Slashdot Mirror


US Will Clean Area In Spain Where Hydrogen Bombs Fell (nytimes.com)

HughPickens.com writes: Rafael Minder writes in the NY Times that almost 50 years after coming close to possibly provoking a nuclear disaster, Secretary of State John Kerry, following years of wrangling between Spain and the U.S., signed an agreement to remove contaminated soil from an area in southern Spain where an American warplane accidentally dropped hydrogen bombs. In 1966 a bomber collided with a refueling tanker in midair and dropped four hydrogen bombs, two of which released plutonium into the atmosphere. No warheads detonated, narrowly averting what could have been an explosion more powerful than the atomic strikes against Japan at the end of World War II. Four days after the accident, the Spanish government stated that "the Palomares incident was evidence of the dangers created by NATO's use of the Gibraltar airstrip," announcing that NATO aircraft would no longer be permitted to fly over Spanish territory either to or from Gibraltar. The U.S. later announced that it would no longer fly over Spain with nuclear weapons, and the Spanish government formally banned U.S. flights over its territory that carried such weapons.

Neither Kerry nor Spanish Foreign Minister García-Margallo said exactly how much contaminated soil would be sent back, where it would be stored in the United States, or who would pay for the cleanup — some of the issues that have held up a deal until now. Spain has insisted that any contaminated soil be sent to the United States, because Spain does not have plants to store it. Concern over the site was reawakened in the 1990s when tests revealed high levels of americium, an isotope of plutonium, and further tests showed that 50,000 cubic meters of earth were still contaminated. The Spanish government appropriated the land in 2003 to prevent it being used.

216 comments

  1. Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium, it is a decay product of Uranium/Plutonium, specifically

    see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americium#Isotope_nucleosyntheses

    Jack ass

    1. Re:Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Americium, Fuck Yeah!

    2. Re:Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All chem nerds went arrrrggg! when we read this
      congrats on the anonymous frist post

    3. Re:Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium, it is a decay product of Uranium/Plutonium, specifically

      Americium is the highest element on the periodic table that you can buy at Walmart. It is used ionize air in some smoke alarms.

    4. Re:Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, in microgram quantity.

    5. Re:Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium by quenda · · Score: 4, Informative

      and while you are at it, plutonium 239 is not "highly radioactive" as claimed in TFA. They might be thinking of pu-238 used in RTGs, or just have no idea what they are talking about. Plutonium 239 is an alpha emitter, so very dangerous if inhaled - a risk after the explosion 50 years ago, but not now that it is bound up in the soil and water. You could safely grown vegetables in the soil and eat them. Just don't grow tobacco - getting pu239 traces in your lungs could give you cancer.

    6. Re:Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium, it is a decay product of Uranium/Plutonium, specifically

      That was the first thing that struck me when I read OP.

      And I think it's probably fair to say that the fact that they didn't blow up was far from an accident; they were designed that way.

    7. Re:Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Just don't grow tobacco - getting pu239 traces in your lungs could give you cancer.

      Most people smoking tobacco are already disregarding a well known cancer risk....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    8. Re:Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Muricium!

  2. Sell it all to FirstAlert by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Funny

    They'll turn all that Americium into smoke detectors and we'll all get to listen to that fucking beep in the middle of the night because nobody can seem to make a detector that has a light sensor on it.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Sell it all to FirstAlert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think all new detectors use a photosensor. I haven't seem the Am smoke detectors in a long time.

    2. Re:Sell it all to FirstAlert by sims+2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Either way would it kill them to have the low battery chirp start in the day time? instead of at 3-5am every time?

      I had a CO gas detector go to chirping (one of three) at 3am earlier this year the battery cover was screwed on so outside it went. It's still outside I think. Now I use the 10 year battery models exclusively.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    3. Re:Sell it all to FirstAlert by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Or, just give it to the "Radioactive Boy Scout": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Now, for a hilarious film about the whole incident, check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Sell it all to FirstAlert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones my apartment building uses aren't user-replacable. Las time they started I had to wait for the alarm contractors... who were coming out anyways in two weeks to replace everyone's detectors, so I couldn't get it replaced earlier. Two weeks of that bastard beeping at all hours. A few months later a neighbour's started going and keep going for another few weeks. I could only hear it late at night, apparently the only sound that can make it through the modern fire barrier walls in here.

    5. Re: Sell it all to FirstAlert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The photosensor ones are less effective at detecting certain types of smoke.

    6. Re:Sell it all to FirstAlert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you want nest protect

    7. Re:Sell it all to FirstAlert by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Okay, so now could somebody explain to me why Americium is used in smoke detectors? I'm too lazy today to use Google to look it up.

    8. Re:Sell it all to FirstAlert by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Okay, so now could somebody explain to me why Americium is used in smoke detectors? I'm too lazy today to use Google to look it up.

      It sounds better than Europeanium to US consumers.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:Sell it all to FirstAlert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree, its an amazing thing. However he will probably complain that it does cost 8.99 and come in packs of 3.

    10. Re:Sell it all to FirstAlert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't kill them, but it might kill you. Actually, the issue is that 3-5 AM is the coldest time of the day at the ceiling of your house. Thus this is when the low battery condition is detected. It would cost a lot more to add a CPU and logic to make a more sophisticated dead battery detector. It would probably cheaper for you to just remember to replace the batteries once a year, or twice a year if you want to really be sure. Or use lithium batteries if you want them to last a few years. But that is up to you, not the manufacturer.

    11. Re:Sell it all to FirstAlert by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I still want to know why the batteries seem to only last a year or two in the dual-power models. The damn things are connected to mains power, so the battery should really only serve as a backup if the power goes out. My power almost never goes out, yet in a year or two the stupid things have managed to drain the battery anyway.

      I've looked into if there's a better model/brand I can get, but as far as I can the different brands all seem to sell the same few models, the only difference being minor differences in the plastic case.

  3. subduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just load it onto ships and dump it in the Atlantic near a subduction zone.

  4. Americium is a byproduct, not an isotope of Pu by dunkindave · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know the poster pulled it from the article, but Americium is a by-product from the radioactive decay of Plutonium, not an isotope of Plutonium. Isotopes have the same number of protons, and Pu has 94 while Am has 95. Plutonium converts to Americium via a beta decay, which causes a neutron to turn into a proton.

    1. Re:Americium is a byproduct, not an isotope of Pu by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Plutonium converts to Americium via a beta decay, which causes a neutron to turn into a proton.

      After a couple neutrons are captured. Am-241 is the most common isotope (half life of 400-odd years). Pu-239 captures two neutrons (rarely), then undergoes beta decay to become Am-241.

      Since this normally requires a specially designed reactor to produce, the amount produced casually by four bombs will have been minuscule.

      Which is not to say it shouldn't be cleaned up. Just that the urgency of the cleanup is pretty much consistent with taking 50 years to get around to it.

      Note the amount of material being discussed (50000 m^3 of dirt). Cleanup can be done with one of those big earth movers used when strip mining in a few months, tops....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Americium is a byproduct, not an isotope of Pu by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Its been in the ground since "In 1966 a bomber collided with a refueling tanker in midair and dropped four hydrogen bombs"
      Modern tests will find all kinds of interesting products from the material lost over the years :) Thats why a good, total early clean up is so important.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Americium is a byproduct, not an isotope of Pu by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yea it won't take much to clean this up, that's for sure...

      One thing, I'm guessing the Am-241 was in the original fission material of the bomb and not really from Pu-239 decay, but either way, there is going to be so very little of it. Given it's spread out over about 500 acres by the conventional explosives, I'm wondering why Spain is still pushing to get this clean up done. It's been over 50 years now and all a huge excavation project will really accomplish is to make a mess.

      Well, if it pumps some dollars into the local Spanish economy it might be worth the trouble... But really, what's the big deal at this point? Couldn't we just pay them for the land, put up a fence with "keep out for 3,000 years" signs and be done with this? Or is having this material so dangerous to Spain that it's worth taking a few million cubic meters of dirt and dumping it in the ocean?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re: Americium is a byproduct, not an isotope of Pu by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Just look up what happened in Spain for the last, say, 150 years. Then think again.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  5. "No Explosion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Of course there wasn't. This isn't nitroglycerin, and there are SO MANY layers of safety devices on these bombs this just not a possibility. The bomb has to be employed intentionally.

    1. Re: "No Explosion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow that is a hard nut, you claim that something is impossible by design which would mean that these bombs were the only devices humans created that worked as intended.

    2. Re: "No Explosion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They actually might be, because they are the only things designed by man that NEEDS to work as intended.

    3. Re:"No Explosion" by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      This isn't nitroglycerin, and there are SO MANY layers of safety devices on these bombs this just not a possibility.

      Yeah, that "narrowly averted" crap in the article is just anti-US propaganda.

      Isn't it wonderful that Spain appreciates that we kept a certain person from waltzing through France and down the Iberian peninsula ... is Francisco Franco still dead?

    4. Re:"No Explosion" by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      You did not. Your nation did not.
      It was south France that did, arguable by means that are not honoured today.

      But claiming that America had any "doing" in saving Spain from Germany is bollocks: Germany and Spain where allied ... idiot!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:"No Explosion" by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Informative

      While it's true that nuclear weapons usually have to be detonated in a very precise manner to create a full yield explosion, it's not true that accidental detonation is not a possibility. Depending on the weapon design, accidental detonation can actually be quite likely (a few percent of all hypothetical impact/fire scenarios). The details of this can get very technical, but the gist of it is that due to various size constraints many weapons were designed with two-point detonation systems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and these are very prone to accidental nuclear detonation. It was partly as a response to this that insensitive high explosive detonators were developed. Labs like DART have the responsibility of thoroughly testing nuclear weapons primaries to make sure that (1) they will explode when required and (2) will not explode when not required.

      'Safety devices' are a completely different issue and they prevent an unauthorized person from activating the device's detonator.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    6. Re:"No Explosion" by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      minor correction: It's DARHT, not DART.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    7. Re:"No Explosion" by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "Isn't it wonderful that Spain appreciates that we kept a certain person from waltzing through France and down the Iberian peninsula"

      Are you aware who were firsts entering Paris for its liberation? Please read about Amado Granell and "La Nueve".

    8. Re:"No Explosion" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Isn't it wonderful that Spain appreciates that we kept a certain person from waltzing through France and down the Iberian peninsula

      Spain was an ally of the Nazis. The Nazis helped Franco win the Spanish Civil War. Spain sent more than 45,000 troops to fight with the Germans on the Eastern Front. Hitler pressured Franco to attack the British and drive them out of Gibraltar, but the British made it clear that if Gibraltar was attacked, they would immediately seize the Canary Islands.

    9. Re:"No Explosion" by bobbied · · Score: 4, Informative

      This bomb design actually was a bit dangerous because the conventional explosives where a bit unstable during aircraft crash events. This crash and another one two years later caused a number of changes to nuclear bomb design after the Mk28.

      Where I don't think "narrowly avoided a nuclear explosion" is anywhere near accurate, these bombs did explode conventionally and spread their radioactive content around and there is a *remote* possibility that these devices when flying in the "Chrome Dome" operation could have accidently caused a nuclear explosion during a crash because they would have been fully armed physically. I hear that the Mk28 had a number of fail physical and electrical fail safe systems that made it nearly impossible to explode in a nuclear way, but it's not impossible to have these systems disabled/defeated during an accident. If it could go nuclear on command, it's remotely possible to do it on accident.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    10. Re:"No Explosion" by Eythian · · Score: 4, Informative

      You should read "Command and Control." It's a very good book, but you come away with the feeling that it was more good luck than good management that there were no accidental nuclear detonations. And then you consider that the Soviet side was probably at least as bad, if not worse, and you're surprised there's still a planet here at all.

    11. Re:"No Explosion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a wonderful source of factoids.

    12. Re:"No Explosion" by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Ah, you appear to understand WW II history. Question for you, why did the allies enter Europe in France and not Spain?

    13. Re:"No Explosion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Ah, you appear to understand WW II history. Question for you, why did the allies enter Europe in France and not Spain?
      Because Spain was not in war with US/UK and even it was not in war with Soviet Union: "Blue Division" and "Blue Squadron" were "volunteer".

    14. Re:"No Explosion" by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Umm... You might want to read your history and see who actually did the work for France's liberation. Who waltzed in to Paris first (the Nazis deciding to retreat at that point) hasn't any actual merit. If you put out the fire and I am the first one in front of a news camera that doesn't mean that I did it. You can thank the UK, Canada, and the US for France. They did the vast majority of the dying for it.

      Sort of like Clark stomping into Rome while the rest of Italy was in a whole shitload of trouble and he'd also managed to let the Nazis escape and reform at a new defensive position called the Gustav Line.

      Hell, if France hadn't been a bunch of mentally retarded idiots they'd have used their better, and more numerous, tanks to stop the Nazis. But no no no... They're "surprised" by the Germans stomping through the Arden for like the 900th time in history and didn't actually uphold their treaty with Poland. They might not have needed to be rescued... Let's rely on one big strong wall, put our tanks in random spots, and then hope the Germans don't do the smart thing and go around the wall... Brilliant...

      But no, no... Spain really didn't do a whole fuck of a lot to help France. But, anyhow, carry on with whatever point it was that you were trying to make... Just ignore me.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:"No Explosion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, you appear to understand WW II history. Question for you, why did the allies enter Europe in France and not Spain?

      I'm not the parent, but...

      Spain was not into the war but was still an axis country. Should the allies have entered through Spain, they would have found some added opposition. Also there is a natural border between France and Spain (the Pyrenees), Not to mention that the amount of France to cross in order to reach Berlin would be much longer.

      Spain did not enter into WW-II. We had just had our share with the civil war. IMHO, it was an smart move of Franco rejecting Hitler who came to Spain to ask Franco about that. Well, troops were sent but mind they were volunteers. Note also that there had been plenty of volunteers, from England among other places, at the Spanish civil war, not to forget the role that German army played there.

      After WW-II, Spain was isolated by the allies. Marshall plan did not reach Spain (which was devastated in our own way). Spain drove through an economic crisis which lasted decades (not that we are wealthy now nor had been wealthy before, though). Friendly relations with US took decades to be established as well. My non educated guess is that since Franco was fascist ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H right wing, its opposition to Communism made him an ally in that field to the US and thus helped in that way.

      Educated corrections are welcome.

    16. Re:"No Explosion" by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      What I doubt is the appropriateness of choosing to refer to it by stating "narrowly averting what could have been an explosion". While your argument is clearly appropriate, even your explanation states " (a few percent of all hypothetical impact/fire scenarios)". To me, as a person who believes the roulette wheel is mathematically and tested and proven to favor the house by adding only one green slot, until we hit 50/50, I consider such journalism questionable nonsense written by a fool who can't be bothered to research.

    17. Re:"No Explosion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they used a similar threat later so we would join nato, this is what happens when you dont make your own nukes in time

    18. Re:"No Explosion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for one thing Normandy is a thousand miles or so closer to Germany..... For a second thing, if they entered in Spain they would have to cross the Pyrenees.....

    19. Re:"No Explosion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one thing, Spain was neutral, more or less. And also probably because of geography.

    20. Re:"No Explosion" by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Just ignore me.

      Out of nowhere you say something sensible. Bravo.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    21. Re: "No Explosion" by jittles · · Score: 1

      Wow that is a hard nut, you claim that something is impossible by design which would mean that these bombs were the only devices humans created that worked as intended.

      Believe it or not, a nuclear explosion is pretty difficult to create. It is far easier to take measures to ensure your nuclear material does not go critical than it is to actually make it go critical. My understanding is that the explosions in these bombs need to be controlled very precisely to avoid a fizzle. So even if the surrounding explosive accidentally caused an implosion of the nuclear material you'd only ever see the nuclear material blown across the countryside. And for the bomb to create fusion, you would need the tritrium to be injected into the center of the fission explosion at exactly the right ratio and time. So, yes, given the complexity I think it's quite easy to make it fail safely.

    22. Re:"No Explosion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convenience - fastest route to Germany.
      Legality - the Allies recognized a French government in exile who permitted the invasion
      No declared war - entering Spain would be an invasion and an act of war. While Spain was quite friendly towards Germany, that didn't mean
      Spain was actually at war with any of the Allied Powers. In a true alliance, Spain would have joined WW2 on the Axis side.

    23. Re:"No Explosion" by khallow · · Score: 1

      Question for you, why did the allies enter Europe in France and not Spain?

      Strategically and tactically, it would have been dumb to do so. The Allies weren't fighting Spain and the logistics of invading and holding Spain would have been a large burden on top of invading places that the Allies actually did want to invade.

    24. Re:"No Explosion" by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      If you're going to criticize the French for being surprised by the German invasion through the Ardennes, then in fairness, I need to point out that they did the exact same thing to the US during the Battle of the Bulge. And we didn't even have the excuse of not having seen them pull that same maneuver just a few years earlier.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    25. Re:"No Explosion" by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Oh, I know. The US was just as stupid. Surprise! The Germans are sneaking through the Ardennes again (thanks for spelling correction, by the way). No way they can get the tanks through that! I mean, they didn't just do that four years earlier with lesser tanks than they have now! No sirree Bob. We'll just camp here for the Winter. Those silly Germans won't notice our giant stockpile of fuel and weapons in Antwerp and stomp right through the Ardennes again! They wouldn't dare!

      *sighs* Yes, my country is full of idiots too.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    26. Re:"No Explosion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it could go nuclear on command, it's remotely possible to do it on accident.

      It would have to be an accident which caused the internal detonation mechanism to fire off as designed, without damaging any other part of the mechanism.
      Getting a bomb to 'go nuclear' is actually very tricky business because it requires such an extremely precisely timed and controlled explosion.
      So when we say 'remotely possible', it's a very slim chance indeed, and not at all a "narrow miss" as the media likes to say.

      On a somewhat related note, the writer of the article needs to go back to high school if she really doesn't understand the difference between an Element and an Isotope.

    27. Re:"No Explosion" by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      That annoyed the hell out of me too. Not only are there so many safety devices on one of these weapons the laws of physics also say it won't happen. These are not conventional bombs with unstable chemical compounds as the primary explosive. To set off a nuclear weapon required a perfectly timed series of events to take place. If any of these events are off by more than a few miliseconds the weapon will not detonate. There is no might not, it WILL NOT.

      The worse case scenario is if all the fail safe where to have failed would have been a detonation of the chemical trigger charges. This would not have been a good thing, it would have scattered the contents of the physics package to high hell. Which is a very bad thing. But it wouldn't' have been a nuclear explosion.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    28. Re:"No Explosion" by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Heh, true. Still, keep in mind it's easy to label such thinking "stupid" with the clarity hindsight and history gives us. ;-)

      Back in the winter of '44, the Germans seemed to appear very close to being defeated. The allies simply didn't believe the Wehrmacht had the capacity to launch another offensive, so everything they heard was filtered through that mindset. They even dismissed first-hand civilian reports of massive buildups and Ultra intercepts, instead preferring to believe it was simply more German pys-ops.

      I simply look at it as the time-honored talent nearly every human has for viewing the world as they want to see it, rather than the way it really is.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    29. Re:"No Explosion" by KGIII · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, they didn't have a whole lot of Utlra to go on. The Germans had kind of, sort of, figured out that their code was being broken and the operation (it had a name, I forget it) was kept off the radio up to, and including, complete radio silence. Is it forgivable? Yes, sort of. Why they didn't have advance scouts and keep a fortified line is beyond me, but I have the gift of hindsight (as you stated).

      Surprise! Those rascally Krauts have sneaked through the Ardennes again! Boy don't we have some egg on our face! I *never* would have thought they'd do that again! I mean, they've done it throughout history - in this war and all throughout the War to End All Wars so it's not likely they'll try it again - no.... Yes, the gift of hindsight is valid but it was still pretty dumb and especially dumb to not have roving patrols 50 miles or so ahead of the line. Or, you know, not frigging camp right next to the woods or in the woods. And, you know, set up reliable communication before hunkering down for the winter. Or, you know, maybe - just maybe, having re-enforcements right handy because the war's not over and this *is* the front line. But, hey, what do I know?

      We did learn a lesson from it, by the way. We often try to stay within artillery range (if possible) and have planes on standby that can actually fly in inclement weather and target more effectively during it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    30. Re:"No Explosion" by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      I think that in U.S. law that allies of a country that you have declared war on are, automatically, countries that you have declared war on. This is why the authorization of force in Afghanistan turned into such a mess. The congress thought it was limited but because of this rule it essentially meant that any organization friendly to our enemies in Afghanistan was now a target of the authorization to use force in Afghanistan.

    31. Re:"No Explosion" by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      the Pyrenees seems like the best answer to me.

    32. Re:"No Explosion" by Xest · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how logistically they could attack via Spain. Britain was the only staging post in Europe available to the allies, so why would you travel at least 420 miles across open water where it's hard to stretch fighter cover to give decent air support alongside the coast of Nazi occupied France and where you'll easily be spotted when you can just sail across the 20 to 80 mile stretch of the English channel and hit them before they can even rally the troops to your landing location? I suppose they could've used North Africa as a staging post, but they'd still have to get everyone there and a buildup would be far easier to spot than the already built up "Fortress Britain".

      To attack Spain they'd have been able to send far less equipment (some of the boats that crossed the channel weren't seaworthy enough to make it to Spain) and it would've been far more vulnerable and far more prone to discovery.

      I'm intrigued to know why you asked the question though, do you see some reason why an attack via Spain would've made any kind of sense as opposed to say Greece, Italy, Southern France etc.?

    33. Re:"No Explosion" by adhdengineer · · Score: 1

      Normandy is also much, much closer to the supply lines coming from the UK. Also much closer to air cover from UK based airfileds and naval cover from battleships protected by said aircraft.

    34. Re:"No Explosion" by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Not everyone thought the Ardennes was safe. Patton, to the south, thought Hodges (the army commander responsible for that section of the front) was taking a serious chance. The reason Patton's army was able to intervene as quickly as it did was that Patton was expecting to have to pull off a counterattack there.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    35. Re:"No Explosion" by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I know of no such law. When Germany declared war on the US, and the US declared war back, the US did not declare war on all of Hitler's allies. The US initially declared war on Germany, Japan, and Italy. About six months later, the US declared war on Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary, The US never did declare war on Finland.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    36. Re:"No Explosion" by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Allies did use North Africa as a staging post to hit Sicily and Italy. The Italian campaign was fighting on a narrow front, with lots of mountains, with bad Allied commanders. If the Allies had fought all the way north, they'd have limited prospects of breaking through anyway. It's not like the landing in Southern France, which reached approximately the France-Italy border, threatened Northern Italy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. Long time by AndyKron · · Score: 1, Troll

    After 2 generations...

    1. Re:Long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mark my words:

      Some generations down the line, when even the names of the involved will have been forgotten, the USA will issue an apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, too.

      Of course, it will be almost a legend after such long time. And nobody will care much about it, too.

      Alas, exactly because nobody will care about it, the apology will be issued -- for the PR value, not out of noble values.

    2. Re:Long time by ADRA · · Score: 1

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bo...

      Coles notes, if you were a woman exposed to said chemicals (and possibly still exposed to them), you have a good change of passing on defects to future generations. Of course the US doesn't give two sh*ts about the nations of the world, so no reparations for chemical exposure resulting in berth defects will ever be paid out... ohh well.

      --
      Bye!
    3. Re:Long time by lhowaf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, we'll all remember your name, A.C.

      So much for accepting responsibility...

    4. Re:Long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the USA will issue an apology for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, too.

      Why would they ever do that? It was an act of war. Do nations apologize for firing bullets and dropping bombs in war?

    5. Re:Long time by phayes · · Score: 2

      Sure they will. Right after the mongols apologise for Attila, the Normans for William, the spaniards for Cortez & Pizarro, etc, etc etc.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    6. Re:Long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to slashdot... news for nerds!

      This story will be repeated again next week, and once again in 50 years.

    7. Re:Long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War is wrong. Not poetically wrong: war is BS. It never works the way we want and victory is almost always empty.

      War is like being forced to knock out a friend: in the end your fist hurts like hell and there's a guy with whom you could be drinking a beer but is instead laying unconscious on the ground, perhaps with a couple of teeth missing.

      You might know you had to hit him, but there's a shitty feeling about why things had to go that way and it sucks the situation didn't allow for another way to talk yourself out of it.

      Apology is what I'd do for such friend. I'd try to talk to him even after punching him, because you don't get closure with just violence.

      I'm answering you because you're the only one who posted a valid question. Look at the other replies: we're a 100 years early for any improvement in the public opinion about those "glorious" wars.

    8. Re:Long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not until they grow up.

    9. Re:Long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they ever do that? It was an act of war. Do nations apologize for firing bullets and dropping bombs in war?

      Yes, and their soldiers and even civilians are murdered or imprisoned. If they're on the losing side that is, although exceptions are made if they have useful knowledge.

    10. Re:Long time by KGIII · · Score: 2

      berth defects

      This was a plane crash, not a navel vessel. *nods*

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  7. Re:wait a second by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    i mean it sucks and all, but why should we be on the hook for this???

    Wells, we did drop four hydrogen bombs during a plane wreck....

    Based on the evidence, it is more probable than not that (Cpt) America was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  8. Re:wait a second by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know I shat on your carpet while running through your house uninvited, but why should I have to clean it up?

  9. Re:wait a second by ganjadude · · Score: 0

    no its more like saying your grandfather took a dump on my carpet and i want you to clean it up

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  10. That's not what "narrow" means by chispito · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Sorry, but that's not what "narrow" means, because that's not how nuclear weapons are detonated. If there was a remote chance of setting off a hydrogen bomb simply by dropping it, I don't think even the craziest hawk would have been putting the things in planes to begin with.

    No warheads detonated, narrowly averting what could have been an explosion more powerful than the atomic strikes against Japan at the end of World War II.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The non-atomic explosive part actually triggered, which is the reason Plutonium was scattered over a huge area. So I agree with TFA: it was quite narrow.

    2. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because nuclear weapons tend to require carefully timed simultaneous detonations of explosives in a controlled manner in order to compress the fission core to a supercritical mass, it is unlikely that simply dropping the bomb (unarmed) or even having some of the explosives used for core compression go off will create an actual nuclear scale detonation.

      However, the explosives for the explosive lens can go off and distribute radioactive material over a relatively wide area. This was more of a threat in the past, when explosives used in the bombs were somewhat more sensitive. Additionally, some explosives become more sensitive over time, so bombs stored for long periods could have somewhat more sensitive explosives and react badly to an accidental drop or crash.

      All of that being said... an actual accidental nuclear explosion is extremely unlikely, but not entirely impossible in the case of an accident, and it was much, much more likely back when these bombs were dropped in Spain.

      Also, there was one time where a bomb was lost where all but one of the safeties had been deactivated. And that was a mechanical breaker which could well have been flipped. Luckily, that sort of thing was much more common when SAC was actually doing regular strategic deterrent missions and bomb design had not progressed as far as it has today.

    3. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are talking about an uncontrolled situation here. You can engineer the weapons to be as fail-safe as possible but engineering is always assumptions and compromises. There is a window between the shit hitting the fan and the shit landing where it may where even the engineers will be terrified.

    4. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, true, I would hope however that the assumptions in this scenario would be few, and the compromises would also be few.

      We are talking about the design of a nuclear weapon after all, which is probably the one weapon you WANT to ensure never goes off accidentally under ANY conditions.

      Captcha: Detach

    5. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is probably the one weapon you WANT to ensure never goes off accidentally under ANY conditions

      Conversely, you WANT to ensure that when you drop it out of the sky on a target it WILL go off.

      The problem then becomes one of deciding if what it fell on is a target or not.

    6. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      However, the explosives for the explosive lens can go off and distribute radioactive material over a relatively wide area.

      That still would not be an explosion more powerful than etc., as the article claims it would have been. It's still nonsense and propaganda.

    7. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by meerling · · Score: 2

      An improper detonation will not go nuclear, you just end up with a normal explosion scattering radioactive material, aka a dirty explosion. Though with the amount of material spread over the area, individual exposure is more than you'd want, but not actually rated as dangerous.
      What people are talking about is standard hollywood fud & bullshit. It's NOT real people!
      As to the odds of an accident like that actually causing a nuclear detonation, it's somewhere close to the probability of a dissolved sugar cube in your tea or coffee suddenly reforming into a cube in the hot liquid. In other words, slightly less than monkeys flying out your ass.

      I find it rather funny, and incompetent, that the writer didn't know those simple things. I guess they think the movie 'True Lies' was a documentary.

    8. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by esperto · · Score: 2

      I don't know what happened in this accident, but there was another in North Carolina where a B-52 broke up in the air with two H-bombs a 3 of the 4 fail safes failed, furtunately the last one prevented the explosion, but was a very close call.

      In this one it seems to have occured an explosion, which is why Pu was scatered, but it did caused fission or fusion of the materials.

    9. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by meerling · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you are talking about an uncontrolled situation that to actually go nuclear, it will have to simulate the controlled, very precise, and a total bitch to replicate even when you're trying to, scenario where exactly 0.01 Keurigs of fecal matter must impact each of the fans blades exactly perpendicular, on both sides, with 8,500 newtons each all within 0.2 picoseconds, and while the fan is on.

      Come on people. If making nukes was so fricking easy, every terrorist and nation out there would have them about 2 weeks after they got a kilo of fissionable material.

    10. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Of course it was. It's so common it's unremarkable.

    11. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > In other words, slightly less than monkeys flying out your ass
      I have rectal-aero-primacitus you insensitive clod !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >The problem then becomes one of deciding if what it fell on is a target or not.

      Sssh... if the pentagon reads that line they will declare: "Obviously this is the time to replace the detonators with an AI".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      It's Courics, not Keurigs, named after the journalist Katie Couric. It even said so in the South Park episode you got this pretend measurement from.

      A keurig is a coffee maker... though, having read your post and in the off chance that somebody at the company made the same mistake you did... I'll avoid ever buying one.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  11. Isotope ... you keep on using that word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    [T]ests revealed high levels of americium, an isotope of plutonium

    Americium is not an "isotope of plutonium", by definition. There are isotopes of Am and Pu whose nuclei are isobars to each other, but one element can never be isotopic to another.

    And this sentence, if read as "[T]ests revealed high levels of americium, [AND] [the tests also revealed] an isotope of plutonium", would in theory be grammatically correct and factually acceptable, but still confusing.

  12. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because when you go to a party, get drunk, and shit yourself on the sofa, you stay behind to help clean up or you never get invited back again.

  13. More research by zlives · · Score: 2

    More research needs to be done on this... Spanish Soil welcome to Idaho

    1. Re:More research by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Just add some tobacco crops! Or, we could bring the concept forward into the 21st century, and make potannabis, and subsequently chips from those -- 'They're the mellow munchy!'

    2. Re:More research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idaho (and likely Nevada still) will be too busy "accepting" domestic nuclear waste. Send this shit to chicago, boston, or new york city, one of the other places that actually directly benefit from nuclear power... let them store it.

    3. Re:More research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send it to North Dakota. They can use it to soak up all the spilled oil.

    4. Re:More research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps after being "cleaned up" the soil could provide a start for a real Spanish red on American ... soil.

  14. Re:wait a second by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The highly toxic US equipment left scattered over the years can be found and recovered by US crews that are used to dealing with such rather common events.
    The US has mentioned it had a few nuclear related issues due to the huge numbers of nuclear armed flights around the world, crew issues, equipment issues.
    United States military nuclear incident terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    List of military nuclear accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    has other details over the decades surrounding issues like accidental criticality, non-nuclear detonation of an atomic bomb, partial meltdown, weapons jettisoned and not recovered, fire, release of nuclear materials, nuclear bomb lost...
    Most nations like to be seen to clean up after their own crashes to fully recover secrets, methods, materials and put a good media spin on been nice to nations where they have bases or want to have more bases.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  15. In other news, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US Air Force still hasn't recovered the H-Bomb accidentally dropped in 1958 in Wassaw Sound not to far from Savannah, Georgia.

    1. Re:In other news, by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      That's because the Air Force's official story is that there was no nuclear material on that plane, the bomb was filled with a weight to simulate combat conditions, but was not a nuclear weapon. So no great need to find an obsolete broken weight.

    2. Re:In other news, by meerling · · Score: 2

      That could be a cover story, or it could be real. The military does use 'weapon shapes' for training and such. No reason to risk a actual multimillion dollar mushroom farm for training. After all, more you play with it, the more likely it is that someone will break it.

    3. Re:In other news, by khallow · · Score: 1

      If your story is true, then they probably have secretly recovered it by now. Don't want the Reds to get the designs for a working nuke, right?

  16. Re:wait a second by willworkforbeer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wells, we did drop four hydrogen bombs during a plane wreck....

    Worst. Pilot. Resume. Ever.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  17. Re:subduction ain't happening in the Atlantic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just load it onto ships and dump it in the Atlantic near a subduction zone.

    Geology nerds will tell you that, other than a speculative subduction zone starting up offshore Portugal, the Atlantic Ocean doesn't have subduction zones.

  18. An explosion... by Bartles · · Score: 0

    ...more powerful than the atomic strikes against Japan at the end of World War II was not "narrowly averted". A nuclear detonation requires a very specific chain of events to occur. Which is extremely unlikely on a bomb being dropped from an airplane. The bomb is not even designed to detonate on impact.

    1. Re:An explosion... by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1
      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
  19. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    no, it's more like saying your grandfather took a dump on my carpet and the estate has been dodging responsibility ever since.

  20. Re:subduction ain't happening in the Atlantic by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The Atlantic Ocean currently has three subduction zones: in the Caribbean, the South Atlantic and the Mediterranean. A new one may be forming off the coast of Portugal. http://www.earthmagazine.org/a...

  21. Not sure if funny or sad. by sims+2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So we have agreed to clean it up where are we going to put it?

    The US agreed to store nuclear waste from all of our reactors back in the 1960's they still haven't been able to decide where to put it over 50 years later.

    If they do clean it up and ship it back to the US by boat it will stay on that boat at the dock until the boat rusts out and sinks.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re:Not sure if funny or sad. by bobbied · · Score: 2

      This stuff? A few million cubic feet of soil? Easy, dump it in the Ocean.

      It's not like this stuff is horribly dangerous or really radio active. Just barge it out to sea where it's really deep and push it over the side. End of problem. Want to keep it tied up a few thousand years? Encase it in concrete and push it over the side one block at a time. Either way, cheap and easy.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Not sure if funny or sad. by jittles · · Score: 1

      This stuff? A few million cubic feet of soil? Easy, dump it in the Ocean.

      It's not like this stuff is horribly dangerous or really radio active. Just barge it out to sea where it's really deep and push it over the side. End of problem. Want to keep it tied up a few thousand years? Encase it in concrete and push it over the side one block at a time. Either way, cheap and easy.

      Ohh we should dump it off the coast of Japan, near Tokyo. I've been waiting for Godzilla for a long time now.

  22. Re:subduction ain't happening in the Atlantic by Sique · · Score: 1

    The Mediterranean is not part of the Atlantic. It is the remaining sea after the closing of the Thetys ocean.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  23. Say hello to Bin Laden for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you really think they won't dump this waste in the same place on their trip home?

    1. Re:Say hello to Bin Laden for me by bobbied · · Score: 1

      They'd be fools not to. Over the side boys!

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  24. Narrowly averted apocalypse my ass by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nukes from day one have been designed to only detonate after a specific series of human and environmental interactions. A non-activated nuke is dirty, but it's never going to explode.

    1. Re:Narrowly averted apocalypse my ass by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1
      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    2. Re:Narrowly averted apocalypse my ass by meerling · · Score: 1, Troll

      It will not go nuclear. It can still explode, but it will only be a low order or high order detonation depending on the condition of the case when it goes off.
      To the ignorant or the stupid that think high order means a mushroom cloud, not it doesn't, that's nuclear.
      The order, high or low, is defined by the speed at which the explosive burns or detonates. A nuclear explosion is WAY beyond those parameters and so has it's own classification. Off the top of my head, I've forgotten the feet per second on those definitions, but if you really want to know, the info is out there, and it's legal. (That doesn't mean a three letter agency won't take an interest in you, it's not like they really care about the law in the first place.)

    3. Re:Narrowly averted apocalypse my ass by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 0

      lol am I supposed to be impressed by an unreferenced hive comment? I can link to any number of nutjobs on both sides of any debate too. Will you be impressed by that as much as you're impressed by the hive comment you've linked?

    4. Re:Narrowly averted apocalypse my ass by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      In other words, at worst, a dirty bomb. My money is on not anything remotely like Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

    5. Re:Narrowly averted apocalypse my ass by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      Sigh. I didn't want to copy-and-paste my own comment. I don't mean to be an ass, but I offered a link to my comment so that you could be educated and enlightened.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
  25. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you serious ?
    If it were Spanish H bombs on US soil would you let Spain off the hook for the expensive cleanup ?
    Since you don't believe in responsibility, let's give BP a refund for clearing up their own mess too.

    Fuckwit.

  26. Re:subduction ain't happening in the Atlantic by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Hm, if the Atlantic is California and Oregon, then the Mediterranean is New York, or well something closer ... Wyoming?

    In other words: they are separated seas and only connected by a rather small passage, the straight of Gibraltar.

    Regarding subduction zones, I have no idea :D

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  27. I'm guessing Idaho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing Idaho - what better place to hide it away than in the farming heartland.

  28. Re:wait a second by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i mean it sucks and all, but why should we be on the hook for this???

    Well, let me see. The aircraft that crashed where ours. The bombs where ours. The pilots where ours and we where flying alone. The wreckage from the accident which was totally our fault fell on Spain... Hmmm...I don't know, Maybe we are responsible for the mess and should clean it up?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  29. The plan is progressing perfectly... by Chrondeath · · Score: 1

    This is clearly part of a long-term plot to steal ALL of Spain! Now that the precedent has been established, we just need a few more "accidents" to contaminate the rest...

  30. Strange phrasing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    From the summary:

    ...almost 50 years after coming close to possibly provoking a nuclear disaster, Secretary of State John Kerry, following years of wrangling between Spain and the U.S., signed an agreement...

    Now, I'm not really John Kerry's biggest fan, but I think it's a bit much to blame him for "coming close to possibly provoking a nuclear disaster".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifier

    I also find the phrase "coming close to possibly provoking a nuclear disaster" rather strange. What sort of "disaster" does one "provoke"? One might provoke a war, or cause a disaster. And is "coming close to possibly" the same thing as "coming close", or does "possibly" mean that it wasn't that close?

    P.S. It's not actually likely that a nuclear bomb that isn't armed will go off in a nuclear explosion by accident. The carefully-designed explosive charges need to go off in a specifically timed sequence, and if one of them goes off first because the bomb fell on it from a high altitude, what you would expect to happen is exactly what happened here: a non-nuclear explosion that scatters the radioactive components of the bomb over an area. If you define "scattering radioactive material" as a "nuclear disaster" then one did occur; if you don't define it that way, then no "nuclear disaster" was very likely to occur.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3bm65m/has_a_nuclear_bomb_ever_been_accidentally_set_off/

    It's because of the above that I had trouble swallowing the plot of part of The Atrocity Archives by Charles Stross. The protagonist needs to prevent a nuclear detonation from a warhead, and comes up with a needlessly elaborate plan involving a magical gadget that changes chemical compositions. All they needed to do was stick an explosive on one side of the warhead and light it off with a delay timer or remote detonator; after that, the radioactive bits would be blown here and there and no nuclear detonation would be possible.

    I guess the protagonist of that story never read "The Long Watch" by Heinlein. You can read it, though, at this link:

    http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/1439133417/1439133417___4.htm

  31. An excuse by tomhath · · Score: 0

    The US wanted to expand a couple of bases it has in Spain, but Spain needed something in return to make it easier to sell to the Spanish voters. So they can now say that they forced their will on the US and only had to give up a a little military base expansion in return.

    I'm guessing a lot of American dollars will also head that way since Spain is pretty much insolvent, but that wouldn't look good to voters in either country so they won't brag about it.

    1. Re:An excuse by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Informative

      "I'm guessing a lot of American dollars will also head that way since Spain is pretty much insolvent"

      Debt-to-GDP ratio:
      USA: 101.33%
      Spain: 97.70%

      If Spain is "pretty much insolvent" what does that make for USA?

    2. Re:An excuse by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      shhhhhhhhhhh

    3. Re:An excuse by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      The US can print more money, unlike Spain.

    4. Re:An excuse by Alioth · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It makes the USA not at all insolvent. You're comparing apples to oranges. The USA has the ability to pay, Spain, not so much. The USA has positive growth. Spain is lurching in and out of economic contraction (and suffering some brain drain as the people leaving university go elsewhere in Europe rather than facing 50% unemployment, with the only jobs for graduates being mostly waiters). By contrast many people are trying to get *into* the US.

      Spain also does not have its own currency. Its debt is more like your household debt than typical sovereign debt - it lacks the usual controls a government has. Spain can't set its own interest rates. The USA can set its own interest rates. Also since lenders money is also sloshing towards Germany (because Germany is much safer), the rate on Spanish bonds has to be very high to attract anyone at all to lend to Spain. On the other hand, the USA effectively pays a negative yield to its bond holders. Also, because the USA has its own currency, if people start fleeing US bonds they are effectively selling dollars which will have a stabilizing negative feedback effect (it will lower the cost of the dollar).

      You can't simply compare debt to GDP and niaevely say "USA is worse off than Spain".

    5. Re:An excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Able to make the interest payments

    6. Re:An excuse by khallow · · Score: 1

      Public Debt-to-GDP ratio:
      USA: 71.2%
      Spain: 97.6%

      FIFY (using apples to apples comparison of public debt per GDP by the World Fact Book for 2014).

    7. Re:An excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The primary reserve currency and the one oil is denominated in belongs to the US. People like having US debt -- so far.

    8. Re:An excuse by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "The primary reserve currency and the one oil is denominated in belongs to the US. People like having US debt -- so far."

      That's (so far) true. On the other hand, dollar share as foreign reserve has been steadily declining all this century in favor of... the Spanish currency, being the ratio now about 2:1 dollar:euro.

  32. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ignore the whole part about you paying grandpa to keep the ruskies out.

  33. Radioactive or chemical hazard? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although people associate uranium with radioactivity, it is only very slightly radioactive (half life > 1 billion years), so if you don't assemble a critical mass the danger is actually chemical. (Heavy metals have a strong tendency to be toxic.)

    Other posters have said that here we are dealing with plutonium-239, which has a half life of 24000 years. That is orders of magnitude greater activity (shorter life) than uranium. I've reached the end of my knowledge here - which is worse, is the radioactivity or the chemical toxicity of plutonium-239?

    TFA suggests they are worried about radioactivity: "A main concern has been that the remaining plutonium was being allowed to degenerate into other radioactive components like americium, which emits gamma rays that travel farther and are hard to block" but concern is not always well founded, and reporters don't always get it right.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:Radioactive or chemical hazard? by quenda · · Score: 1

      which is worse, is the radioactivity or the chemical toxicity of plutonium-239?

      Neither. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      "There were about 25 workers from Los Alamos National Laboratory who inhaled a considerable amount of plutonium dust during 1940s; according to the hot-particle theory, each of them has a 99.5% chance of being dead from lung cancer by now, but there has not been a single lung cancer among them."[124][126] Plutonium has a metallic taste.[127]

  34. The U.S cleaning up after itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow, that's rare. What's gotten into them?

    1. Re:The U.S cleaning up after itself by khallow · · Score: 1

      Even weirder, they cleaned up back when the accident happened.

  35. read "Command and Control" by decsnake · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The posters here with the blase attitudes regarding nuclear weapons accidents ought to consider reading the book "Command and Control" and marvel at the fact we made it thru the cold war at all.

    Regarding clean-up: when accidents happened on US territory we cleaned it up, even at Thule AFB, which is about as close to the end of the earth as you can get. We also contaminated the other end of the earth for good measure (leaky reactor at McMurdo Station Antarctica). In both cases the contaminated soil was 'disposed of' at the Savannah River Plant.

    1. Re:read "Command and Control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think that book is valid? Authors have to eat and are well known for their hyperbolic spinning of facts to get dead tree material off shelves.

    2. Re:read "Command and Control" by swillden · · Score: 2

      What makes you think that book is valid? Authors have to eat and are well known for their hyperbolic spinning of facts to get dead tree material off shelves.

      How about because many of the key players in the events described have publicly supported the descriptions of the events as written, even though those events don't always paint them in the most positive light?

      Really, there comes a point where cynicism is just another way of fooling yourself into believing comfortable lies.

      "Command and Control" is an excellent book. I highly recommend it. And it makes clear that the notions of safety and control we apply to nuclear weapons today were not applied until well into the 80s, and the military (especially Air Force and Navy) really fought the imposition of safety measures and positive control. It really is pretty amazing that we made it through the Cold War without any unintended nuclear detonations.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:read "Command and Control" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thule is not US territory

  36. They do have light sensors by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Funny

    They'll turn all that Americium into smoke detectors and we'll all get to listen to that fucking beep in the middle of the night because nobody can seem to make a detector that has a light sensor on it.

    Of course they have light sensors in them. That's how they know to wait until the middle of the night before they start beeping.

  37. Not an isotope by jdavidb · · Score: 2

    Americium is not an isotope of Plutonium. It's a separate element. Americium is atomic number 95 and Plutonium is atomic number 94. Isotopes have the same atomic number.

    Surprised there's not a +5 comment explaining this already.

    1. Re:Not an isotope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surprised there's not a +5 comment explaining this already.

      There is. The first one was posted 2 hours and 42 minutes before yours, followed four minutes later by one that explains the decay process.

  38. Re:wait a second by jdavidb · · Score: 0

    But it wasn't us. I didn't do it. I wasn't even alive then.

  39. Day the Fish Came Out by frrrp · · Score: 1

    Forgotten work of genius that ended the previously Academy Award nominated director's career - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

    --
    smilies are for reetards
    1. Re:Day the Fish Came Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do realize, of course, that one of those Oscar nominations came _after_ "The Day the Fish Came Out" in 1967?
      "Iphigenia" 1977- Best Foreign Language Film- a wonderful movie.

      "The Day the Fish Came Out" is frankly, awful. As Science Fiction, (It supposedly takes place in the Seventies, after the Moon Landings.), it is pretty bad. And what the hell were those things in the Metal Box? It's certainly not much like in "Kiss Me Deadly"...
      The script is dreadful; there are times that the Actors look confused reading their lines, because they weren't told what the Plot was. (The Script had been completed the year before, but Kakogiannis kept on re-writing it while filming.)
      Bergen is horrible. Really, really, bad. BTW, what happened to her boobs?
      The cinematography and music are first-rate, however. It is a beautiful looking and sounding film. It's one of those films that makes one want to island hop in the sunny Aegean, in an old Sailboat.

      And there's that pesky Subtext- an Isolated Greek Village gets overrun by Tourists, who then ruin things for the Locals. Which is _exactly_ what happened to Galaxidi after this movie came out.

  40. Properties of Americium by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Americium: a dangerous, unstable element which decays with a half life of 141 years. On the periodic table exists below the lanthanide europium, with which it shares many similarities. It has a silvery-white metallic lustre when freshly prepared which slowly tarnishes over time. While similar to europium it is much denser partly due to the larger mass of its constituent atoms.

  41. Re:wait a second by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    They were our nukes. It's not cool to drop nukes on a country you're not at war with.

  42. Re:wait a second by readin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because when you go to a party, get drunk, and shit yourself on the sofa, you stay behind to help clean up or you never get invited back again.

    On the other hand if show up and spend 40 years keeping someone from getting killed they might seem a bit ungrateful if they complain about you getting diarrhea while doing so.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  43. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is your sheet radioactive?

  44. Re:wait a second by readin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are they able to ask us to clean up the mess in fluent Russian? If not then maybe they should be a little more grateful.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  45. Contaminated soil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA

    ,,, signed an agreement to remove contaminated soil ,,,

    What does it mean by 'contaminated soil' ?

    How can soil mixed with Uranium - one of the naturally occurring elements in the universe - be called 'contaminated'?

    BTW, what has Hillary got to do with contaminated soil?

    1. Re:Contaminated soil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      use your fuckin eyes, americium. in the fucking summary.

    2. Re: Contaminated soil? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Which they call an "isotope" of Pu :roll eyes:

  46. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then look at it as an important lesson in responsibility. Sometimes you have to cover shit that other people shat.

  47. Re:wait a second by quenda · · Score: 1

    Are they able to ask us to clean up the mess in fluent Russian?

    The cold war is over. You still believe the propaganda?

  48. Re:wait a second by Your.Master · · Score: 2

    No, it's like saying your dad took a dump on my carpet, so your dad should clean it up; your dad hemmed and hawwed for 50 years before finally paying up, and you are pissed off that this might take the tiniest bite out of your inheritance.

  49. Re:HIllary Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like you better when you moo.

  50. Re:wait a second by Your.Master · · Score: 1

    You didn't do it personally, but your country did.

    They aren't asking you personally to fix the problem. They are asking your country to fix it.

    It's not like there's nobody left alive from 1966.

  51. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If not then maybe they should be a little more grateful.

    Or maybe their head wasn't lodged up your American Exceptionalist Ass. The country that beat the Nazis wasn't interested in worldwide domination, you're thinking of these assholes.

  52. Re:wait a second by Your.Master · · Score: 1

    The firefighter doesn't get to shit on my carpet either.

  53. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you really think that line of reasoning is valid? If so, the UK, Germany, Japan, and Korea owes the US more than their entire GDP.

  54. Re:wait a second by Boronx · · Score: 1

    We're here to protect you so we can almost nuke you without out consequence. Good thinking.

  55. Re:wait a second by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

    Under your theory should we be forgiven all debts that predate you too?

  56. Re: wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if BP ever cleaned up. Skimming a few barrels of shit and saying "we're all done" is a clean up. My ass. The executives should be splitting thier pay with those they fucked over for the next 17 generations.

  57. Re:wait a second by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Do you really think that line of reasoning is valid? If so, the UK, Germany, Japan, and Korea owes the US more than their entire GDP.

    Yes, yes they do.

  58. Re:wait a second by mrbester · · Score: 2

    If you mean war debt from WWII, the UK finally paid that off in 1999.

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  59. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But that's not what you did.

  60. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best drone delivery pilot resume.

  61. Re:wait a second by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Well, not if he did it intentionally but if it was by accident then, I guess, I'd probably just hire a carpet cleaning company.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  62. Re:wait a second by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Putin, you're drunk. Go home!

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  63. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fun part is that the shit is still there on the carpet

  64. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure that Spain did beat some USSR forces by itself somewhere in the 30's, without the help of the US.

  65. Re:wait a second by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Maybe we are responsible for the mess and should clean it up?

    No, no, you've that completely wrong. Here's the official response from the American Government:

    "Fuck you, mum, I hate you!!" (slams the door)

    Well, we've all been teenagers, even if we try to forget.

  66. Re:wait a second by silentcoder · · Score: 3

    >They were our nukes. It's not cool to drop nukes on a country you're not at war with.

    To be fair, it's also not cool to drop nukes on a country you ARE at war with... that sort of shit leads to extinction level events.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  67. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But then the US owes those countries even more.

  68. Re: wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are conveniently ignoring the fact that the U.S. did not let BP clean up the mess (which was caused by U.S. contractors in the first place) properly because it only wanted U.S. ships involved (which were not sufficiently capable and too few were available). The U.S. willingly made the spill much worse than it needed to be because they figured extracting money from a foreign company was more important than the environment.

  69. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If not speaking a foreign language is something one should be grateful for, Americans should be the most grateful people on Earth.

  70. Re:wait a second by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Wow, you're fucking stupid. Last time I checked, UK and France have plenty of nukes. You were over here to empire build, and nothing fucking more.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  71. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's more like your dad shat on the carpet 50 years ago and even though you cleaned it up, I claim I can still smell it and therefore demand a new house paid for by you.

  72. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh, my grandfather was actually there, and Thule...and other "incidents".
    He was one of the specialists sent to recover the triggers.

  73. Re:HIllary Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    moo for me bitch, moo!

  74. Re:wait a second by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Seriously? Is this how they teach history in the public schools these days?

    Here's a few questions to consider.... Does everybody speak English or French in Spain these days? AND Didn't Spain agree to enter the EU under their own free will? Truthful answers to these questions only serve to show that Spain is it's own country and not being forced to be part of anybody's empire...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  75. Glad this all got resolved expeditiously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd hate to see this stuff laying around for years, I mean decades, no I mean centuries, yeah that's it!

  76. Where the bombs fell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at tanagra

  77. The real dirt on the radioactive dirt shipment by Joe+Branya · · Score: 2

    Here is what’s really going on.

    For the last fifty years the 6th Fleet has been headquartered near Naples, Italy. There are no shore bases in Italy for the roughly 1,100 Marines assigned to the fleet. The fleet is routinely called the Mediterranean fleet but the area it controls includes most of the eastern Atlantic and south western Indian oceans. (See map at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). The U.S. has only ten full sized aircraft carriers and none are operating in the Med right now The real action is in the Indian ocean and the western Pacific facing China. http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocatio....

    For some reason the U.S. government and NATO have decided to move the Naples headquarters to Rota, Spain, which is potentially a much larger facility that Naples, with room for a few thousand Marines on shore.

    Of course Spain wants something in return and we had to get the deal done before the Spanish election, which might bring in a leftist government. The best article on the deal is, as usual, in the British newspaper the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/wor.... To quote from the article (paragraph brakes removed):

    “The Palomares clean-up deal is seen by many as a sweetener in exchange for Spain agreeing to Washington ramping up its military presence in the country. The number of marine personnel at the base in Morón in southern Spain is to be increased from 850 to 2,200, and to 3,000 in the event of a crisis. Meanwhile, the US navy base at Rota, near Cádiz, is set to become the largest in the Mediterranean. Talks with Spain’s right-wing government over the military build-up have intensified in recent months amid fears that a government less sympathetic to Washington’s strategic aims may be elected in December. Barack Obama said during the King of Spain’s visit to Washington in September that a change of government might harm bilateral relations. Kerry refused to comment on the possible outcome of the election but said that the US supports “a strong and united Spain”, a clear reference to the Catalan region’s aspiration to break away and become independent.”

    So in the end the U.S. gets roughly 50,000 cubic meters of irradiated soil- how irradiated is still unclear. 50,000 meters equals roughly 80,000 tons. If the dirt is packaged first, it will take two-or-three medium-sized shiploads to get it to the U.S. and the equivalent of roughly 1,000 railroad freight cars or 2,000-3,000 forty-foot containers to move the dirt inside the U.S. My guess is railroad cars.

    The present speculation says it will go to Idaho but I’m not sure. There is always the example of the USS Sturgis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which had a small reactor that suffered damage during storms in the 1960s and 1970s. The ship had not been designed so the interior of the reactor room could be cleaned by water spray. So for 40 years the ship was stored in Quantico and on the James river, too hot to dismantle and yet not really a danger.

    Finally I should say I’m not clear on why the U.S. and NATO have decided to move to Rota although I’ll throw out a few possibilities. First, it may be hard to find places to train in the central Med because

  78. The real dirt on the raidioactive dirt (part 2) by Joe+Branya · · Score: 1

    I accidentally truncated what I wrote by about 50 words. Mia culpa... Here is the last section:

    Finally I should say I’m not clear on why the U.S. and NATO have decided to move to Rota although I’ll throw out a few possibilities. First, it may be hard to find places to train in the central Med because of refugee boats. The Navy has not picked up one refugee. The U.S. navy has clearly been told “The President doesn’t want pictures of a hundred Africans on board a U.S. warship with no place to land them except back the U.S.” Second is the Ruskies and ISIS; we may need Marines to land in a hotspot like Syria and for that we need a serious logistical base like Rota. Third, there may be a general NATO realignment in the area. European warships are doing all the refugee rescues. Building “a fence in the Med to stop immigrants” will clearly be a European activity, not an American one.

    So we get Rota and the Spaniards get rid of the dirt. The only question is about the 50,000 cubic meter number; is it a firm number or is it guess that might balloon into something much larger.

  79. Re:wait a second by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    no, it's more like saying your grandfather took a dump on my carpet and the estate has been dodging responsibility ever since.

    From reading the BBC article, it sounds a better allegory would be my grandfather took a dump and my grandmother cleaned it up, but all this time later, the carpet still stinks, so they're getting me to do some steam cleaning.

  80. Re:wait a second by jdavidb · · Score: 1

    Then look at it as an important lesson in responsibility. Sometimes you have to cover shit that other people shat.

    Wow, who appointed you or anybody else my teacher? I am not a child and don't need other people to give me lessons. Taking away money as a "lesson" is something that bullies in school do.

  81. Re:wait a second by jdavidb · · Score: 1

    The way you are using the word forgiveness doesn't make sense to me. If Jack damages property in 1966 and you don't make Kevin pay for it in 2015, you haven't forgiven Kevin anything, because Kevin is not responsible.

  82. Re:wait a second by jdavidb · · Score: 1

    You didn't do it personally, but your country did. They aren't asking you personally to fix the problem. They are asking your country to fix it.

    No, my taxes pay for it. There's no such thing as "my country." There's just people.

  83. Not an isotope by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    Americium is an element, not an isotope of plutonium. It is, however, produced from plutonium (or uranium) by bombardment with neutrons.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  84. Re:wait a second by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

    Every country with a lot of power is interested in world domination.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  85. Re:wait a second by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    The USA was night fighting the cold war out of love for Franco's fascist Spain.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  86. Re:wait a second by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    *not

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  87. Re:wait a second by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Japan came back pretty good.

  88. Re:wait a second by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

    America is a thing too. It's not just Jacks and Kevins. If it isn't then we'll never be able to get another loan and we'll be really, really fucked.

  89. Re:wait a second by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    Only because Japan didn't have nukes as well, nor any allies or sympathizers that did.

    If you do that now - you can expect a serious barrage of other countries dropping nukes on you... a cycle that can rapidly spread out of control.

    The world changes, and so history is not always a predictor of what can happen. The big change since 1945 is that there are now a great many nuclear powers, not just one.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  90. Re:wait a second by oldmac31310 · · Score: 0

    'were' FFS

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  91. Re:wait a second by jdavidb · · Score: 1

    It would be awesome if the United States government were no longer able to get loans. The vast majority of what they do is pure evil. It would be great if they had to fund wars by persuading people there was an actual danger, rather than racking up loans and spending tax money that people have no choice but to pay, whether they agree or not.

  92. Re:wait a second by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

    Cute theory. The economic collapse might concern you though.

  93. Re:wait a second by jdavidb · · Score: 1

    You mean the current economic collapse that was caused by the existing U.S. government?