effective.

      The problem with Iraq is that the US has only really seen one effective model for an invasion that pacify the population and turns them into democratic allies by using overwhelmingly destructive tactics. The people of Japan were not wooed into liking the US by offering a Democracy. They were thoroughly beaten. Their armies were destroyed, their cities were burned to the ground, and countless civilians died. The end of both Germany and Japan came through complete and total defeat of not just their militaries, but of their people. When it was all said and done, the war had been so bloody and so horrific, normally very spirited people no longer had the will to fight.

      The Iraq model is something very different. The US crushed the Iraqi military, but made no attempt to crush the population. In fact, the military was not even crushed in the traditional sense of the word. Generally an army either fights to the death or surrenders. The Iraq army simply deserted under US firepower.

      The point is that Iraq is a new way of fighting for the US. To put it bluntly, the US doesn't know what it is doing. They had some theories as to how to fight such a war, and most of those theories have been blown out of the water. They are not trying to kill Iraqis. On the contrary, they are trying very hard not to, and have willingly given up cities they could have easily kept through raw military force simply to spare them the destruction. The reason why there are no US troops in Filuja is not because the US doesn't have the might to take the city, but because they US doesn't know how to take the city without turning it into a heap of rubble.

      Personally, I think it is a shitty situation no matter how you look at it. The US fucked up the place and they have an obligation to set thing right. On the other hand, they don't know how to set things right. They know the Afghanistan model where you just let the locals run law and order doesn't work. They know you can't carpet bomb cities any more. I have a feeling that the US will slog it out until January when Iraq holds elections. At that point, I think you can expect the new government to ask the US to leave, and the US to get the fuck out, stopping just long enough to buy souvenirs on the way to the airport. In the end, the Iraq doesn't want the Americans there, and the Americans don't want to be in Iraq.

    5. Re:disappointed in US government by dvdeug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally, I believe that we should make a very public treat to go nuclear if another terrorist attack happens to us. We can deliberately vague about our target, only specify that millions of Muslims will die a horrible death and they will have no one to blame but Al Queida, since they knew the price the Muslim world would pay.

      So it's all right if Britian nukes Vatican City, and they will have no one to blame but the IRA, since they knew the price the Catholic world would pay?

      Turning Iran into a smoking crater would take care of their nuke program and send a powerfull message to Syria, et al.

      Yes; the fact that you're a violent sociopath who won't hesitate to kill hundreds of millions of people. To which every major country in the world would have no other option but to gang up to stop.

      The mass murder of innocents is never acceptable. And when you start killing, you've got a lot of killing ahead of you, because even those who aren't in your current kill-zone and aren't willing to get involved for justice, might get involved so they don't have to worry about you getting pissed off at them.

      An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as Martin Luther King said. And your plan doesn't even come close to reaching the civility of an eye for an eye.

    6. Re:disappointed in US government by MarkusQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The war ... has also seen the death of over 13,000 Iraqi men, women, and children
      And yet, sadly, they are still much better off than if Saddam was in power.
      It depends on how you look at it. Those particular people (the ones who are dead) are arguably no better off than they would have been under Saddam. But more to the point, do you really want to be the country that "isn't quite as bad as Saddam was"?

      Suppose the cops came in to a bank robbery in progress, where the robbers were killing hostages right and left and demanding millions of dollars and a limo to escape in. The cops kill the robbers, shoot a handful of the customers for goods measure, take a few hundred thousand dollars and escape in their own car. They weren't nearly as bad as the robbers, were they?

      Call me old fashoned, but I'd rather be on the side of good than on the side of victory. Sure, both would be nice but if our goal is to be "statistically not as evil as Saddam Hussain, on average" we are unlikely to be either.

      -- MarkusQ

    7. Re:disappointed in US government by edunbar93 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Regardless of their location or availability now, the intelligence community believed they existed and could be used to arm terrorists to attack the US.

      People have short attention spans. Clearly you forget that The Secretary of Defence, Colin Powell, stood in front of a TV camera several months before 9/11/2001 and specifically said that Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the United States. Why? Because they had no weapons of mass destruction, they had no means of delivering them if they did, and the embargo that the country had been under for the past ten years had crippled any plans that Saddam Hussein had for pretty much anything.

      What Iraq had (or currently has) to do with Al Quaeda is an utter mystery, since the country had a secular government, whereas Al Quaeda is a collection of religious nuts who allied themselves with other religious nuts like the Taliban. And of course, they're not even from Iraq, but from a country that has been deeply nervous about them for the past 15+ years, enough to ally themselves with a bunch of infidels.

      But you know, there's lots of oil in Iraq, and America is running out of places to get it. It's quickly coming down to a choice between killing all the caribou or overthrowing regimes that they propped up in the first place. The choice just gets easier when your population is screaming for blood.

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  6. Still by nwbvt · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Explosives + Uranium can still be dangerous, even if it cannot be used as a 'true' nuclear weapon. A dirty bomb could cause a number of casualities, along with the panic and economic damages that would result.

    But there is still the problem that most likely this thing would be difficult to recover. Its not like jumping into the deep end of the pool and retrieving a plastic toy that sunk down there.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  7. Re:Interested by Arker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't start drooling, even if the rest of the bomb were still usable (it won't be) the fissionable material inside deteriorates quite rapidly. Nuclear warheads must be 'refurbished' every couple years or so, otherwise they deteriorate too much to explode. This one's been sitting there for how long? Forget about making it go off, without a lot of fresh material at least - and if you had that, you wouldn't need this antique.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  8. OT: agreed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As an open-minded American, I lately find myself struggling with a wave of anti-islamic sentiment.

    Please, folks, let's not judge or label a group by the loonies who attach themselves to it. That's the same sort of stupid reasoning Rob Enderle has against Linux, isn't it?

    The grandparent should have used "terrorist," a behavioral label, rather than implying some ethnic group = terrorist.

  9. WRONG by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The material used in this particular weapon is Pu-239. Pu-239 has a half-life of 24,100 years. That means that this device is and will be a hot-potato for much longer than you or I will be debating this subject.

    1. Re:WRONG by John+Courtland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's more than plutonium in a nuke. I'm sure the other components in the warhead are unusuable.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    2. Re:WRONG by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The plutoniums the hardest part to source.

  10. RIGHT by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He is talking about the tritiated lithium hydride, not the Pu-239 used in the surrounding triggers (which is quite salvageable from both an engineering and a financial standpoint).

    A thermonuclear bomb (at least as made in the fifties) is essentially a tank of deuterated and tritiated lithium hydride (LiH) that will explode with great fury if quickly raised to a temperature of millions of degrees within a span of milliseconds. It's very difficult to create the required temperatures quickly with chemical explosives- the easiest way to do it is to surround the tank with numerous small fission devices, which heat the tank to millions of degrees quickly and easily and are responsible for the radioactive fallout still associated with fusion bombs. (The "neutron bomb" was a planned attempt to replace the fission warheads with chemical explosives, creating a thermonuclear explosion with no radioactive fallout- a truly impressive feat if it were possible.)

    Since the bomb was lost 46 years ago, which is about 4 tritium half lives, the maximum possible yield has in theory been reduced to 1/16 of what it was in 1958, and the actual yield is probably zero, as you would expect of a fusion device that has spent many tritium half lives on the seafloor. The tank is probably full of lithium oxide and all sorts of crap, although it may still contain enough H isotopes to make it worth recovering. But the Pu is undoubtedly going to be salvaged. In dollar terms, Pu makes Au look like Si.

    1. Re:RIGHT by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Er, um, you're about 20% correct. Chemical explosions top out around 10,000 degrees, barely 1/1000th the temp required. They don't use "numerous" fission explosions, one will do, you just reflect the radiation around so it's coming from all sides. The neutron bomb didnt use chemical explosives, just a regular fission bomb with the parameters juggled for maximum radiation and minimum blast. Even so there was still about 30% blast effects. Pu is totally worthless nowdays, the US has about 18 tons of excess Pu that it would like to get rid of, the Russians likewise.. We may have to build several billion dollar reactors just to burn up the excess Pu.

    2. Re:RIGHT by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pu is totally worthless nowdays, the US has about 18 tons of excess Pu that it would like to get rid of, the Russians likewise.. We may have to build several billion dollar reactors just to burn up the excess Pu.

      True - worthless to nations like the US and Russia... Not so worthless to others who have more nefarious designs.

      --
      Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    3. Re:RIGHT by caveat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      nah, nukes are very geeky devices, they have three features that are very attractive to nerds - they use mechanics with the precision of a swiss watch, they manipulate some of the fundamental laws of nature, and they make REALLY big explosions. seriously though, the physics behind them is pretty cool, and the way they're designed to exploit said physics is no small feat. Morality aside, they're just really interesting, and arguably one of the great technological achievements of mankind (again, morality aside).

      --

      Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  11. Re:Big Concern by nigelc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'd rather have some of this stuff scattered in an unusable form offshore than have Mohammed and his band of Merry Pranksters get their hands on 4 or 5 cities' worth of U-235.
    While it is currently fashionable to believe that the only terrorists in the world are those of middle-eastern descent or belief, there are enough home grown idiots with grudges against the government to go out there with the bass-boat, a winch and a case or two of beer.

    Let us not forget the home-grown nutcases and whack-jobs of the ilk of McVeigh, Koresh and Kaczynski (?sp). But heck, the Americans would probably invade Iran (or whoever is next on the Axis of Terror) if the IRA admitted igniting the damn thing.

    --


    Cthulhu Barata Nikto
  12. Re:lol... by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Incompatable with MS Office then. It's right in the EULA that people working on WMDs can't use Office. Anyone breaking that EULA is going to be in big trouble!

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.