Slashdot Mirror


A Look Back At Bombing the Van Allen Belts

An anonymous reader points out a recent story at NPR describing one of the greatest lightshows in history — a US hydrogen bomb test 250 miles above the Pacific Ocean in 1962. The mission came about after James Van Allen confirmed the existence of radiation belts around the earth that now bear his name. As it turns out, the same day Van Allen announced his findings at a press conference, he "agreed with the military to get involved with a project to set off atomic bombs in the magnetosphere to see if they could disrupt it." According to NPR, "The plan was to send rockets hundreds of miles up, higher than the Earth's atmosphere, and then detonate nuclear weapons to see: a) If a bomb's radiation would make it harder to see what was up there (like incoming Russian missiles!); b) If an explosion would do any damage to objects nearby; c) If the Van Allen belts would move a blast down the bands to an earthly target (Moscow! for example); and — most peculiar — d) if a man-made explosion might 'alter' the natural shape of the belts." The article is accompanied by a podcast and a video with recently declassified views of the test. They also explain how the different colors of light in the sky were produced.

53 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. I can't see the tags... by chill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But if anything ever needed the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag, this was it.

    Wow, cool! Let's nuke it and see what happens!

    The mind boggles.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:I can't see the tags... by Rotworm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, nowadays our view on the environment is that it is fragile. In the sixties the general view on the environment was that it was robust. For instance, abandon a suburban house and nature will take it back over time. The summary quietly acknowledges this viewpoint, they were trying to see if they could disrupt the magnetosphere, much less damage it.

    2. Re:I can't see the tags... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, cool! Let's nuke it and see what happens!

      And the truth about the origin of global warming is finally revealed!

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's kinda stupid to blow things up just because you can.

      Note to the ladies out there: penises are an exception to this rule.

    4. Re:I can't see the tags... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But if anything ever needed the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag, this was it.

      Wow, cool! Let's nuke it and see what happens!

      The mind boggles.

      Oddly, mine doesn't.

      Right now, *today*, there are thousands of politicians and millions of people who would tell you that global warming can't be man made because, like, the world is big and stuff, and so there's no way we could possibly damage it. Why would you expect people back in the dawning days of the nuclear age to think any differently?

    5. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Why would you expect people back in the dawning days of the nuclear age to think any differently?

      They weren't born with as much brain-damage from excessive radiation exposure.

    6. Re:I can't see the tags... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, nowadays our view on the environment is that it is fragile. In the sixties the general view on the environment was that it was robust. For instance, abandon a suburban house and nature will take it back over time. The summary quietly acknowledges this viewpoint, they were trying to see if they could disrupt the magnetosphere, much less damage it.

      It's not fragile at all. However, the environment's capability to support human existence possibly is (as it gets worse, it can lead to fighting and wars over basic human necessities like water).

      After all, it's been around a long time, and evolution's worked fine so far. Our way of life and humanity, well, who knows?

    7. Re:I can't see the tags... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That was back in the 50s and 60s though, a great time in some ways, if only for the freewheeling attitude to science. The dangers of nuclear weapons weren't really understood that well, they had plans for nuclear cars, nuclear planes, nuclear every damn thing, you could buy a chemistry set without being flagged as a terrorist, dinners in a pill and jetpacks were just around the corner. It was slicked back hair and giant cars, the time of Fats Domino, Elvis, and Buddy Holly.

    8. Re:I can't see the tags... by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, nowadays our view on the environment is that it is fragile. In the sixties the general view on the environment was that it was robust.

      The environment is quite robust.
      The problem is that humans have a long tradition of overexploiting/overloading nature.
      The end result is that the environment either doesn't have an opportunity to, or can't regenerate itself.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:I can't see the tags... by barzok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the sixties the general view on the environment was that it was robust.

      And in the 40s, the scientists running the Manhattan Project were afraid that the device detonated at Trinity would ignite the atmosphere.

    10. Re:I can't see the tags... by Draykwing · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is a misconception, though unfortunately a common one. The real situation was that a single scientist on the project posited that it might, all of the others disproved it mathematically, he irresponsibly went to the press, and they kicked him out. That's the truth, though it makes a much less sensational headline.

    11. Re:I can't see the tags... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good thing scientists would never do anything that stupid today *cough*miniature blackholes*cough*...

    12. Re:I can't see the tags... by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The environment has, and will continue to, have the ability to regenerate itself. The interesting question is whether it can do so in a way that allows the continued existence of 7+ billion highly exploitative bipeds with a complex economic and agricultural system.

      Barring some sort of global cataclysm, the "earth" and the "environment" will definitely still be here in a thousand years. Millions of species will be here, actively filling their various ecological niches. Whether humanity is one of those species is a matter for some debate, but the earth will be doing just fine, thanks.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    13. Re:I can't see the tags... by Skjellifetti · · Score: 4, Informative

      Source, please.

      Richard Rhodes' _Making of the Atomic Bomb_ mentions that it was Fermi who offered tongue-in-cheek to take wagers from other scientists on whether the bomb would ignite the atmosphere and if this would destroy just New Mexico or the whole world, annoying Groves in the process. Oppenheimer asked Teller to look into this along with other similar far-fetched possibilities.

      No one went to the press. No one was kicked off the project over this. That's the truth, though it makes a much less sensational headline.

  2. And now I know by Cylix · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least it will be a very pretty ending when the nuclear war begins.

    These images look very similar to what I had seen last night. The colors bouncing off of the clouds lit up the sky quite well. In fact, if no one replies in the next few minutes I can probably assume that was the end of humanity.

    In the end I suppose it's time to do what I always wanted to do. You know, the things we won't do because of societies "rules." However, now that society no longer exists I can finally bathe myself in chocolate sauce, whip cream, nuts and ride my bike around town screaming who has a banana!

    Even being the end of the world it's shaping up to be a great day.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    1. Re:And now I know by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can finally bathe myself in chocolate sauce, whip cream, nuts and ride my bike around town screaming who has a banana!

      Someone beat you to it.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
  3. Hypocrasy by jvillain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is amazing how the US comes down on on other countries for even thinking of having 1 bomb. While their history is of irresponsibly setting them off like fire crackers on the 4th. How many atolls no longer exist? How many places on earth are radioactive? Yet we are all supposed to believe that they are the sole responsible country on the earth.

    1. Re:Hypocrasy by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is amazing how the US comes down on on other countries for even thinking of having 1 bomb

      I believe there's an international treaty where you cannot nuclear attack a nation having an nuclear arsenaln, even if it's just "one nuke".

      This fact allows the US to nuke, say Irak, until they have developed their own nuclear weapons. That's why these nations are developing their own weapons, not to "nuke the Western world" but to get themselves safe.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    2. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In other words: "We made some horrible choices getting where we are now. For the sake of humanity, do not make the same mistakes we did!"

    3. Re:Hypocrasy by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You probably have citations for your claims. May I look at some?

      I always thought that the western world didn't want Iran to have nukes because their president and their ayatollahs frequently pass judgement on Israel, saying that they should be bombed out of existence. I could be wrong. Maybe all those speeches are just so much propaganda, and I've been drinking to much Kool-Aid. Ayatollah Kookoomaniac and President Abinutter have really been searching for a way to play kissy-huggy with the Jews, right?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:Hypocrasy by whatajoke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Manifest destiny is probably to blame here. Until americans do not get rid of their self-righteous crusadic attitude, it is difficult that they will realize how other countries see them.
      Other countries make horrible mistakes too, like war. But members of public against these mistakes are not condemned as unpatriotic, or anti-national. Just look at how the movie Green Zone was branded unamerican. I don't know how americans starring in the movie must have felt about that insult. I would have been furious enough to rip somebody's head off on being called anti-naional.

    5. Re:Hypocrasy by compro01 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No such treaty and you have it backwards. There are statements by various countries (US included, also China) that they won't use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.

      "The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Non Proliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations"

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:Hypocrasy by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is NOT clear that the US gave nukes to Israel. Note, I'm not denying that the US gave nukes to Israel, I am merely stating that it isn't clear that they did so.

      What IS most definitely clear is, A: Israelis spies stole a lot of data B: Israel bribed some scientists and technicians C: The US pretended not to notice that Israel wanted nukes really badly D: A lot of politicians would have committed treason to ensure that Israel did get nukes. E: Israel put a lot of money into R&D in the years before and after they "acquired" nuclear weapons.

      You are free to draw your own conslusions, of course, but I don't believe that we "gave" them nukes. I think that a lot of loose cannons in government and in the military enabled Israel to develop their own nukes.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:Hypocrasy by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I prefer this version of the very same thing:

      This famous poem, written by Britain's imperial poet, was a response to the American take over of the Phillipines after the Spanish-American War.

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              Send forth the best ye breed--
              Go bind your sons to exile
              To serve your captives' need;
              To wait in heavy harness,
              On fluttered folk and wild--
              Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
              Half-devil and half-child.

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              In patience to abide,
              To veil the threat of terror
              And check the show of pride;
              By open speech and simple,
              An hundred times made plain
              To seek another's profit,
              And work another's gain.

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              The savage wars of peace--
              Fill full the mouth of Famine
              And bid the sickness cease;
              And when your goal is nearest
              The end for others sought,
              Watch sloth and heathen Folly
              Bring all your hopes to nought.

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              No tawdry rule of kings,
              But toil of serf and sweeper--
              The tale of common things.
              The ports ye shall not enter,
              The roads ye shall not tread,
              Go mark them with your living,
              And mark them with your dead.

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              And reap his old reward:
              The blame of those ye better,
              The hate of those ye guard--
              The cry of hosts ye humour
              (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
              "Why brought he us from bondage,
              Our loved Egyptian night?"

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              Ye dare not stoop to less--
              Nor call too loud on Freedom
              To cloke your weariness;
              By all ye cry or whisper,
              By all ye leave or do,
              The silent, sullen peoples
              Shall weigh your gods and you.

              Take up the White Man's burden--
              Have done with childish days--
              The lightly proferred laurel,
              The easy, ungrudged praise.
              Comes now, to search your manhood
              Through all the thankless years
              Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
              The judgment of your peers!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:Hypocrasy by Teancum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Something completely missing from this article is nothing about the history of the high altitude tests and some of the significant concerns raised about those tests.

      Perhaps more significant is the rapidity with which the Partial Test Ban Treaty was negotiated, approved, and ratified when the full impact of these tests were finally realized. It is important to note that both the USA and the Soviet Union were involved with these tests, and it wasn't just a one-sided thing. The largest problem is that continued testing of nuclear weapons would have essentially ended manned spaceflight for awhile until the radioactive materials would dissipate from the upper atmosphere... potentially taking as long as a hundred years or more if it was really pushed.

      BTW, if you are complaining about islands, atolls, and other underground and surface tests, nearly every nation who has detonated a nuclear bomb has been involved with this sort of contamination including "enlightened" countries like England and France. Opposition to other countries getting nuclear weapons isn't restricted to the USA either, but America is painted as the bad guy usually. Most countries who can afford nuclear weapons, such as China, India, and Pakistan, already have them. Countries like Kazakhstan, the Ukraine, and Belarus even gave up nuclear weapons that they had at one point. South Africa even had nuclear weapons technology at one point. The number of countries with nuclear weapons or at least the capabilities of having them is quite a few. Some countries like Japan certainly have the wealth and the technology base to build them, but don't for very deliberate political reasons (not that I blame them for that attitude either).

    9. Re:Hypocrasy by Pentium100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe it has something to do with the fact that nobody has invaded the USA recently enough for currently alive people to remember it.

      Maybe if more people knew what it's like to lie down in some ditch and hear bullets flying over it, be forced out of home because it currently is too near the front line or even worse, having your house (and everything you own) destroyed by a bomb (or the retreating army lighting it on fire so it could not be used by the enemy) with or without your loved ones in it, they would not talk about war as if it was a good thing.

    10. Re:Hypocrasy by fermion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Much of the power of US comes from the fact that it is vicious, but more or less fair. In the revolutionary war,captured redcoats were often left to travel to the POW camp after promising to lay down arms. In the revolutionary war, the loser confederates were not, overall, made the subject of vengeful attacks, but rather reintegration through reconstruction.

      As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, they certainly solidified the US repetition as vicious. The US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on a civilian population. What this means is that other countries have be nuclear states, but how many would really use it. Only the US has proven it.

      The ban on nuclear weapons is not a US thing. The NPT is a united nations issue. The US is a position to help enforce it. The treaty between the US and Russia is meant to reduce the stockpiles and help reach a nuclear free world. The NPT is separate and meant to minimize the number of nuclear powers, given that most of the civilized world has reached a consensus in that we cannot use these weapons.

      It is true that the US has become particularly more vicious in the past 10 years, mostly due to religious fanatics taking over the US, much as they are taking over in other parts of the world. This is changing to the point where many extreme right conservative think our mix of nuclear weapons will be insufficient to defend against the modern random aggressors.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    11. Re:Hypocrasy by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.iranfocus.com/en/?option=com_content&task=view&id=4164
      Transcript of speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at "World Without Zionism" conference in Tehran

      "Such people are using words like "it's not possible". They say how could we have a world without America and Zionism? But you know well that this slogan and goal can be achieved and can definitely be realised"

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    12. Re:Hypocrasy by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is amazing how the US comes down on on other countries for even thinking of having 1 bomb. While their history is of irresponsibly setting them off like fire crackers on the 4th. How many atolls no longer exist? How many places on earth are radioactive? Yet we are all supposed to believe that they are the sole responsible country on the earth.

      Amazing? Not at all. It's called "self preservation." Funny you should mention firecrackers: they're illegal in many states (which pisses me off, actually: paternalistic politicians trying to "protect the children"), and if you knew more about us, you might understand their cultural and historical relevance. Regardless, you can complain about our history of testing nuclear weapons, but you know, we don't anymore. You also conveniently forgot to mention that Russia has a similar history, and in fact set the record for the largest fusion explosion ever: fifty megatons of TNT equivalent, and that was tuned down from the design yield of one hundred megatons, over concerns about fallout. I believe our biggest detonation was about twenty-five (and at that, it exceeded expectations.)

      Just get one thing through your silly little head: this is NOT A MATTER OF FAIRNESS. It's just not. We aren't discussing trade agreements, or illegal immigration, or any of a hundred other issues that the world faces every day. We're discussing weapon systems that can kill millions of innocent people in a few milliseconds. Do you really want everyone to have them? Is it "fair" that a city should die because you don't like the U.S.?

      Look, the United States and Russia exercised the requisite restraint during the Cold War and after. Yes, that was the desired outcome of M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction), but put it this way: MAD worked. No ICBMs were fired, no long-range bombers dropped heavy weapons on Moscow or Washington. So here's the question: do you honestly believe that all countries in the world capable of building atomic weapons would do the same? Do you believe that the leaders of all countries are sufficiently rational to understand the concept of MAD? Yes, we dropped small tactical devices on an enemy twice during World War II, but when you consider the power of modern fusion weapons when compared to Fatman and Littleboy, well, you really need to rethink your position.

      This is a matter of "we have them, Russia has them, China has them, England has them, Israel has them, and a few other countries have them, and that's enough." It less to do with who is the "most responsible", and more to do with the odds of thermonuclear weapons being used increasing the more nations have them. Consequently, we'd like to keep anyone else who doesn't already have them from acquiring them, and the United States is hardly alone in that position. Nobody who has atomic weapons, nobody who has seen what they can do, is at all comfortable with an unstable nation owning them. You can bitch all you want about that, but the fewer nations that have the things the better.

      You're concerning yourself that it's "unfair" that the United States and a few other powerful nations have nuclear weapons and don't want anyone else to have them. Well, you're damn right, it may be unfair, but it's the sanest approach to the issue that we have. And you know what? The first time some two-bit "nuclear power" like Iran, Pakistan or North Korea decides turn a few square miles of someone else's city into a glass lake, you'll be the first to complain that the United States should somehow have prevented those deaths. I just know it.

      Hypocrites.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    13. Re:Hypocrasy by JSBiff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "It is true that the US has become particularly more vicious in the past 10 years, mostly due to religious fanatics taking over the US, much as they are taking over in other parts of the world. This is changing to the point where many extreme right conservative think our mix of nuclear weapons will be insufficient to defend against the modern random aggressors."

      Oversimplify much? I'm no particular fan of G.W. Bush, or the war in Iraq. Afghanistan, I think, was unfortunately necessary, but certainly a continuing tragedy. My point is, while Christian conservatives have certainly had an impact on U.S. politics, to say that religious fanatics have taken over the US is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? G.W. Bush might have been an Evangelical, but the wars the U.S. engaged with weren't about trying to enforce a religion on anyone. They were, in the end, basically wars driven by fear, I think. The U.S. was attacked by true religious fanatics in a spectacular way that caused a lot of terror. I think, perhaps, the terrorists didn't forsee the real end-result of that terror. U.S. Foreign policy since 9/11 was, in my opinion, not driven primarily by creed, but simply by fear, by a desire to protect ourselves. I'm not saying that makes it right, but it does make the parent post wrong.

      Yes, yes, I don't think the war in Iraq really had a substantial basis in the Sept. 11 terror attacks. They weren't really linked with Al Qaeda. But, the administration and much of the public (including what you call "religious fanatics") *perceived* a terror threat from Saddam. Even though there were no links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, there was a not entirely irrational or unfounded fear of Saddaam allying with terrorists. He is known to have supported the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who killed Israelis. Although it turned out he didn't have WMD at the time of the invasion, he had certainly been pursuing a nuclear program in the past, and had kicked out U.N. IAEA inspectors for a period of years. He was certainly no friend or lover of the U.S. in particular, or "The West" in general. He *had* used aweful weapons, like Chemical Weapons, against civilian populations (his own people, at that - certainly someone who would use terrible weapons against the civilians under his own rule would not blink an eye at using such weapons against foreign civilian targets, if given opportunity).

      Were there other possibilities for dealing with Saddam instead of invasion - possibly. From what I've read about the history of the invasion, the Bush administration rushed things, jumped the gun. But that doesn't mean there wasn't any non-religious basis for the invasion.

      While I think the war in Iraq may have been a mistake, I think people oversimplify things a lot, whether it's the "No Blood for Oil" crowd, who I think there is substantial evidence to show they are just wrong about presuming Iraq to be a war for oil, or people such as the parent post, who just say that the U.S. has been taken over by religious extremists (the Christian-right in the U.S. is predominantly nowhere near as extreme as the Islamist-extremist [I suppose you can probably find an extremely small number of examples (from my experience, it's not any statistically signifance proportion of U.S. Christian's) of Christian's who are almost as extreme as the Islamic global-jihadists, and in any case, the religious right was far from having complete control over U.S. politics or policy, though they were influential during the Bush years).

    14. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, when something happens. You know who has the nukes, no matter what treaty you sign up for.
      It's interesting how many people come out to defent the second ammendment and their right to bear arms, but they don't think it's right for other governments to have the same defense mechanisms in the event of a country who wanted to take advantage of their nuclear power. I'm not saying it's going to happen soon, or that everyone should be allowed, but it scares me not being part of the bunch with the nuclear arsenal.

    15. Re:Hypocrasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you serious? Let me give you a relevant quote:

      Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map for great justice and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.

      (emphasis mine)

      There were some questions in the media as to whether this was the correct translation, but the fact is that "wiped off the map" is the term the office of the President of Iran used in their own translation. Doesn't get much more clear than that.

      Combine that with Ahmadinejad's rampant antisemitism and Holocaust denial, and I think that the GP was perfectly accurate in his assessment of Iran.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

    16. Re:Hypocrasy by jvillain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >"They're an unstable, volatile government that was put into place only a few decades ago through an uprising. Add the fact that they are a government controlled by religious ideology, along with being the arch-nemesis of Judaism, and it's a boiling kettle."

      That's right. It was so much better when it was a blood thirsty dictatorship put in place by the British and US governments than it is as a democratically elected government.

    17. Re:Hypocrasy by mickwd · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think, perhaps, the terrorists didn't forsee the real end-result of that terror.

      On the contrary, they foresaw it only too well, and the USA's reaction meant that they had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Having the population of the USA live in a state of fear would be an important goal for them (after all, is this not the very definition of the word "terrorism"?), and in this the subsequent actions of the USA government, and their stoking of the perceived terrorist threat, helped Al Qaeda succeed in this.

      If you recall, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was worldwide sympathy for the USA, and not just from its usual allies. How quickly, and how damagingly (to the USA itself) this goodwill was squandered by what happened in Iraq (and the decision to start a war there in the first place) and the more-extreme excesses of the "war on terror". Portraying the conflict as some sort of religious crusade also played into their hands.

      The Bush administration was played like a fiddle by Al Qaeda.

    18. Re:Hypocrasy by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hate of Israel and the USA is a good "we've always been at war with Oceania" rallying point for hardline Iranians that want to get as much power as popular support can get them while the real power lies with the theocrats. We shouldn't read much more into it or even assume most of the population think that way.
      An atomic bomb would more likely be used in the situation of "nice Island you've got there Bahrain, be a pity if something happened to it - we'd like to help but we're just a bit short of cash".
      It's a bit of a race between their current regime dies out and is replaced or getting nukes.

    19. Re:Hypocrasy by lordlod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That very recent United States policy is very pretty, but it only holds true until they change their mind. If someone invaded the continental United States, destroyed critical infrastructure and occupied US lands it would change very very quickly.

      The simple fact is that there has never been a war between two nuclear states. There has never been an invasion of a nuclear state.

      If your country was being routinely threatened with invasion and bombing why wouldn't you try and build a nuclear deterrence.

    20. Re:Hypocrasy by kmac06 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There has never been an invasion of a nuclear state.

      Yom Kippur War

  4. Azimov story... by ei4anb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isaac Azimov wrote a short sci-fi story about an explorer, who had just come back from visiting the newly contacted planet "Earth", adding humans to the "Register Of Intelligent Life". Some minutes later, after the explorer explained how humans tested atomic bombs "on their own planet" the registrar erased the entry as being unqualified for inclusion under "Intelligent".

    1. Re:Azimov story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isaac Azimov wrote a short sci-fi story about an explorer, who had just come back from visiting the newly contacted planet "Earth", adding humans to the "Register Of Intelligent Life". Some minutes later, after the explorer explained how humans tested atomic bombs "on their own planet" the registrar erased the entry as being unqualified for inclusion under "Intelligent".

      He didn't cross of humans as "being unqualified for inclusion under intelligent." He crossed off humans under the assumption we would cause ourselves to go extinct, as many other species who had qualified as intelligent, had. Also, the explorer hadn't contacted Earth, he had observed/explored it. Humans had no knowledge of the Explorer or the Register.

    2. Re:Azimov story... by LongearedBat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a big difference between intelligence and wisdom.

      I saw a documentary once about a native american who was the last survivor of a little known tribe in the early 1900's. When he saw San Fransisco for the first time, with gas lamps, trams, etc., he said:
      The white man is very clever, but not very wise.

      Was that foresight, or are we modern people really so blinded by our cleverness that we fail to see our lack of wisdom?

    3. Re:Azimov story... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, lights and transportation and warm shelter are so unwise. (facepalm)

      Look, just because a Native American says something does not make it a universal truth. That attitude is just as woo as any religion or new age bullcrap.

  5. It began earlier by rumith · · Score: 5, Informative

    In case anyone got interested, the 1958 test was called Operation Argus.
    By the way, despite what TFA says, there are two electron radiation belts, not just two of them at all; there's also a proton one. Wikipedia considers it to be a part of the inner radiation belt, but the accepted terminology says otherwise to the best of my knowledge.

    1. Re:It began earlier by Teancum · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is a crying shame that you roll over whenever somebody tries to stop you from trying to correct articles like that in the first place. There certainly are a bunch of cyber bullies on Wikipedia, and there is an attempt to be a check on their actions, but it does take some effort and standing up to those bullies in the first place.

  6. Another proposal .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    was to nuke rainbows. A high ranking general was quoted as saying the military applications of rainbows and rainbow based technologies can't be ignored.

  7. I used to be in favour of nuclear deterent by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... but the more I read about what some of these scientists got up to the more I begin to wonder if some of them weren't borderline insane or at least so totally absorbed in the narrow science they were persuing that they didn't think about or didn't care about the potential consequences if things went wrong.

  8. I wonder... by sootman · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... if this plan involved any of the same people who wanted to set off a nuclear bomb on the moon.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  9. EMP by mbone · · Score: 5, Informative

    This test series (specifically, Starfish Prime) uncovered the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effect, an unexpected side effect of nuclear explosions at altitude. The gamma rays from a high altitude burst hit atoms and thus eject electrons high in the atmosphere over a wide area, more or less simultaneously, and the current from the ejected electrons can cause a very wide-spread electromagnetic pulse, which can knock out power lines and electronics at great distances (> 1000 km).

    So, I guess we can call Allen the father of the EMP, although I am not sure he would have wanted the honor.

  10. Re:One disappointing part about the article... by mbone · · Score: 4, Informative

    I will give this a shot. I assume you mean these.

    a) If a bomb's radiation would make it harder to see what was up there (like incoming Russian missiles!); b) If an explosion would do any damage to objects nearby; c) If the Van Allen belts would move a blast down the bands to an earthly target (Moscow! for example); and — most peculiar — d) if a man-made explosion might "alter" the natural shape of the belts.

    a. Yes, especially in the radio.
    b. Yes, in a fairly predictable fashion (from heat, gamma rays).
    c. No
    d. Yes, for a short while, sort of like a solar flare. That can actually cause a "geomagnetically induced current," which could be a problem for long electrical transmission lines.

    However, the real find from the test was the prompt EMP, which was not anticipated. (See my post further down on that one.)

  11. Re:Mommy, I want a H-Bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, it's not like there's law against it.

    We finally have a Supreme Court that takes the Second Amendment seriously, and there is nothing there in the Constitution that would allow the Government to limit your capacity to defend yourself and your family against your neighbors and tyrants.

    In fact, the Second Amendment's intent can only be fulfilled if every family owned a nuclear weapon. Only then will the Government think twice before using the eminent domain and tax-and-spend laws to confiscate your Private Property.

  12. Re:Voyage to the Bottom of The Sea?!? by unitron · · Score: 2, Informative

    Before the television show there was the movie, and that premise was most of the entire plot.

    --

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

  13. More like: "What Possibly Went Wrong..." by Trip6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do we know of any long term consequences of these ill-advised tests?

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
  14. Certainly don't want to do that today... by psychogre · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Those radiation belts are composed of trapped electron and proton particles, bouncing back and forth along those magnetic field lines. There are several numerical models that predict what the population of these particles based on their location, and general behavior under different conditions (solar cycle variations, solar flares, etc).
    Anyone building a satellite will use those models to determine what levels of radiation levels the satellite will encounter along its orbit, and add on the appropriate level of shielding to protect the electronics.
    A nuclear bomb will never be able to alter the shape of the belts. All it will do is add a spectacular amount of electron and proton particles to the radiation belt, potentially frying the electronics of most of the low to medium orbit satellite (geosynchronous ones will probably be ok). Depending on the size of the bomb, the radiation belt may take weeks or even months to return to a 'natural' state.
    There are some experiments in the works to 'tweak' the radiation belts by beaming low frequency EM waves, to change the energy of the existing particle populations. In theory, that will enable some of the particles to become 'untrapped', thereby reducing the overall population.

  15. Japan by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Some countries like Japan certainly have the wealth and the technology base to build them, but don't for very deliberate political reasons

    Gojira!!

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu