Slashdot Mirror


Five Times the US Almost Nuked Itself

kdawson writes "io9 has a scary outline of five times the US came close to accidental nuclear disasters. Quoting: 'In August of 1950, ten B-29 Superfortress bombers took off from what was then called Fairfield-Suisun Air Force Base in California, headed for Guam. Each was carrying a Mark IV atom bomb, which was about twice as powerful as the bombs dropped on Japan at the end of World War II. Shortly after takeoff, one of the B-29s had engine trouble. On board was General Robert Travis. He commanded the plane to turn back to the base when the landing gear refused to retract. Sensing the plane was going down, the pilot tried to avoid some base housing before crashing at the northwest corner of the base. The initial impact killed 12 of the 20 people aboard, including General Travis. The resulting fire eventually detonated the 5,000 pounds of conventional explosives that were part of the Mark IV. That massive explosion killed seven people on the ground. Had the bomb been armed with its fissile capsule, the immediate death toll may have reached six figures.'"

61 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Um, not quite.... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the case of the Travis accident, there was no nuclear disaster precisely because the nuclear core was not loaded. The Air Force was all too aware of the number of B-29's that crashed on or shortly after takeoff and never armed the weapons until they were close to the target area. To call this a "close call" is simply fear mongering to get page hits.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:Um, not quite.... by ustolemyname · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. Real lesson of the article: The government is competent at risk management.

    2. Re:Um, not quite.... by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But if you take that away, what will the anti-nuke people say? I mean seriously, the people that argue against nuclear whatever tend not to bother with the science and reality and focus on nightmare scenarios which already have reliable procedures in place to prevent.

    3. Re:Um, not quite.... by gblackwo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seriously, It was my understanding that you could blow up bombs around the nukes and besides the explosives included with the bomb, the actual "atomic" parts were inert. This was by design, so this article should be praising how the device worked by design, not trying to spin it like OMG we almost nuked ourselves.

    4. Re:Um, not quite.... by ColdBoot · · Score: 5, Informative

      Agree - I used to work on nukes - they are designed to disperse, not detonate, on anything other than a properly sequenced detonation.

    5. Re:Um, not quite.... by aekafan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would agree with this. We have come far closer to nuking ourselves through intentional political will than any accident.

    6. Re:Um, not quite.... by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Funny

      So what you're saying is that this bomb is perfectly safe?

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    7. Re:Um, not quite.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what you're saying is that this bomb is perfectly safe?

      In a word, yes.

      A nuke without a pit is like a gun with neither a firing pin nor a bullet in it. Just because it's long, thin, and you can still point it at someone and say "Bang!", doesn't mean it's anything more than a metal tube.

      This article is FUD.

    8. Re:Um, not quite.... by zrbyte · · Score: 5, Informative

      A real close call was this.

    9. Re:Um, not quite.... by flyneye · · Score: 5, Funny

      Funny you should mention "anti-nuke" people and make me recall one of my fav' Pete Townsend quotes
      "I'm really for nuclear energy, but I haven't told anyone because I'm still hoping to fuck Jane Fonda" -P.T. circa 1980

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    10. Re:Um, not quite.... by flyneye · · Score: 3, Funny

      And this post makes me think of Freud.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    11. Re:Um, not quite.... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Perfectly safe" is a quote from the Douglas Adams' short story, "Young Zaphod Plays it safe." He is sent to recover the wreck of a starship which was supposed to get rid of phenomenally awful waste. The government flunkies with him refer to everything as being, "perfectly safe," even when it is clearly not.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    12. Re:Um, not quite.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The basic principle of a nuke is that a mass of fissionable material is put in a sufficiently small volume to create a runaway chain reaction. What makes it a bomb is that the material is "compressed" quickly enough that the beginning chain reaction does not cause most of the material to vaporize and leave the containment early. It's like the difference between a firecracker and a small amount of black powder on a piece of paper. One goes boom, the other fizzles.

      Even though a nuclear bomb will not detonate without the proper application of force through conventional explosives, it still contains plenty radioactive and highly toxic material. I would not call that "inert" at all. One "broken arrow" incident still affects an area in Spain more than 40 years later.

    13. Re:Um, not quite.... by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Funny

      Guns rarely injure people while used properly.

      Uh. I'm not sure what kind of guns you've been using, but if they're not injuring people you need to go ask for your money back.

    14. Re:Um, not quite.... by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It strikes me that Tybee Island and Travis Air Force Base belong more on a "times safety systems stopped a disaster effectively exactly as they were designed to" list.

      Fermi 1 could also fall in that catagory.

      "Had the bomb been armed with its fissile capsule" could be replaced with "had the bomb contained a black hole or killer vampire ghost" and be about as scary. it wasn't armed for exactly that kind of situation.

      Tybee Island strikes me in a similar manner.

    15. Re:Um, not quite.... by aGuyNamedJoe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Guns rarely injure people while used properly.

      Uh. I'm not sure what kind of guns you've been using, but if they're not injuring people you need to go ask for your money back.

      Just like with axes, eh?

        -- Lizzie

    16. Re:Um, not quite.... by gilleain · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Had the bomb been armed with its fissile capsule" could be replaced with "had the bomb contained a black hole or killer vampire ghost" and be about as scary. it wasn't armed for exactly that kind of situation.

      Wait, wait, wait.... So you're saying that the US has bombs with vampire ghost payloads now? AND black holes?!!

    17. Re:Um, not quite.... by BudAaron · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a past holder of TSBI and AEC Q clearances I can tell you that the idiot who wrote these stories hasn't a clue what he's talking about. Comp C burns but doesn't explode unless a detonater is used. I won't go into whether or not or when the "nuclear core" is inserted but I can tell you that without a carefully detonated implosion nothing would ever happen. The China Syndrome is science fiction so this is all fear mongering for the effect. All bull.... and I DO know what I'm talking about.

    18. Re:Um, not quite.... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

      And it is kinda that way just by necessity. Turns out that a nuclear bomb isn't the easiest thing in the world to build. If it were, well then probably every asshat dictator would have a few. After all Uranium isn't all that hard to get. However you have to properly make the nuclear materials and then build a device that can detonate them. It isn't like a conventional bomb where you just use heat or electric current or something. It requires precise operation because you more or less crush the radioactive material. Timing is critical, dimensions are critical, etc. So even presuming you know how to build one, it isn't so easy to actually make it work.

      The flip side of that is they only go off if detonated properly. If you just set fire to some of the conventional explosives to cause them to go off, then it is almost impossible for it to cause the right kind of reaction to set off the nuclear bomb. Even if you don't really take any special design safe guards, it is still pretty hard to set off the nuclear explosion without meaning it.

      Of course as you noted the ones that the military actually builds are taken steps further and actually designed NOT to blow up unless special conditions are met. They make deliberate choices making it even harder for the bomb to go off unless it is on purpose. Makes sense, no military wants to nuke their own country.

    19. Re:Um, not quite.... by Cylix · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, had the bomb been self aware we would have been in a bit more trouble.

      Sentient beings that are locked away in seclusion often develop depression. In fact, given that most people would rather not carry on a conversation with a sentient nuclear weapon this would have been doubly bad. I suspect at some point our self aware nuclear being would have turned suicidal at some point. Unfortunately, in this case he really could have taken them all with him.

      If you ask me... that is something to be really afraid of... if it happened.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    20. Re:Um, not quite.... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if it had its core inside, you can't start a runaway fission reaction by throwing the thing into a fire. They needed high-performance switching electronics to even achieve the kind of precision necessary to start a successful detonation. An atomic bomb is just a normal bomb unless the fissile material is held at critical mass for some time.

      Yes. They're actually damn tricky things to detonate, that is, if you want any sort of useful yield. And they pulled it off back in 1945: the state of the art in military electronics was a far cry from what it is today.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    21. Re:Um, not quite.... by shadowbearer · · Score: 4, Informative

        One "broken arrow" incident still affects an area in Spain more than 40 years later.

        From the wiki article you linked to:

        Despite the cost and number of personnel involved in the cleanup, forty years later there remain traces of the contamination. Snails have been observed with unusual levels of radioactivity.[22] Additional tracts of land have also been appropriated for testing and further cleanup. However, no indication of health issues has been discovered among the local population in Palomares.

        This is not even remotely as bad as what would have happened had even one of the bombs been armed and gone off on impact. There would have been an actual (probably large) death toll, in that case, and considerably more contamination. There are many more much more contaminated and dangerous sites around the world, many not even having anything to do with nuclear weapons, fuel, or byproducts.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    22. Re:Um, not quite.... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nuclear weapons area very easy to make IFF you have the materials for them. The most difficult part is either getting the enriched uranium OR plutonium (even more difficult).. After you have the materials, it's very easy to make a bomb. So please, stop speaking out of your ass.

      A working nuclear weapon is not easy to make. Seriously, do you think the entire Manhattan project was solely about obtaining the requisite amount of fuel?..

      Merely pushing two pieces of nuclear fuel together to form critical mass are not sufficient to set off the explosion. If you do it slow, they'll just heat up and start melting. If you do it kinda fast, they will start exploding, but the force of that explosion will blow the bomb into pieces before most of fuel reacts, so you'll just have a moderate-size conventional explosion. The problem with making a working weapon is putting the critical mass together really fast, and also making it stay there for as long as it is needed to get the substantial part of the fuel to react. This is not easy by any means.

      Gun-type assembly is relatively easy, but 1) it does not work with plutonium, 2) you therefore need much more uranium since its critical mass is higher, and 3) still only a minor part of that uranium actually produces the explosion, the rest is wasted when it's blown up into pieces. It's not completely trivial because criticality is actually achieved before the bullet runs into the rest of uranium (neutrons can travel between two pieces), and it may blow the bullet off the path, preventing a full-scale explosion. So it's not your common gun.

      So, basically, yeah, it's not that hard from an engineering perspective to build a gun-type assembly (but still not something you can do without some specialized knowledge), but it's prohibitively expensive due to the sheer amount of uranium that needs to be obtained, and its efficiency is rather low - it won't wipe out a whole city.

      Implosion design, which lets you achieve significant yields even with pure fission weapons, allows the use of plutonium, and is much more efficient. But from an engineering perspective, the thing is much harder to make due to precision requirements to get everything just right; even a slight misalignment results in a fizzle. This requires both significant technical expertise, and advanced equipment - it's not something you can make in your garage.

  2. Insulting to real nuke victims at worst... by VendettaMF · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >> Had the bomb been armed with its fissile capsule, the immediate death toll may have reached six figures.

    So now we see why the bomb wasn't "armed with its fissile capsule", don't we?
    Seriously, sad about the lives lost at the time an all, but to describe this as "almost nuked America" is facetious at best. This being the example chosen to represent the articles contents (and so probably the "best" of the incidents) I see no reason to read any further.

    This is no more "nearly nuked" than the making of the movie "Broken Arrow". After all, they had props that looked like nukes in that. What if there's been a mix-up somewhere along the line? OMG! Nearly nuked America again!

    --
    kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
  3. If, if and more if by Fenresulven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Had the bomb been armed with its fissile capsule, the immediate death toll may have reached six figures.

    And maybe that's the reason the fissile material wasn't inserted into the bomb? And in any event I'd be very surprised if the fire caused the explosives to detonate sufficently simoultaneously to actually cause anything more than a fizzle.

  4. nukes do not work that way by klparrot · · Score: 5, Informative

    IANANP, but AFAIK a regular explosion or fire will not set off a nuclear weapon. The trigger explosion has to be carefully controlled, otherwise it'll just blow apart the nuclear material instead of compressing it to supercritical. That's why it's so hard to build a nuke. Crashing with a nuke is at worst going to spread some nuclear material over a small area, in the same way that any other material in the crash would be. No nuclear explosion.

    1. Re:nukes do not work that way by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's generally true, and the only weapon ever deployed that was prone to going off in an crash was probably Little Boy (that later went off on purpose over Hiroshima). The Mark IV, however, was probably somewhat more prone to accidental detonation that any of the others, which is why the core was inserted in-flight. Later, preventing accidental detonation became a serious issue and a lot of the later tests were negative tests to ensure that the safety features worked correctly.

                Full details of each type of bomb and the underlying design can be found at : http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

                Brett

  5. curious by rarel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did they try dropping the B29 from orbit? It's the only way to be sure...

    1. Re:curious by EnsilZah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this Xenu guy tried that once, though I believe it was a different model of airplane.

  6. Wew, thank god. by orphiuchus · · Score: 5, Funny

    This reminds me of the time the US was almost attacked by giant killer terrorist robots. Luckily, Osama didn't invent and deploy them, otherwise the death toll could have been in the 9 figures.

    1. Re:Wew, thank god. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      This reminds me of the time the US was almost attacked by giant killer terrorist robots. Luckily, Osama didn't invent and deploy them, otherwise the death toll could have been in the 9 figures.

      Ironically, that's kind of what happened with both the recent Times Square Bomber and the London nightclub carbomb back in 2007 - neither of the bombers built anything particularly dangerous. In both cases the bombs lacked oxidizers (and other things too) - which meant that at best they might blow the windows out of the car the bomb was in. But all the politicians were eager to make hay and said exactly the same sort of thing, "if the bomb had exploded it could have killed thousands!"

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  7. Re:The good news by mr100percent · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not really. Unlike the UK, almost all doctors in America are private practice doctors and not on government salary. The same with hospitals, a mix of private and local/state public hospitals. The health care reform legislation passed is mainly for insurance; the government won't change its control of doctors or which private plans people choose. So the government really isn't in charge of health care, although they've taken a more regulatory role in insurance.

  8. it's difficult to set off a nuke by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 4, Informative

    If the fission capsule were in there, it most likely would not have gone off. With a implosion bomb (fat man style, as the Mark IV was), all the explosive has to go off at the same time, to very close accurate (picoseconds). If some goes off first, it just blows the core apart instead of pushing it to supercriticality.That is, if the core weren't scattered in the crash before the fire set off the explosives anyway.

    Basically, you would have had a dirty bomb, no more.

    Now, a little boy (uranium gun-type) bomb can go off by accidentally more easily, but getting the material for those is so difficult that few are made.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:it's difficult to set off a nuke by NouberNou · · Score: 3, Informative

      Gun types are not made because they are inefficient and unsafe, not because the fissile material in them is hard to get.

    2. Re:it's difficult to set off a nuke by the_other_chewey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With a implosion bomb [...], all the explosive has to go off at the same time, to very close accurate (picoseconds)

      Citation needed. A good one.

      True, the timing has to be very accurate, but I'm pretty sure
      microsecond accuracy is enough, or a million times less accurate than
      your claim. I don't think detonating a chemical explosive to the
      picosecond is even possible, chemical reactions are slower than that.

      Are you maybe confusing this with the timescale of the nuclear reactions themselves?

    3. Re:it's difficult to set off a nuke by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 4, Informative

      True, the timing has to be very accurate, but I'm pretty sure
      microsecond accuracy is enough, or a million times less accurate than
      your claim.

      http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-1.html#Nfaq4.1.6.2

      4.1.6.2.2.6:
      'Creating a symmetric implosion wave requires close synchronization in firing the detonators. Tolerances on the order of 100 nanoseconds are required.'

      So I wouldn't go with accuracies on the order of microseconds if I were you, you're going to need nanoseconds. Looks like picoseconds is not needed though.

      I don't think detonating a chemical explosive to the
      picosecond is even possible, chemical reactions are slower than that.

      The rate of the reaction is a component of latency. Latencies, as long as they are consistent, do not alter accuracy. Even if it took 10 minues for the chemical reactions to take place, starting them with 100ns accuracy may be necessary if they must finish coincidentally to an accuracy of 100ns.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  9. Wow this is a terrible piece of work. by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Informative

    So none of these times did we almost nuked our self...
    The first on in 1950 at Travis the bomb wasn't armed. AKA it had no nuclear material in it.
    So there was zero chance that we would get nuked.
    The second at Fermi 1. A reactor problem that was contained and couldn't have caused a nuclear explosion as in a bomb going off. It could have been bad but the systems worked.
    The third was another un armed bomb.
    The forth another reactor problem and again the emergency systems worked and no chance of a bomb like blast.
    The last was a when a training tap was played on real systems. Yes air craft where launched and that mistake was never made again but the the safety systems and procedures worked.
    What is this a piece of FUD? Good at scaring children ,people that will not bother to read, and those that are already full of fear mindless fear. Move on nothing to see here.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Wow this is a terrible piece of work. by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hah, notice the submitter - kdawson! When he isn't posting complete crap, he's submitting it :)

    2. Re:Wow this is a terrible piece of work. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually everything I said makes perfect sense.
      That bomb was just the shell. It had no core. For the longest time the cores where locked away and under the control of the NRC.
      The Air Force didn't have control over them and in 1950 only trained with the shells.
      And yes they did assemble them in flight. As a safety system the core was not installed in the bomb until they where well on the way to the target.
      From the wikipedia
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_4_nuclear_bomb
      " In addition to being easier to manufacture, the Mark 4 introduced the concept of in flight insertion or IFI, a weapons safety concept which was used for a number of years. An IFI bomb has either manual or mechanical assembly which keeps the nuclear core stored outside the bomb until close to the point that it may be dropped. To arm the bomb, the fissile nuclear materials are inserted into the bomb core through a removable segment of the explosive lens assembly, which is then replaced and the weapon closed and armed."
      So as you can see not armed == no nuclear material in it and yes they can and did put it together in mid-flight.
      .

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Wow this is a terrible piece of work. by MrKaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I stand corrected, and thanks for the information.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  10. Re:I am surprised this does list the Spanish one by orphiuchus · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash

    Not one, 4 hydrogen bombs. 2 of them actually detonated on impact. Probably the worst USA nuclear weapons incident in history.

    Only the conventional portions detonated, that's a pretty important omission there.

  11. Re:The good news by tsm_sf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not really. Unlike the UK, almost all doctors in America are private practice doctors and not on government salary. The same with hospitals, a mix of private and local/state public hospitals. The health care reform legislation passed is mainly for insurance; the government won't change its control of doctors or which private plans people choose. So the government really isn't in charge of health care, although they've taken a more regulatory role in insurance.

    While factual, your post goes against the narrative we're trying to push here. Expect to be modded into oblivion.

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  12. Plus Nuke Plants... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Informative

    In addition nuclear plants cannot cause nuclear explosions so while the US may have come close to contaminating areas there was zero danger of a nuclear explosion in such cases.

  13. Re:The good news by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These people will soon be in charge of health care.

    This statement brought to you by the people who brought you the quote, "The government better keep its hands off my Medicare!"

  14. Re:I am surprised this does list the Spanish one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    To further elaborate, unless the conventional explosives detonate in the correct sequence, the chance that a nuclear explosion will occur is effectively 0. Just smashing into the ground and detonating because of the shock is NOT how you trigger an atomic bomb.

    Plutonium doesn't even make a half-way decent dirty bomb. You'd be better off with Cobalt 60 or something along those lines.

  15. Re:The good news by sycodon · · Score: 3, Informative

    He who regulates something, runs it.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  16. Fear mongering? by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

    A an accidental detonation from a bomb twice the size dropped on Japan would not result in " immediate death toll" that " may have reached six figures".

    In 1950, the population of Fairfield was around 3000. I don't know the size of the air force base, but I don't think it was close to the 6 figure range (today it has 15K military and civilian workers, it may have been higher during the cold war). Suisun City today has a fraction of the population of Fairfield.

    Just 3km from the hypocenter of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, most structures withstood the blast and most people that were indoors survived the initial blast.

    And that bomb detonated at an altitude of 500m to maximize destruction. An accidental surface detonation in an airplane crash is going to have a much smaller destructive zone, even though the bomb is twice as powerful. So even if that bomb had detonated in the crash, there would be survivors even on the airbase itself.

    Even in a 1 megaton blast (50 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Nagasaki) , there's a 75% survival rate just 7.5 miles from the blast.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/1mtblast.html

    So even if a a 1 Megaton accidental detonation occurred in the NW corner of the base today, it wouldn't cause an immediate 6 figure death toll.

    This, of course, this ignores the long term deaths and illness caused by radiation exposure.

  17. ...or the Greenland one by Gnavpot · · Score: 4, Informative

    B-52 crash at Thule, Greenland, 1968.

    4 hydrogen bombs aboard, contamination of a large area. The secondary of one the 4 bombs were never found.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash

  18. Re:The good news by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You mean the people who through prudent safety protocols managed to not have a single accidental detonation of the most dangerous weapons ever made? It's too bad they won't actually be in charge.

    Instead, we've left health care in the hands of the civilian sector which HAS had actual accidental radiation leakage from time to time (though to be fair it wasn't that much) and isn't trusted with the weapons.

  19. Re:The good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He who regulates something, runs it.

    As far as medical insurance goes, it really hasn't been handled well by private industry. Ideally, we all pool, and all receive care. The private insurance industry has caused a health class divide to develop; on one side, we have people who get medical care, and on the other, those who don't. Like education, healthcare is a basic need.

    Sadly, the legislature really didn't do what those who elected them wanted them to do, which was get the insurance companies out of the system entirely. The current half-measures... they're not going to work.

  20. Re:The good news by canadian_right · · Score: 3, Informative

    Kind of like Canada. The government pays doctors, builds and run hospitals, chooses what procedures are covered, but has no say in which doctor you use. I can use whatever doctor, at whatever clinic, at whatever hospital I want. The doctor doesn't have to worry about a "pre-existing" condition invalidating my insurance, or about caps, or co-pays.

    Still not happy, and have lots of money? nothing stopping you form flying to the states, and there are private clinics up here too.

    --
    Anarchists never rule
  21. Re:The good news by c6gunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's got nothing to do with group-think. Apparently some people have a persecution-complex, even though their views match the popular opinion. Not sure how that happens, but it seems to be quite common.

  22. Re:I am surprised this does list the Spanish one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's called modern journalism ...

  23. Godzilla by sjames · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was nearly incinerated by Godzilla yesterday! I remember it well. The only thing that saved me is that there was no fire and Godzilla wasn't actually there!

    Man, what a relief that was!

  24. Re:The good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Which people? The ones who died? The ones who survived?

    Or maybe you mean the ones whose nuclear handling procedures successfully prevented an accidental detonation in the even of an airplane crash?

    Sensationalist story with absurd summary is absurd. Trying to twist that story into a 'government is incompetent' narrative is like wearing your shoes on the wrong feet. The incident in the summary is a prime example of government properly instituting and following critical safety protocols--or are you going to suggest that only government planes have ever crashed?

  25. Yep by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pretty much all this shows is that, at least when it comes to nukes, the safety systems are pretty good. Almost nuking yourself means something like "The bomb was going to detonate, but a technician was able to defuse it in time." Not "A bomb was in a perfectly safe condition when the airplane it was on crashed and the bomb did not go off."

    Even the NORAD incident. It wasn't a case of one lone guy staving off a nuclear strike while his superiors yelled for launch (as happened in the Soviet Union). It looked like an attack was happening, so things went to high alert. Everyone was ready. What did they do? They WAITED FOR CONFIRMATION. When it turned out that it was a false alarm, they stood down. That is precisely how things should happen. They didn't ignore ti and go "Eh, probably just a bug," but they didn't go full out WW3 for no reason. On the warning, everything got ready to go, but confirmation was needed. For that matter, even had there been confirmation an order would still have been needed.

    To me, looks like the US has pretty damn good nuclear safeguards. If the best "almosts" they can find were things when nothing even came close to actually going wrong that is good.

    Hell look on the civilian side, at Three Mile Island. The "Worst nuclear disaster in US history." Even with a rather major screwup making the problem so much worse, something the NRC discovered, it still didn't release any significant amount of radiation, not enough to cause any adverse health effects (and it has been studied for decades now). That's pretty fucking good, if the worst it gets is a case of "Nobody got hurt."

  26. The irony of the total cost of nuclear weapons... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 3, Informative

    The irony of the total cost of nuclear weapons by the USA is that it is about enough money (by one estimate I read) to tear down and rebuild every building in the USA twice...

    California has money problems right now -- a shortfall of, what, US$20 billion? According to here:
        http://www.statemaster.com/graph/mil_cos_of_nuc_wea-military-cost-of-nuclear-weapons
    a total of US$2,139,150,000.00 has been spent on just California's behalf on nuclear weapons in the past.

    What are we really defending here?
        http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

    That sure would come in handy for CA right now, to have an extra two trillion dollars in their budget reserve (not to mention interest).

    As Albert Einstein said, with the advent of understanding the power of the atom, everything has changed but our way of thinking. Thus my sig below about the irony of such advanced ultra-powerful tools of abundance in the hands of those obsessed with fighting over perceived scarcity.
        http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  27. Re:The good news by cdrguru · · Score: 3, Informative

    One big thing that has happend - the control over what is and is not insured has pretty much been ceded to the goverment now. It was previously in the hands of the state Board of Insurance in each of the 50 states. This has a huge effect on costs.

    How does it effect costs? Well, let's say you are part of a group that believes that Fibromyalgia is a serious condition that must be covered by insurance plans. Previously, your group would have to lobby in each of the 50 states to get coverage approved and mandated. Now all you have to do is stop at one federal agency and if they agree, it is mandated for all 50 states.

    Copy this for acupuncture, massage therapy, sex disfunction treatments involving use of a surrogate, etc. You get the idea. It has now become about 50 times easier to get coverage for the malady of the week covered by insurance.

    Why is health insurance more expensive in California than in, say, Wyoming? Well, California mandates coverage for a lot of things that aren't required to be covered anywhere else.

    When people say costs are going to triple in 2014, I'd listen to them. They stand an awfully good chance of being right.

  28. Nonono! by Chas · · Score: 3, Funny

    You are not pushing the people's anti-nuke agenda! More fear mongering! More misinformation! MORE MORE MORE!

    "It nearly turned the Earth into another Sun!" has a much NICER ring to it!

    Now conform or your opinions are invalid! ;-)

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  29. Re:The good news by MJMullinII · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think the simplest way to describe the difference between liberals and conservatives and this pretty much is true irregardless of what your speaking of, BTW

    Liberals are whores...but well paid whores...we don't just give our vote away without being paid handsomely for it in the way of Government Action.

    Conservatives ARE NOT whores...simply sluts...they will simply give their vote to anyone who makes them feel all cuddly inside irregardless of the truth.

    Make no mistake, whichever side you're on, you're going to get f$%ked...no question about it. The only choice you have is whether you actually get something out of the deal.

    With that said...Democrat for life, thank you very much.

    --
    "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
  30. Re:Medicare by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why the fuck are you so angry?

    Maybe he really craved for the fries all along, and not the hamburger itself?