Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Movies of Cold War Bomb Tests Hold Nuclear Secrets (wired.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the put-it-on-youtube-when-you're-done-please dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Nuclear weapons specialists are limited in their research today. Prudence and international treaties prevent them from setting off any nuclear weapons, so they have to run tests through other means and interpret the results. But this wasn't always the case. In the '50s and '60s, the U.S. government performed a huge number of nuclear weapons tests, and filmed most of them. As happened with a lot of film from that time, most laid untouched in storage facilities until people generally forgot about them. But physicist Greg Spriggs recently realized they could be a trove of useful information, so he started tracking them down, eventually locating thousands of them. His team has started scanning and analyzing them. They've finished about 3,000 so far, with more than half yet to go. "Now, of course, scientists have computer programs that can analyze every single pixel in a frame over hundreds of frames. What might have taken days by hand takes only minutes. With computer analysis, Spriggs is pinpointing more precise yields. Computer models then use yield to estimate the damage from a bomb in different situations."

61 comments

  1. I can't help myself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    "Shall we play a game?"

    1. Re:I can't help myself... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than 10 or 20 million killed, tops."

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re: I can't help myself... by mrchew1982 · · Score: 1

      "Mr.President! We cannot allow a mineshaft gap!"

  2. Secrets by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "secrets" they speak of are higher accuracy measurements of the yield of the weapons. It is done by tracking the speed and size of the shockwave captured in the films, which was originally done by hand. There was up to 20% variation in the results of the measurements made by hand. They are now using computer software to perform the optical per-frame analysis of the shockwaves, and the result is more accurate measurements of the weapons' yield.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Secrets by KGIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's okay, I must be out of touch. I could have sworn the treaties signed still allowed for underground testing. I seem to recall Dan Rather (quite specifically though I suppose it might have been the News Hour on PBS) talking about it on the nightly news? Have we ratified any treaties since?

      Hmm... Unless I am not reading something properly, Wikipedia agrees with me.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I don't think we're strictly prohibited from testing nuclear weapons in and of itself but I do seem to recall that we've only agreed to end atmospheric and above-ground tests. While we're not prohibited, I don't think (from my limited memory and quick scanning), it would be socially unacceptable behavior. Of course, Starfish Prime might indicate that we're not always worried about being polite or responsible. At least I think that's the project name where we decided setting off nukes in space was a brilliant idea.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Secrets by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hmm... Unless I am not reading something properly, Wikipedia agrees with me.

      No, it does not agree with you. Don't believe me? Give me five minutes and then check wikipedia.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Secrets by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

      Underground tests are not conducive to estimating the yield precisely. The atmospheric tests and the movies made of the explosion and the speed and size of the shock fronts are more useful. And that kind of testing is banned.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:Secrets by Dins · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is done by tracking the speed and size of the shockwave captured in the films, which was originally done by hand. There was up to 20% variation in the results of the measurements made by hand. They are now using computer software to perform the optical per-frame analysis of the shockwaves, and the result is more accurate measurements of the weapons' yield.

      Fun fact: The vertical smoke trails present in many nuclear test films are there so they can "see" the shockwave on film as it propogates and affects the smoke trails. Right before detonation a row of rockets are launched vertically to create the smoke trails. I only mention it as for the longest time I wondered what these weird lines were from, and thought they might be some weird effect of the bomb or something. So I looked it up and learned the above.

    5. Re:Secrets by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1996, but won't come into force until 44 specific nations with nuclear technology capabilities have ratified the treaty. At present there are eight nations on the list who have not ratified the treaty, including the United States. The US, however, is a signatory to the treaty, and has not conducted a nuclear test since 1992.

      So the US abides by the CTBT as a matter of policy, even though the treaty is not in force, and the Obama administration has in the past indicated that it wants to ratify the treaty, although that won't happen with this Senate.

      The reason it's smart policy to promote the adoption of the CTBT is that it would discourage nuclear proliferation, and we don't need to perform testing. We already have enough data from half a century of active testing to ensure our bombs go boom.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:Secrets by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder what the actual output of Castle Bravo was in the end then, if there was such a variation in original estimates and bearing in mind that Castle Bravo was massively in excess of its prediction.

    7. Re:Secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it would be socially unacceptable behavior.

      It would also tell our adversaries what our weapons were capable of. They have high-performance computers and seismographs and other interesting toys too. Why help them analyze our bombs? It's not like they're going to share what they learned with us :)

      What they don't have is our ancient celluloid, which we can use to put our supercomputers at work to understand how our old designs actually worked, with an eye to improving the accuracy of our current models of our current designs. If we're lucky, they threw their ancient celluloid out and lost it forever, giving us an advantage.

    8. Re:Secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's kind of what I figured. I guess they were using seismology to get some of the results from the underground testing and I'm not sure how much that's advanced since then. We can use radar, even from satellites, to see things underground so there might be something there but not as accurate as we might get with surface or atmospheric testing. I am not, by any means, an expert.

      I'm running low on posts so this is an AC reply. 'Tis I.

    9. Re:Secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's my understanding. We've not actually ratified those treaties that would prohibit it thus we're not strictly prohibited but it would be in bad form for us to do so. If I may be so bold, I'd say that we should give our results, all the data, to the world. It's not like the other countries don't know how to make nukes. If they have this data they may not need to test. I believe the NK folks did a test not too many years ago, that's the last one that I recall hearing about.

      Anyhow, low on posts so I'm gonna post this as AC. Thanks for filling me in with the rest of it.

    10. Re:Secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also pertinent to add that treaties are (seemingly all of them) broken over time. Some just haven't had time enough to reach that point but that seems to be the trend.

      Which makes me wonder... I wonder if we'll ever test nukes in space again? I wonder if we'll test them on some celestial body (perhaps the moon, I guess) and just extrapolate from there? Before you say, "Never!" I submit that we humans don't have a history of doing the Right Thing.

      I believe I'm running low on posts. No matter how high the karma goes, 50 seems to be the limit. So, I'm going to post this as AC.

    11. Re:Secrets by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      >> the Obama administration has in the past indicated that it wants to ratify the treaty, although that won't happen with this Senate.

      I call BS. Obama had the votes to do what he wanted in the Senate early in his term, and he didn't bother to ratify it.

    12. Re:Secrets by Stinky+Cheese+Man · · Score: 1

      There is a good example of the vertical smoke trails here, starting at 1:25: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    13. Re:Secrets by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      the Obama administration has in the past indicated that it wants to ratify the treaty, although that won't happen with this Senate.
      I call BS. Obama had the votes to do what he wanted in the Senate early in his term, and he didn't bother to ratify it.

      Ratification takes 2/3s of the Senate.
        * Did he have about a third of the Republicans onboard?
        * Was it important enough to get this ratified NOW that he should spend some of his political favors, rather than waiting for the Senate to move on its own?

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    14. Re:Secrets by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      I wonder if we'll ever test nukes in space again? I wonder if we'll test them on some celestial body (perhaps the moon, I guess) and just extrapolate from there?

      Nuclear explosives have a lot of uses besides war. The radiation makes most of them impractical on or near the surface of the Earth. (That's why using them to cut a Nicaragua Canal, for instance, was rejected.) In space, radiation is not such an issue.

      Asteroid mining, asteroid modificatins, interpanetary and intersteller propulsion are all potential uses of such devices, and there are more. It may turn out nukes are the best, or an adequately good, choice, in practice, for one or more of these jobs.

      Before you say, "Never!" I submit that we humans don't have a history of doing the Right Thing.

      What makes you think testing new designs of nuclear explosive devices will ALWAYS be a "Wrong Thing".

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    15. Re:Secrets by pastafazou · · Score: 2

      Following the 2008 Senate elections, the Democrats had 57 seats, the Republicans 41. There were 2 independents. That means at most he would have had to convince 3 Republicans. If he got the 2 independents, he would've only needed 1.

    16. Re:Secrets by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      You fail at math. 2/3 of 100, rounded up, is 67, not 60.

      The last time any party had a 2/3 super-majority in the US senate was in 1965-67 (the Democrats.)

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    17. Re:Secrets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I've always wondered what caused those.

    18. Re:Secrets by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      You fail at math. 2/3 of 100, rounded up, is 67, not 60.

      The last time any party had a 2/3 super-majority in the US senate was in 1965-67 (the Democrats.)

      Not to mention that the Republicans were the same dicks back in 2008 they are now, so they wouldn't even had gotten one of them to agree with anything.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    19. Re:Secrets by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Oh, I quite agree that there are other uses. It'd probably always (for some broad definition of always that does not include a million years from now) be the Wrong Thing because there will probably always be people who don't understand so it will probably always be in the treaties or considered socially taboo.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  3. This kind of research must be the bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are the videos available on line?

    1. Re:This kind of research must be the bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno about online, but Trinity And Beyond: The Atom Bomb Movie was *well* worth the 20 bucks or whatever I paid for the DVD. A seriously aweseme documentary.
      http://www.amazon.com/Trinity-Beyond-Atomic-Bomb-Movie/dp/B00000IML5

  4. Clickbait title by NotInHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its not what you think, there are no actual national secrets that have to be kept disclosed, all researchers can access all material.

    The title is clickbait and taken from the press article.

    1. Re:Clickbait title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Admittedly, the secrets are not the "classified" type but the "no one knew that" type.

  5. Didn't the US reject the comprehensive treaty? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    I believe the US rejected the comprehensive treaty: the president signed it in 1996 but the Senate rejected it in 1999. Therefore, rejected?

    http://www.history.com/topics/...

    1. Re:Didn't the US reject the comprehensive treaty? by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it isn't law. It doesn't prevent us from more or less complying with it unilaterally, it's just that we aren't binding ourselves to it. That gives everyone else a lot less peace of mind about it, but the US often has its own reasons for basically following the gist of treaties it doesn't ratify, so it usually works out. Usually.

    2. Re:Didn't the US reject the comprehensive treaty? by wjcofkc · · Score: 2

      There was the test ban treaty of 1963, and the comprehensive test ban treaty of 1996. On August 5, 1963, representatives of the United States, Soviet Union and Great Britain signed the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which prohibited the testing of nuclear weapons in outer space, underwater or in the atmosphere. Of note, this does not include underground testing. But that is still very limiting. France and China were asked to sign the treaty, but refused.

      In 1996, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, prohibiting “any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.”

      Interestingly enough, the United States was the first nation to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, which happened in 1996. Around 180 nations followed. In 1999 the United States senate rejected the treaty.

      A quick ctrl + f reveals that the word "comprehensive" is not in the article.

      So that there you have it: two treatise. Oh, one last thing. I scraped pretty much all of that from the article linked to in your post. Did you not read the article you linked to?

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    3. Re:Didn't the US reject the comprehensive treaty? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      >> Did you not read the article you linked to?

      You must be new here. :)

  6. Re:What secret? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Says the guy posting on Slashdot.

  7. Even harder to find footage of other tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The French and the Russians have barely any of their test films available.

    1. Re:Even harder to find footage of other tests by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      There's enough footage of the Tsar Bomba available for viewing to obviate any need for Viagra at the Kremlin, or the Pentagon for that matter.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    2. Re:Even harder to find footage of other tests by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

      There's a great clip of Tsara Bomba I've only seen once. It's taken from a building in a town at the end of a street of wooden houses. A Russian/Siberian old man is walking down the dirt in the centre of the road towards the distant mushroom cloud and is blown off his feet (more surprised than hurt). My memory says the footage was something like 100 miles from detonation. Love to find that again, mainly as it's the only filmed example I can remember a civilian hit by the power of an atomic weapon, even this lightly (which in itself is telling).

      One thing Slashdot provided and I've lost was a link to some Usenet posts from the mid-nineties by an ex-RAND guy. In four pages, he chillingly outlines the most cynical decision possible in humanity; a first strike on Soviet cities would then lead the USSR to blow up 80% of the US popl, but crucially not hit the now empty bunkers in the dirt of Montana et al., so making the smoking ruin of the USA at least partially habitable through massively reduced levels of fall-out.

    3. Re: Even harder to find footage of other tests by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm a little fuzzy on the reasoning behind your second paragraph. Can you expand on the concept please.

    4. Re: Even harder to find footage of other tests by fremsley471 · · Score: 2

      If Soviets hit first, then they'll aim for the missile bunkers that are scattered all over the Mid-west. They'll also lob in a load at 'Command and Control' centres (cities). The nukes hitting the midwest will create enormous amounts of radioactive fallout as they're aiming for hardened bunkers so nukes won't be airburst, CONUS is uninhabitable.

      A retaliatory strike means only cities are hit, with air bursts. Result, devastation, but not complete annihilation. The remaining 10-20 million could plan WW IV with bows and arrows. So it's 'better' to strike first.

  8. Not Hollywood movies by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    These were movies made by the engineers on actual nuclear explosions.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Not Hollywood movies by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Obviously. Why on earth did you feel the need to clarify that??

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:Not Hollywood movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously. Why on earth did you feel the need to clarify that??

      To explain the absence of Jar Jar Binks.

  9. Re:What secret? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    You read a Slashdot Summary. Now you think you know something. I use short sentences. Makes me sound dumb. But I am mocking you. You are dumb. And you laugh at people who are smart. Makes you feel good. But you are really just ignorant. Go away. Don't post again.

  10. Want to calculate nuclear yield? Buy Glasstone by Nova+Express · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you want to calculate nuclear yields, I suggest picking up a copy of Samuel Glasstone's The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (that's an Amazon link, but there are a fair number of used copies floating around). I have the revised 1962 edition.

    Be sure to pick up a copy that still has the yield computer wheel in the back of the book.

    Also, this web page lets you map nuclear bursts using Google maps, and seems to be heavily based on Glasstone.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  11. Re:Coldwar Nuclear Bomb Tests Striped the Ozone La by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But in Germany they are shutting down their Nuclear Power and it is working for them..

    No it is not. They're now increasingly dependent on Putin's gas.

  12. Good by PPH · · Score: 2

    Now maybe we can properly calculate the trajectory of that manhole cover

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  13. Close counts in thermonuclear weapons by Shadow+IT+Ninja · · Score: 1

    This article reminds me of a couple of sayings. One is that that close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and thermonuclear weapons. The other is probably an urban myth. The idea was that, at one point in the Cold War, the US military was given a list of targets to be able to "destroy" and another list of targets to be able to "neutralize." Military Intelligence had to interpret these words in the context of nuclear war so they decided that "neutralize" meant to reduce the target to rubble with fragments no larger than a certain size while "destroy" meant a finer grade of rubble.

  14. Apples for Nukes? by Suomi-Poika · · Score: 1

    Apple Inc. Eula: "..You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."

    However I am ok with this. These nuclear explosions should be classified as art nowadays. Just do the dirty math with Linux and everyone should be happy.

  15. Re:Coldwar Nuclear Bomb Tests Striped the Ozone La by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good use of "..", one of the best I've seen in a long time.

  16. Re:What secret? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    Short sentences can convey another message:

    An excellence-oriented '80s male does not wear a regular watch. He wears a Rolex watch, because it weighs nearly six pounds and is advertised only in excellence-oriented publications such as Fortune and Rich Protestant Golfer Magazine. The advertisements are written in incomplete sentences, which is how advertising copywriters denote excellence:

    "The Rolex Hyperion. An elegant new standard in quality excellence and discriminating handcraftsmanship. For the individual who is truly able to discriminate with regard to excellent quality standards of crafting things by hand. Fabricated of 100 percent 24-karat gold. No watch parts or anything. Just a great big chunk on your wrist. Truly a timeless statement. For the individual who is very secure. Who doesn't need to be reminded all the time that he is very successful. Much more successful than the people who laughed at him in high school. Because of his acne. People who are probably nowhere near as successful as he is now. Maybe he'll go to his 20th reunion, and they'll see his Rolex Hyperion. Hahahahahahahahaha."

    -- Dave Barry, In Search of Excellence

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  17. OMSI had a similar exhibit by dave562 · · Score: 1

    Back in the late 1980s or maybe early 1990s (I was a kid at the time), OMSI (https://www.omsi.edu/) had a film that showed a large number of nuclear tests in the Pacific ocean. It was about an hour long and most of it was silent. It was primarily all in black and white. It lacked any sort of narration. It was just bomb after bomb after bomb after bomb...

    It would be great to see it again now that I am older and able to appreciate it more.

    1. Re:OMSI had a similar exhibit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get Trinity and Beyond. You won't be sorry.

  18. Re:Coldwar Nuclear Bomb Tests Striped the Ozone La by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The UV index in Australia is 13 again today. Most countries weather websites only list their scale up to 10+ 'extreme'.

    Thanks a lot, America!

  19. Re:Coldwar Nuclear Bomb Tests Striped the Ozone La by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But in Germany they are shutting down their Nuclear Power and it is working for them..

    No it is not. They're now increasingly dependent on Putin's gas.

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
    hahahaha.

  20. Re:Computer analysis is for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahaha! That is so funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!