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?"

87 of 820 comments (clear)

  1. lol... by here4fun · · Score: 4, Funny
    If it is the bomb that Duke has found, the question now is what, if anything, should be done with it?"

    Put it on ebay. ;)

    1. Re:lol... by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now that would be a hell of a restoration project! I thought classic cars were a joy to work on imagine, having a classic nuke in the garage!

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:lol... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, I'd rather see it used on India to combat the offshoring problem.

      Yeah, that sounds like a great plan.

      This call may be recorded for purposes of quality assurance.
      Hello, tech support, "Guy" speaking.
      Yes, I'm having trouble with this global thermonuclear warhead, I can't get the BSD driver working!
      OK sir, to help you, I have to know whether you are using Windows 98/ME or Windows XP.
      This isn't either, it's BSD. I can't get the system to recognize the device at all.
      Could you please first to double click on the "My Computer"...
      You're from India aren't you! I'm taking this global thermonuclear warhead back to the store!

    3. Re:lol... by unitron · · Score: 4, Funny
      "I thought classic cars were a joy to work on imagine, having a classic nuke in the garage!"

      And it's a '58 model so it'll have really cool tailfins!

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    4. 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.
  2. Nuke the whales! by theluckyleper · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clearly someone tried to nuke the whales, and then covered it up!

    Gotta nuke somethin'!

    --
    Visit the Game Programming Wiki!
    1. Re:Nuke the whales! by metlin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reminds me of an old quote -

      "Save the Whales, collect the entire set" ;-)

    2. Re:Nuke the whales! by red+floyd · · Score: 5, Funny

      Reminds me of the very politically incorrect bumper sticker from the early '80s.

      NUKE THE GAY WHALES FOR JESUS!

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  3. 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
  4. Ah ha! by Judg3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    So THAT'S where I left it.

    Please send it to the following address...

    Err, maybe that's not such a good idea.

    Who are you people? What? No, it's not mine.. It's engraved? I'm being framed. UNHAND ME YOU SCOUjsjcds,.......

    --
    Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
  5. Bet the... by Dethboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fishing is good around that thing...

    Look it's a GIANT TUNA! And it glows in the dark. And has 3 eyes.

    1. Re:Bet the... by TykeClone · · Score: 5, Funny

      And we'll call him Blinky.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  6. Well... by kjones692 · · Score: 5, Funny

    On the one hand, a recovery would be expensive, dangerous, and probably unnecessary. On the other hand, if we leave it there... the terrorists win.

    --

    Love the Third Amendment?
  7. 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.
    7. Re:I think.. by hoofie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look at the casualties taken by American forces as they moved across the Pacific - the Japanese at that time were happy to sacrifice pilots in Kamikaze raids. The infantry on the ground refused to surrender and had to be burned out by Flamethrowers.

      There is no doubt that the invasion of the Japanese home islands would have resulted in casualties on all sides of well in excess of a million people - the Japanese government at the time would have ensured this.

      Whilst the dropping of the bombs may seem a shameful act today, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Ask the populations of America [and Australia and the UK, whose soldiers suffered terribly in Prisoner of War camps at the hands of the Japanese Military] in 1945 what they would wish to do, the answer would have been quite clear - drop the bombs, stop the war and get our loved ones home. And yes, there was a political dimension - the weapsons use was an indicator to Stalin of the power America now posessed - remember that even prior to the fall of Berlin, relations between the Western Powers and Soviet Russia were worsening all the time.

      Finally to even try to compare the genocidal tactics of the Nazis with the dropping of atomic weapons is shameful, and shows a poor and blinkered understanding of history.

  8. The Sum Of All Fears by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative
    Is it just me, or is this scarily like the plot of the book (didn't see the film)... I don't mind science-fiction becoming reality (for the most part :-) but I have a real problem with nuclear bombs being unaccounted for. I had thought the whole premise for the book was ridiculous, but ....


    The United States lost 11 nuclear bombs in accidents during the Cold War that were never recovered, according to the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.


    An estimated 50 nuclear warheads, most of them from the former Soviet Union, still lie on the bottom of the world's oceans, according to the environmental group Greenpeace.


    This really doesn't fill me with happy thoughts... Bottom of the ocean is far too lax a description, you can practically paddle in the North Sea between the UK and the rest of Europe! The Marianas trench would be (just about) deep enough for me not to care...

    Simon

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:The Sum Of All Fears by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not effect, actual depth. Average depth of all but the Artic ocean is over two miles. The artic is "shallow" with an average depth of 3407' (http://mbgnet.mobot.org/salt/oceans/data.htm). Divers can only go down a few hundred at most, and require special training to do so. Off the continental shelf, the oceans drop to the average depth very quickly. Only special subs can go down that far and possibly nucular subs can survive that depth without getting crushed. But retrieval for anything except small items is almost impossible. The only large item i know of being retrieved was a whole russian sub retrieved using a very special ship the US built for the purpose during the cold war.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    2. Re:The Sum Of All Fears by still+cynical · · Score: 4, Informative
      The only large item i know of being retrieved was a whole russian sub retrieved using a very special ship the US built for the purpose during the cold war.


      That would have been the Glomar Explorer, built and financed by Howard Hughes as a front for the CIA. It was designed for only one mission, to recover a Soviet Golf-class(?) early ballistic missile submarine. The sub had sank in water deep enough that it was considered unrecoverable. The Soviets felt that it was reliably in deep enough water that they could forget about it, it could never fall in US hands any more than they could recover it.

      Enter the CIA. (Motto: nothing is impossible if you throw enough money at it) Enter Howard Hughes (Motto: nothing too crazy to throw money at) They had all the time in the world to locate the sub, design and build the Glomar Explorer. The Explorer looked innocent enough, but it had a giant claw that could be lowered from the keel of the ship to grasp a very large object very deep. Beyond Top Secret stuff, even now it sounds like something out of a James Bond movie (inspiration for The Spy Who Loved Me?). Once word finally leaked out, as it always does, the US admitted trying but said they couldn't get the sub. It is now pretty much universally accepted AFAIK, that they did get it.

      The Golf sub is incredibly crude by todays standards. It carried very large, equally crude ballistic missiles so tall that they stood upright all the way to the top of the rather large sail. Still, for it's time it was quite an acheivement, and I'm sure quite a bit was learned from it.
      --
      Ignorance is the root of all evil.
    3. Re:The Sum Of All Fears by Kenshin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Only special subs can go down that far and possibly nucular subs can survive that depth without getting crushed.

      You had me until you said "nucular".

      Get outta here, George!

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  9. Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    SCO Headquarters.

  10. Retrieval by StevenHenderson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the FA:

    The report also estimated it would take as long as five years and cost $5 million to $11 million to recover the bomb.

    Can anyone explain why the retrieval process would take so long if the bomb is supposedly "likely harmless"? I'm honestly baffled at this, and if we do not expend the money to retrieve it, are there any international accords in place to make sure our enemies do not retrieve/ reverse engineer it?

    1. Re:Retrieval by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny
      are there any international accords in place to make sure our enemies do not retrieve/ reverse engineer it?

      Osama bin Laden: Hey, Ayman, whassup? check this out -- there's a nuke off the infidel American coast that we can blow up!

      Ayman al-Zawahiri: Sorry, Osama, we can't do it; there's an international accord against it. We'll have to stick to strictly legal forms of terrorism, like hijacking airplanes and blowing up buildings.

      OBL: Curses! Foiled again!

  11. 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
    1. Re:Don't just leave it there... by chill · · Score: 4, Funny

      Read the whole article and you'll see that there are over 50 nuclear bombs that were "lost" and just sitting out there.

      The tons of enriched Plutonium sitting in Kazahkstan (sp?) are more easily acquired by terrorists than stuff lying on the bottom of the ocean.

      Still, just letting it sit there and contaminate the fish isn't a good idea.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:Don't just leave it there... by Like2Byte · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      As someone who was trained by the US Navy to protect nuclear weapons, I'd like to chime in on this:

      DAMN RIGHT! I busted my ass and busted peoples balls protecting nukes. There's this little thing called two-man control. At least two men have to be in the room (area) with the nuke at all times. Anyone tries to get past you, whether by force or being a sneaky bastard: double-tap! The deader the better!

      And God forbid one of your shipmates breaks protocol. Officers and sailors could have their careers ruined by slipping up while protecting nukes. And I'm serious! Those alarms sound and the guns come out.

      They'd (US authorities) better get their collective asses out there and retrieve this thing. Don't tell me I wasted my time pointing loaded guns at people while protecting nukes while some dumbass flyboy comes back one bomb too short and everyone turns a blind eye.

      {{alright, I never pointed a loaded gun at someone while protecting nukes but it wasn't out of mind while doing so...}}But you get my point.

  12. 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.

  13. Interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    How much is the shipping and handling?

    Sincerely yours,
    Osama bin Laden

    1. Re:Interested by here4fun · · Score: 5, Funny
      How much is the shipping and handling?

      Sincerely yours,
      Osama bin Laden

      Dear Mr Laden,

      We would be more than happy to send you the Thermonuclear Bomb for the low price of $1.99, with shipping and handeling of $2,000,000. Our packers pack your item with the best foam and plastic poppers, so you can be confident to recieve your item without any damage. Remember, if you dislike your purchase for any reason, you can return it for no questions asked. Please remember we have a $25% restocking fee, and shipping is non-refundable. Thank you for shopping with ebay.

    2. 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.
    3. Re:Interested by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 5, Funny

      We would be more than happy to send you the Thermonuclear Bomb for the low price of $1.99, with shipping and handeling of $2,000,000.

      No, no - shipping is free for the esteemed My Bin Laden (long time customer and all). However, we will require that he take personal delivery.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    4. Re:Interested by MarkGriz · · Score: 5, Funny

      A nuclear bomb (e.g. Hiroshima) works by fission. A hydrogen bomb works by fusion, but needs a nuclear bomb to trigger it.

      Any idea how a nucular bomb works?

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    5. Re:Interested by voot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sideshow bob "Dammit, Bob. There were plenty of brand new bombs, but you had to go for that retro 50s charm."

    6. Re:Interested by Groo+Wanderer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, you drop it out of your airplane with a guy riding it waving his cowboy hat around. It then goes boom.

      -Charlie

  14. Got WMD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    AHA! THAT'S where Saddam hid it.

  15. Re:first things first by Curtman · · Score: 5, Funny

    If it is the bomb that Duke has found, the question now is what, if anything, should be done with it?

    Utah would be a good spot.

  16. Experiment? by Audacious · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since the radiation levels are so high - why not use it as a test field on the surrounding fish. Oh yeah - that's already been done. Hasn't it?

    Realistically though, how many people's lives are going to be lost because of the government leaving it there all of this time? Radioactive fish, shellfish, and others do not really glow in the dark just because they are radioactive. (ie:You could have eaten radioactive fish and not known it.) So what this means is that a lot of the people who may have died of cancer over the years in that area have just cause to file suit with the US Government over this. And just as surely, with tides, currents, and the like the radioactive material has spread over at least a portion of the coast line. I'd hate to be someone living in that area right now and know that your property just became a wasteland.

    --
    Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke. :-)
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. Duke Nukem by retodd · · Score: 5, Funny

    and it was found off Tybee Island by retired Air Force Lt. Colonel Derek Duke...

    ... who forever shall be known as 'Duke Nukem'

  20. 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.

  21. North Carolina lost bomb by morcheeba · · Score: 4, Informative

    I found this fascinating account of a hydrogen bomb accidently dropped in 1961 and still buried on a North Carolina farm. Although major portions were recovered, the uranium never was.

  22. Re:No worrys. by Phanatic1a · · Score: 5, Informative

    Its non-functioning, nukes have a shelf life of ~5 years before the plutonium turns into another isotope.

    Steaming pile of bullshit. I swear, if the subject has the word "nuclear" in it, Slashdot's about as reliable as the Weekly World News.

    The isotope of plutonium used in nuclear weapons is Pu-239. Pu-239 has a half-life of 24,100 years. After 5 years, almost all of the Pu-239 in a nuclear weapon will still be Pu-239.

    In addition the Mark 15 Mod 0's an odd bomb.

    Modern thermonuclear weapons are three-stage devices. There's a small fission trigger, whose yield is boosted by tritium injection. The radiation from the trigger ignites fusion in a second stage of lithium deuteride. Then the neutrons coming off of the fusion stage can be used to fission the bomb's tamper, made of uranium-238. U-238 won't sustain a chain reaction, but it'll fission merrily if you bombard it with fast neutrons. So, basically the boosted primary accounts for a minority of the weapon's yield, and the second stage, the fusion segment, accounts for the majority. But you can design things so that the majority of the yield comes from fission of the U-238 tamper.

    The Mark 15's kind of an inversion of this. It was an early fusion bomb, back when they were still using liquid deuterium in some designs. In the Mark 15 Mod 0, the third stage is the bomb's casing, which is made of highly-enriched uranium, almost pure U-235.

    Yes, the bomb's casing is almost-weapons-grade uranium. By making the case out of HEU, they didn't need to worry so much about efficient compression of the fusion stage, because the fissioning of that huge amount of HEU would send the whole thing thermonyclear. Inefficient, sure, but they hadn't quite figured everything out yet.

    That's why this bomb's a concern. According to the Air Force, the primary, the 'pit,' wasn't placed in the bomb, so the primary can't detonate. Even if they're bullshitting, the twin traumas of impact and age have probably so screwed up the internals of the bomb that the only detonation possible would be low-order, a fizzle, biggest problem would be the environmental effects of scattering that much radioactive material into the river.

    So that's not the concern. The concern is that whoever recovers it now has his hands on well over a ton of weapons-grade uranium, easily enough to make not one, but several crude Hiroshima-type nuclear bombs. I mean, this was a bomb that had a total yield of 1.7 megatons, and 1.3 megatons of that came from fission. That's a lot of U-235.

    This was the device tested as Castle Nectar.

  23. Re:What to do? by ciroknight · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, since Uncle Sam called for these weapons to be created, I'm sure they'll be thrilled to pay a billion dollars to all of the tax payers, then have to front the money to put this bomb away for good, and at least giving a try to find the other ten.

    At this point, I'd be happy with them disposing of the radioisotopes in a safe mannor, then blowing the rest of the bomb. Hopefully not enough of the radiation has leaked into the environment to still allow this to be possible.

    It should be a matter of National Security to secure the radioisotopes from this weapon. Since they practically broadcasted the location of the weapon, and the fact that a nuclear weapon on the bottom of the ocean is still viable as a dirty bomb, the question is, how long will it to be until a terrorist organization or a country with enough balls goes looking for one of these bombs? I'm not too worried, but I'm just tired of the government hiding things like this from us.

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  24. Big Concern by Phanatic1a · · Score: 5, Informative

    If it is the bomb that Duke has found, the question now is what, if anything, should be done with it?"

    It should be retrieved. If this were a modern fission-fusion-fission bomb, it wouldn't be a concern. The Air Force says it doesn't have the fission trigger installed, so with a modern device that means you don't have a bomb. You need a fission bomb to ignite the lithium deuteride in the fusion stage, and you need the neutrons from the fusion stage to fission the U-238 jacket. So, again, no primary, no bomb. Leave it there, rivers already feed natural uranium into the oceans at a rate of 3.2x10^4 tons every year.

    But this isn't a modern bomb, it was a transitional device between the earliest, liquid-dueterium monsters and modern three-stage designs. They weren't yet sure how to achieve efficient compression of the fusion stage, so they wrapped the bomb in highly-enriched uranium to be sure the fusion stage would light off. The bomb had a design yield of 1.7 megatons, and something like 1.3 megatons of that would be due to the fission of the U-235 jacket.

    That means that this bomb contains a lot of almost-weapons-grade uranium. Again, 1.3 megatons of yield from the fission of uranium. The largest pure-fission bomb we ever detonated was the 500-kiloton Mark 18 prototype, and that used about 60 kilograms of HEU. Assuming linear scaling, that means we're looking at upwards of 156 kilograms of HEU in this bomb. Critical mass of uranium's about 16 kilograms. Double that to overengineer a bomb, and that means whoever gets their mitts on this thing could build 4 or 5 crude Hiroshima-type bombs, each with a yield of several kilotons.

    That's bad. They need to retrive this thing, even if there's a risk they blow it up in situ. 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.

    1. 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
  25. On behalf of the East Coast: by oldosadmin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Move it please.

    Thank you,

    A Concerned North Carolina Resident

    --
    Jay | http://oldos.org
  26. the treasure hunt is on! by morcheeba · · Score: 4, Informative
    I found a list of lost bombs (see middle of that page). Here's the summary of locations:

    WEAPONS LOST/MISSING

    March 10, 1956, Over the Mediterranean Sea

    July 28, 1957, Over the Atlantic Ocean - somewhere between Dover Air Force Base (Delaware) and Atlantic City, New Jersey

    February 5, 1958, Savannah River, Georgia (this story)

    September 25, 1959, Off Whidbey Island, Washington. Since this is slashdot, I feel obligated to point out that this is about 30 miles from Redmond.

    January 24, 1961, Goldsboro, North Carolina

    December 5, 1965, Aboard the USS Ticonderoga (CVA-14) in the Pacific Ocean (only miles from the Japanese island chain of Ryukyu)

    Spring 1968, Aboard the USS Scorpion (SSN-589) in the Atlantic Ocean - 400-500 miles southwest of the Azores.

    Any slashdotters have a geiger counter, a boat, and some free time?

  27. 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.

  28. Well Said by Undefined+Parameter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I appreciate the information you have brought into the discussion. Your post not only blows away the disinformation of the grandparent post, but adds new and relevent information, as well.

    What I'd like to mention, however, is that there is another concern: The bomb is sitting above a fresh-water aquifer used by the nearby town. As, according to another source I read, the barrier between this device and the aquifer is only a (thick) layer of clay, I would imagine that there has already been some level of contamination to the drinking water. As the bomb settles and slowly sinks, likely being more dense than the surrounding clay, the contamination levels will rise.

    The hard part, and the most expensive aspect to the retreival situation, is that a crew would have to retrieve the bomb without collapsing the aquifer roof and using equipment that would prevent radiation poisoning of the retrieval crew. Add to that the fact that the bomb is under twenty feet of silt, and you have a very tricky situation. You can't just build a four-sided dam to keep the water out--like those used to construct bridge pylons--and it would take some very specialized and delicate equipment to remove enough silt to retrieve the bomb without spreading contaminated silt everywhere.

    It's a difficult situation, to say the least. The good news is that there few sea-floor excavation vehicles capable of retrieving the bomb, even without the contamination issue, and that an excavation going on in that area, now that the (supposed) find has been publicized, will draw a huge amount of suspicion. Due to the weight of the bomb itself and the sheer volume of silt required to be removed before the bomb could even be reached, it wouldn't exactly be an overnight job. The threat of terrorists digging up a piece of the bomb is, therefore, less than the threat of terrorists getting their hands on a seperate source of radioactive materials and building an atomic bomb.

    [Hopefully, I'm not spreading bad information, myself, now.]

    ~UP

    --
    Eat the Path.
  29. Plutonium Trigger by DankNinja · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm pretty surprised that no one has mentioned that this bomb lacked the plutonium trigger needed for a thermonuclear explosion. The plutonium trigger is the primary means of "arming" the weapon.

  30. Hurricane by wan-fu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, for now there are no more hurricanes, but maybe we can save this bomb up for the next big one and see if it's really true that a nuclear bomb won't affect a hurricane.

  31. Wouldn't work by Niten · · Score: 4, Funny
  32. 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 RayBender · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

      Close, very close, but not quite right. The trigger is a single fission bomb; the radiation it produces is redirected cleverly so as to compress the fusion charge (a concept referred to as a "Hohlraum"). In some designs there are more than two "stages" where fission triggers fusion, which then is used to trigger more fission or, in some cases, another fusion stage (the Soviet "Tsar Bomba" was a multistage fusion device of 60-120 Mtons. Check out the Nuclear Weapons FAQ for more info.

      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.

      Not the neutron bomb I'm familiar with. It was a very low-yield fission-triggered device that had a fusion stage. There has long been a dream at LLNL to figure out how to initiate fusion with a conventional high-explosive trigger, but to my knowledge, no such weapon has ever been tested or fielded. The neutron bomb of the 80's would have created plenty of fallout and radioactivity; the point was it created less blast damage and so didn't sound as bad (the fallout was sort-of ignored).

      He is talking about the tritiated lithium hydride,....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.

      I think there is a small mis-understanding here. A fusion weapon of this type uses tritium to boost the yield of the fission trigger, NOT as a component in the fusion main stage fuel. The fusion stage creates the tritum needed at the time of explosion by neutron-spallation of the Lithium. So, after 4 half-lives the fission trigger yield will be greatly reduced - probably enough to prevent any significant second-stage fusion. This means that if it exploded, the yield would be in the 10-kiloton range, not the megaton range. However, if the fusion stage were to ignite, it would do so with as much yield as ever.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    3. 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!
    4. Re:RIGHT by kjamez · · Score: 5, Funny

      maybe a little offtopic, but does it scare anyone else how much these cats know about nuclear explosives and such?

      --
      you can't have everything, where would you put it?
    5. 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
    6. Re:RIGHT by spitzak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The neutron bomb of the 80's would have created plenty of fallout and radioactivity; the point was it created less blast damage and so didn't sound as bad (the fallout was sort-of ignored).

      If "not sound as bad" was the intent, it sure failed at that. Whether it was a good idea or not, the neutron bomb was a public relations disaster, with it's apparent design to "kill people and leave buildings undamaged". Pointing out this became one of the favorite lines of those opposed to nuclear arms.

      I'm suprised people here who obviously know a lot about these weapons seem totally unaware of the public perception of the neutron bomb.

  33. Re:No worrys. by janbjurstrom · · Score: 5, Informative

    Very informative and very frightening. Googling "Castle Nectar" returned - among others - this interesting page: Project Castle with an image of the beast.

    --
    668.5
  34. I know! I know! by pyrrhonist · · Score: 5, Funny
    If it is the bomb that Duke has found, the question now is what, if anything, should be done with it?

    LICK IT! LICK IT!

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  35. Unfortunately by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 3, Funny

    Since Slashdot's about as reliable as the Weekly World News, I can't trust a word you're saying. :)

  36. if it isn't the bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    If it is the bomb that Duke has found, the question now is what, if anything, should be done with it?

    And if it isn't the bomb, the question now is "WTF?!"

  37. Re:RIGHT - Err. Slightly wrong on the Neutron Bomb by Siergen · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Actually the first "enhanced radiation devices" were developed for the short-lived American ABM system. The short-range, last ditch intercept missiles were to be detonated in the high atmosphere over American cities. The neutron radiation would degrade the incoming warhead (which would be less than a mile of the exploding interceptor) to the point that it could no longer achieve nuclear detonation, while the city itself would be several miles below. Since the neutron blast falls off rapidly with distance (the old inverse square law in action), the city would take realtively little damage from the radiation; the fallout and blast were reduced by design, so (hopefully) civilian casualties would be reduced.

    The later planned usage in Europe was *not* to kill people without destroying property (that was propaganda from those opposed to NATO, but not Soviet, nuclear weapons). Instead, the intention was to use them against invading Warsaw Pact troop concentrations while reducing damage to nearby West German towns and cities (due to the reduced fallout and blast - the radiation blast as noted above falls off quickly away from ground zero).

  38. Complete list of nuclear accidents by kc8jhs · · Score: 3, Informative

    Courtesy everyones favorite free encyclopedia:

    List here

    I especially like the one they dropped in a farmers field but they couldn't dig it up so they bought the field.

    Also kinda scary that Rocky Flats which has had it's share of disasters is pretty much in my backyard.

    -Mikey P

  39. Would they thank you? by Madcapjack · · Score: 4, Funny
    If it is the bomb that Duke has found, the question now is what, if anything, should be done with it?"

    Give it to Saddam, to justify the war in Iraq.

  40. Re:Hmm... by tftp · · Score: 3, Informative
    I find myself both frightened and disturbed by the incredible amounts of knowledge...

    All that information is openly available in books and science magazines. The real secret is in exact knowledge of how to do things, not in the principle how things should be working. For example, the physicists knew how to make the bomb before the Manhattan Project started; and it took years and billions of dollars to actually make it work.

    I'm curious now - given the materials necessary, how many slashdotters could construct a working nuclear weapon?

    Probably everyone could do so. The real question would be "how close to the optimum yield you will get?" - because the easiest way to make a bomb would be to take two pieces of uranium in two hands, and to bring them together as fast as you can. This will result in -some- explosion, but not very powerful one. The secret is in how you assemble the critical mass in under microseconds, and those who know won't tell.

  41. Hey I just saw this on the Discovery Channel! by spitzak · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't know how accurate they are, but according to that show: the CIA already had pictures and knew where the sub was from 10 years earlier. It sank in the 1950's in the same month as an American sub the Scorpion (the accidents were unrelated). It had one missle on it (I may have missed what happened to the others, the graphic indicated it could hold 3). In the late 1950's an American sub was sent out there to locate it and photograph it and succeeded.

    When Nixon was elected he was told about the sub and authorized raising it. The Glomar Explorer lifted the entire sub, but then the lifting contraption broke and 2/3 of the sub fell back to the floor. They got the front third and recovered six bodies (which they buried at sea in a russian-style ceremony), and they recoverd some code information (though I doubt codes from 1950's were much use in 1974!).

    The Russians completely covered up the fact that they lost the sub, and the Americans did not say they had found it, so when the story about the Glomar Explorer leaked out, it was also the first anybody had heard about the sub sinking!

  42. Georgia, was it? by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Knew there was some explanation for Zell Miller.

  43. Re:No worrys. by Catharsis · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey! It DOES have those fifties tailfins! Man, I totally dig classic, er, bombs.

    --

    "The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -- David Hume

  44. Re:Question from a laymen, here by mpe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It produces mostly lead, ultimately.

    The daughter element of Pu239 is U235.

    The decay tree for a fission reaction is really complicated, though: there's a multitude of ways each atom in the sample can decay, and it may stop for a very long time as some long-lived low-level isotope before heading on down the chain.

    The decay of the results of a fission reaction is complex because the fission process produces multiple isotopes of multiple elements. At the same time throwing neutrons around which can be captured changing the isotope mix. The fission products are very unlikely to decay to any form of lead, given that they tend to be in row 5 of the periodic table. Hence Sr90 and I131 being present. N.B. many of the isotopes produced by fission have such short half lives that they are difficult to detect.

  45. So? They were warned. by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The Emperor had been told that war could not be won as early as February 1942. In 1943, the [Japanese] navy had reached the conclusion that defeat was inevitable. In 1944 Tojo had been thrown out by a navy putsch. None of this made any difference. The fear of assassination was too great. In May 1945 Russia was asked to mediate. But Stalin sat on the offer, since in January at Yalta he had been promised substantial territorial rewards to enter the Japanese war in August.

    On 6 June the Japanese Supreme Council approved a document, 'Fundamental Policy to be Followed hensceforth in the Conduct of the War,' which asserted 'we shall ... prosecute the war to the bitter end'. The final plan for the defense of Japan itself, 'Operation Decision', provided for 10,000 suicide planes (most converted trainers), fifty-three infantry divisions and twenty-five brigades: 2,350,000 trained troops would fight on the beaches, backed by 4 million army and navy civil employees and a civilian militia of 28 million .

    They were to have weapons which included muzzle-loaders, bamboo spears and bows and arrows. The Allied commanders assumed that their own forces must expect up to a million casualties if an invasion of Japan became necessary. How many Japanese would lives would be lost? Assuming comparable ratios to those already experienced, it would be in the range of 10-20 million.

    The Allied aim was to break Japanese resistance before an invasion became unavoidable. On 1 August, 820 B29's unloaded 6,600 tons of explosive on five towns in North Kyushu. Five days later America's one, untested uranium bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan's eighth largest city, headquarters of the 2nd General Army and an important embarkation port. Some 720,000 leaflets warning that the city would be 'obliterated' had been dropped two days before . No notice was taken..."

    -- Johnson, Paul: Modern Times

    Read your history.