Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear Truckers Haul Warheads Across US
Hugh Pickens writes "As you weave through interstate traffic, you're unlikely to notice a plain-looking Peterbilt tractor-trailer or have any idea that inside the cab an armed federal agent operates a host of electronic countermeasures to keep outsiders from accessing his heavily armored cargo: a nuclear warhead. Adam Weinstein writes that the Office of Secure Transportation (OST) employs nearly 600 couriers to move bombs, weapon components, radioactive metals for research, and fuel for Navy ships and submarines between a variety of labs, reactors and military bases. Hiding nukes in plain sight and rolling them through major metropolitan centers raises a slew of security and environmental concerns, from theft to terrorist attack to radioactive spills. 'Any time you put nuclear weapons and materials on the highway, you create security risks,' says Tom Clements, a nuclear security watchdog for Friends of the Earth. For security, cabs are fitted with custom composite armor and lightweight armored glass, a redundant communications system that links the convoys to a monitoring center in Albuquerque, and the driver has the ability to disable the truck so it can't be moved or opened. The OST hires military veterans, particularly ex-special-operations forces (PDF), who are trained in close-quarters battle, tactical shooting, physical fitness, and shifting smoothly through the gears of a tractor-trailer. But accidents happen. In 1996, a driver flipped his trailer on a two-lane Nebraska hill road after a freak ice storm, sending authorities scrambling to secure its payload of two nuclear bombs; and in 2003, two trucks operated by private contractors had rollover accidents in Montana and Tennessee while hauling uranium hexafluoride, a compound used to enrich reactor and bomb fuel."
use UPS or Fedex?
Why not use trains, at least for most of the journey? The chance of an accident is much smaller.
Not your usual trucker then.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Even the inventors of nuclear bombs didn't want the damned things to exist. They knew they were possible and somebody would invent them - so they did. Oppenheimer said afterward that on watching a nuclear test he was reminded of a verse from the Hindu scripture: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
So we don't like these things. We don't want them to have to exist, but they do. And they've got to be moved around, which means over the roads we have. If you shovel enough shit, eventually you get dirty. Shit happens.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_Corps
Why would it feel any different than trucking a couple of thousand bees? Or oil? Or some potentially dangerous material?
Nuclear warheads and uranium don't just up and spontaneously explode y'know.
I heard about this some years ago, and the reason was rather sinister.
The way I heard it is that nuclear non-proliferation treaties that the US has signed to limit the number of warheads in its arsenal. However warheads in transit do not count towards this total, and in the interests of security the US is not obliged to reveal how many warheads it has in transit at any one time or where they are going. By keeping a percentage of it arsenal perpetually driving around the US, the US government can effectively sidestep nuclear warhead limits imposed by non-proliferation treaties.
But what if they did? o.O What then? Do you want the blood of SPONTANEOUS EXPLOSIONS CAUSING THE APOCALYPSE on your hands?
Greetings and Salutations.
Nothing surprising about this. Containers of radioactive materials, and nuclear weapons have been trucked around the country for decades. Please note that in that time, There have been a total of three accidents with zero loss of nuclear materials. The bottom line is that the nuclear materials have to be moved somehow, and, overall the current transport system has proved to be safe and effective.
The world is a dangerous place, but, before we run about screaming that the sky is falling, perhaps we should look at the probabilities of a given disaster. There is always a non-zero chance that any disaster can happen - for that matter quantum theory tells us that there is a non-zero chance that all the oxygen molecules in a room will end up on the left half of the room, leaving nothing but nitrogen on the right half. However, in many cases (like these) the probability of a disaster that releases radiation or puts significant amounts of it in an enemy's hands (or moves all the oxygen out of half of a room) actually happening is so low that it might happen once in the entire lifetime of the universe.
I would prefer it that we lived in a world where nuclear energy was only used for peaceful purposes, so we did not have to have nuclear weapons to shuffle around the countryside. However, that is not the case. In addition, I want to remind y'all that the US has been transporting those stores of nuclear devices to a secure facility where they are being disassembled. Would you prefer that the DOD build a recycling plant a few blocks down from the local high-school and do the work at the storage location of the warheads? I would think not....I would rather see them transported to a recycling facility that is experienced and out of the population dense areas of the USA.
pleasant dreams
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
What exactly is the point of this piece? To inform us that heavily armoured and secured nuclear cargo moves across the U.S, is that such a massive surprise? 'Tom Clements' is not a 'nuclear security watchdog', he is an anti nuclear activist, working for the heavily anti nuclear lobby group called Friends of the Earth. It is extremely disingenuous to present him as an expert, by definition he has no clue about the kind of security concerns involved. His comments suggest that the 'nuclear weapons on the highway' are armed devices that would go off if the driver goes in the wrong lane or takes a sharp turn. A terrorist capable of breaking through the kind of defences these trucks have would be able to cause a lot more damage by directing those efforts towards the nearest busy downtown area. There is nothing to suggest that there was any security breach in any of the incidents mentioned, that the security arrangements didn't work as intended and that any lives were put at risk.
I hope they have their own cleanup and recovery team following them at all times. Since the pictures show a truck with no placards, any normal Emergency Services team must be deemed expendable.
I would be a lot more worried about the tankers transporting chlorine or any other kind of hazardous aggressive material. The nuclear material is usually contained very well to withstand normal accidents.
And not much is likely to happen if a nuclear warhead was involved in an accident since it requires a detonator which should have been removed before transport if proper procedures have been followed.
The thing you should worry about the most is if someone decides to hijack the cargo. Or the newspaper headlines printing that you had an accident involving a warhead.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Anybody remember the Atlantic story from a while ago about Pakistan transporting its nukes?
It was presented as "Oh noes, they move their nukes in ordinary trucks instead of military convoys. Maybe we should invade them and secure their arsenal."
Lo and behold, the DoE is using the same method in the US.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Nukes on 18-wheelers would have been news before 1945 but not after.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Total war on big scale hasn't happened since WW2. No other war has come anywhere close with the scale of casualties and destruction. How high is the chance that USA and USSR would have fought it out on full scale if not for nuclear weapons? Or else, how high is the chance that USSR would have overran western Europe and USA wouldn't have been able to do much about it.
There has been no major war between world powers, and we have nuclear weapons to thank for that. No matter how much we hate them.
--Coder
This the plot of an old NCIS LA episode... The only way Hollywood could come up with a way to realistically steal a nuke was to have it be an inside job and even then it was just to manipulate the stock market. Even then I highly doubt they ship live nukes with the detonator installed via trucks. If they're gonna move live fully armed nukes they'll strap them to a bomber I know the anti-nuke crowd hate the DOE and the military but they're aren't recklessly stupid. Everyone knows they only do stupid shit when the Air Force puts them on bombers.
I take it neither you or the (somewhat sensationalist) gp have any inkling of just how well physically protected the load is in these situations?
Uranium hexafluride is nasty stuff just in chemical terms.
So is Sodium Chloride.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Regarding the detonating bit - even if there was an accident and the detonator were left on (we'll ignore malice for the moment), it'd be more likely to prevent the bomb from ever exploding "interestinglyl" without some serious extra work, than to make it accidentally explode. One of the things I learned in first year physics - in general, once uranium gets to critical mass or above, it explodes quickly, and without a lot of external pressure, set up "just right", the explosion won't be enough to do more than destroy a small room. In such an accident, the detonator (itself a bomb), would do more damage, I think.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Why would I care? I'd be dead :)
To quote Epicurus: When we are, Death is not; When Death is, we are not.
Not that live nuclear weapons or components can't be misplaced or anything.
http://www.ksla.com/story/16955777/no-nukes-at-bafb-global-strikes-home
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weapons_incident
Nothing is 100% safe, but I suspect the lethal dose of common salt is somewhat higher.
As in, if there was enough to kill you you'd be able to see it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
For civiil nuclear transport anyway, don't know about weapons. Here's a video of them testing one of the nuclear containers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJflu7z4QyI
Hypothetically, could terrorists or a determined government such as the Iranians steal nuclear weapons from a convoy like this?
Well, thinking about the problem step by step. How COULD an evil entity with a lot of resources (but not enough resources to make a bomb from scratch) steal a nuke?
First, they have to KNOW which convoy has the actual warheads, versus merely parts. Theoretically, secretly placed cameras outside the military bases known to have nukes being sent for disassembly could spot a convoy. If the convoys are multiple trucks in a row, alone with obvious escort vehicles, then MAYBE those are the ones with the bombs.
This is where the U.S. government might or might not be sneaky about it. One obvious trick would be to use decoy convoys that are heavily armed and escorted, and then to slip the truck with the actual warheads in with a bunch of trucks leaving the post returning from food deliveries. And to space the unmarked escort vehicles out so that it isn't obvious which truck they are protecting.
And remember, from the point of view of the Iranian terrorists, this is a trick that could only work once. Once they try to steal a bomb, the U.S. government would probably just cease transporting nukes by road at all, forever.
So they have to KNOW which truck it is. So they need a traitor, no other way. That would probably be difficult. If some sleeper agent tried to enlist tommorow, and to steer their career towards this area of the military, what are the chances they would succeed? I have no idea, but I am guessing that the military assigns people to sensitive positions like this with some degree of randomness. The terrorist sleeper agent could easily end up, even if they passed all the security checks, somewhere completely unrelated.
Perhaps they could replace a civilian contractor working on the post somewhere close enough to plant a bug or something. Dunno.
Ok, so the terrorists somehow know which truck. Now they need to stop the truck. They have to get ahead of it and set up an ambush.
Here's where this is somewhat plausible : in some rural stretch of road, far away from a populated area or military base, with terrain on either side of the road unable to support a truck, the terrorists set up their ambush. They stage an accident to cause the trucks to stop, and use fifty caliber or 20 millimeter rifles to disable the engines of the trucks. They then need enough shooters to win a gunbattle against the escorts AND the QRF. Who have heavy weapons and special forces training.
How many might it take? 50 men? A hundred? And all of them have to keep quiet until the attack. NONE of them would survive the retaliation, participating in something like this would be a guaranteed life prison sentence or death penalty. Probably the death penalty.
Anyways, the terrorists use armor piecing ammo from 50 caliber or 20 millimeter rifles to shoot through the armor of all the escort vehicles and the trucks. They attempt to jam the radios used by the escorts. They now have to somehow recover the warheads.
This is where surprises come in. How about a claymore mine embedded in the side of one of the trailers? Or some other defense? What if these convoys are escorted by attack helicopters? There's a lot of things that a traitor might not necessarily know about.
Ok, so they do manage to get to the trailers, and they use shaped charges to slice through the armored metal of the trailers. They find a warhead, and they have a cargo lift to remove it.
How long does this take? The moment the word gets out, EVERY available resources, every soldier, every jet, every cop, everything is going to be mobilized to stop these people. But this does take time, and if the terrorists are well equipped with lifting equipment and the right tools, they might manage to load the bombs up and attempt their escape. This is where even 1 surviving special forces commando trucker could make a difference, right out of a movie like Under Siege 2. I c
Albert Einstein said: "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
He also said that if he had known the Nazis would not make atomic bombs, he never would have worked on them. Of course, now even digital watches (or at least smartphones) have enough computer power to design the essence of atomic weapons...
Here is a website by psychiatrist Donald Pet about moving to that newer way of thinking we need:
http://anwot.org/
Here is related stuff I have written: ... These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious. ..."
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
Sometimes when you find ourself in a hole and you don't want to be there, the best thing to do is stop digging and start thinking in a new way about how you got there and how to get out.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Yup, this article is just more anti-nuclear scaremongering.
Just wait, next thing we know Greenpeace will be setting up roadblocks.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
They would probably give him a medal for that. 'Cause if he had the blood of some apocalyptic explosions on his hands, it would mean that those killed explosions wouldn't be around to have our blood on their hands, or whatever thing explosions have instead of hands...shockwaves, perhaps?
Ezekiel 23:20
What if you got it in your eyes, then there would be enough to kill you and _YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT_.
a) NaCL does not decompose to HF Gas when exposed to moisture, and HydroFluoric Acid is VERY corrosive
b) NaCl is not radioactive
Ain't the same hazard level here.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
I remember seeing what was obviously a nuclear convoy in Wyoming in 1992. There were four or five slightly oversized 18-wheelers with SAC license plates. In front and behind and between each of them were armored cars with police lights and machine guns. Overhead there was a helicopter. They were just pulling on, and I ended up cutting into the middle of the convoy briefly so that one of the armored cars could move up to the front.
They were traveling somewhat slowly, probably 50mph, so I lost sight of them fairly quickly, but a ways on ahead was another armored car, and I noticed another helicopter scouting ahead. Further on ahead I saw a tow truck removing a disabled car.
That was an interesting day.
My eyes...the goggles do nothing!
A Japanese artist has assembled a map of the world with a moving timeline showing the location and relative scale of each nuclear detonation from 1945 to 1998
It also has a score card,of who is responsible for each detonation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lquok4Pdk
fascinating
da da da dum indeed.
ICBMs are expensive. Very expensive. And carrying conventional payload they wouldn't be able to do much damage, as they aren't that accurate.
I do agree that USSR didn't have the capability to invade America, but they certainly had the ability and the will to overrun Western Europe- and arguably they still do. I doubt USA had the capability to invade European part of USSR, but I think invasion of Vladivostok would have been possible.
Our mentality was shaped by the threat of nuclear war, so we don't even consider the war between major powers. Maybe the leaders would have been much more hawkish over the last 70 years without this threat? Given that due to human errors and miscommunication we almost came to "hot" war even with nuclear weapons on several occasions, it's much more likely the war would have broken out without them.
Anyway, back on topic. I think this article is mainly anti-nuclear scare mongering. I don't see much wrong with transporting nuclear materials and weapons with trucks, as long as appropriate precautions are taken. And it looks like they are being taken. And I really doubt there are enough terrorist with enough training and equipment on US soil to mount a successful attack and steal nuclear materials or weapons and get away with them.
--Coder
For the budget of Iraq war, we could have had a functional colony on Mars RIGHT NOW. For the price of stimulus package, how high a percentage of our economy would be running on renewable energy?
Free Market is a TERRIBLE way to distribute resources. It optimizes corporate profits and personal greed and rewards quarter thinking. It does not promote advancement of society, but only of small number of people. Free Market does NOT encourage investment in risky long term enterprises. And by doing hard and risky long term projects is how we can advance the humanity. Corporate governorship is all about preserving profits and status quo- they will not invest in disruptive technology and will interfere with others trying to emerge any technology that threatens them. And we need disruptive technologies if we are going to survive next 100 years when we run out of cheap oil and easily accessible freshwater, and agriculture becomes much much more difficult.
I don't know how the world should be governed, but it should definitely not be governed by corporate lobbyism.
--Coder
Michael Bay is that you?
You thought the interstate highway system was built for civilian purposes?
"b) NaCl is not radioactive"
But your granite countertops and or any granite buildings you go into and or any granite mountain you happen to be near is.
Uranium is just not that radioactive. It isn't like cobalt 60 or any of the real scary stuff.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Speak for yourself, all my salt is made twice a day with fresh Sodium-24.
The main push for the Interstate Highway System was to provide the military access to roads they deemed critical for national defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_auxiliary_Interstate_Highways
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Honestly, he should be more afraid of a truck full of bananas. http://xkcd.com/radiation/
the guy likes to roll with an entourage, or so im told.
Radiation aside, Uranium and many of its compounds are chemically toxic. Fail.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Do not rub salt (or Uranium Hexaflouride) into remaining eye.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
But my eyes would water and it'd run down my face and then I'd be able to taste it.
That's why God didn't put your mouth above your eyes, obviously. In case you get a lethal does of salt right in the mush.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I think you're confusing a couple of things. There are two types of bombs, either uranium or plutonium, and I'm not sure they even make the first kind anymore (not that we could know). With uranium, if you assemble a sufficiently large sphere if near-100% U-235, it will spontaneously explode, bomb-like, without anything more. The original uranium-type bombs used to keep the uranium in to separate, sub-critical masses until the time of detonation, and then had a neutron gun to set it off, the purpose of which was only to make it so you could be assured of detonation at the right time (and thus altitude) rather than randomly at any point after the critical mass is assembled. Which is, I think, why we probably don't make those anymore -- who the hell wants to produce a nuclear bomb in a way that makes it easier for it to go off by accident? (It's also a lot less fuel-efficient to make them that way, because U-235 is only 0.7% of natural uranium, whereas the U-238 that they make Pu-239 out of is 99.3% of natural uranium.)
The plutonium designs don't suffer from the same problem because no amount of plutonium will spontaneously explode. To get a plutonium bomb to explode you have to compress the plutonium with high explosives. If you remove the charges from the core, the plutonium is just a hunk of metal. You can stack them a thousand high and shoot at them with anti-tank rounds and nothing will happen, because to go off they need high explosives to surround them on all sides and all detonate at once.
not sure what you mean by "neutron gun"
I imagine it's probably the same thing as you mean by "neutron trigger/booster." I admit that the last time I really read up on the early designs was several years ago, so I could be misremembering the name.
Plutonium will also go critical in the correct configuration and mass, just like U235. Sure you can shoot a block of it, same goes for U235. Compressing it with explosives is just a way to reduce a hollow sphere into a critical sphere (with a neutron trigger/booster in the middle).
Right, but what I'm saying is that it isn't enough to just compress it somehow. You have to compress it just right. So if you remove the charges but then manage to smash your truck into an overpass, the thing isn't going to go off as a result of the impact.
I would also admit that I probably shouldn't have said "nothing will happen" if you assemble a lot of plutonium in the same place. There is a difference between "critical" and "bye bye city," and I only meant that you don't easily get the latter by accident (unlike uranium). You have criticality in a normally-operating power reactor, for example, but no boom. Which is what you're talking about with criticality accidents -- those people were killed by radiation spikes caused by criticality accidents, not explosions. It would be like standing next to an operating power reactor with no shielding. (I would also point out that when you bring in the neutron reflectors, all bets are off.)