Nuclear Revolution? Again?

[welsh]

How can you pass up an article like this-

Another nuclear revolution

Rethinking the unthinkable

Jan 26th 2006
From The Economist print edition
A scary thought to consider: more reliable nuclear weapons

BACK in the days before Iraq, George Bush's nuclear ambitions marked him out to his critics in Congress as a wild-eyed cowboy. He was the man who scrapped the once-hallowed anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty with Russia, started exploring new missile defences, opposed ratification of a comprehensive test-ban treaty and began looking for ways to develop new nuclear “bunker-buster” bombs.

Remember, he can't even say "nuclear".

Nowadays, however, some of Mr Bush's ideas look normal and unscary. The ABM treaty, for example, is now unlamented everywhere. Mr Bush has persuaded Russia to agree that by 2012 the two countries will have no more than 1,700-2,200 deployed strategic warheads each (down from America's 4,500 or so today, though the figure could rise thereafter). He has also cut the numbers of extra warheads to be held in reserve for spare parts or for a rainy (and dangerous) day.

Ah, rainy day nukes
and mondays just make my day.

That has recently allowed America to release some 200 tons of highly enriched uranium (enough for more than 8,000 weapons) for more peaceful purposes. Most of it will go into powering naval ships, but HEU is also being used in space and research reactors, as well as being blended down for use in civilian reactors.

Congress is still pressing Mr Bush to clean up nukes in the old Soviet Union. But the real arguments are over what to do about America's own weapons.

For two years running, Congress has rejected the Department of Energy's request for money to research the bunker-busters. The department has now abandoned the idea, though with regret. Officials whinge that they just wanted to see if a warhead casing which the Clinton administration tested for its ability to penetrate ice could be made to penetrate a little way into rock.

Is "whinge" a word?
Ah, it means "to whine." But apparently not "wine and dine"

The argument is complex. The administration still thinks that bunker-busters would deter proliferators, by making it harder to hide nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Or nuke bunkers in North Korea?

Congress worries that any weapon that can penetrate rock will throw up lots of radioactive fallout. Meanwhile, even just researching such weapons has made it harder for the administration to argue that North Korea and Iran should halt any weapons-tinkering.

Why negotiate when you can just nuke?

David Hobson, chairman of the mild-sounding House energy and water appropriations subcommittee, has led the attack on the bunker-buster. (His problem with it, he once said, is that “some idiot might try to use it.”) Instead, he helped vote some $25m for a different project: the reliable replacement warhead (RRW).

The idea is to redesign new parts for America's ageing stockpile that would make the warheads more reliable, longer-lived and safer to maintain. This sounds like prudent housekeeping; in fact, it could have a much more radical effect than the bunker-buster, whose use was limited.

During the cold war, the trick was to get the biggest possible bang into smallish warheads that could be clustered on a missile. That meant pushing the designs and materials used to build the bombs to their limits. As such weapons age, the worry is that they may deteriorate faster. Checking them requires tricky and costly maintenance. Now the idea is to try using different, less toxic materials and to put in extra safety and security features to make sure the warheads work and last longer. Ideally, you might not even have to test them.

Already two of America's weapons labs are busy on designs. But RRWs open up plenty of possibilities. Some of them are good. For instance, if warheads are more reliable, safer and easier to maintain, America could get rid of even more of those it holds in reserve in case some weapons develop flaws, and cut back its spending on the infrastructure for maintaining the stockpile. But more difficult questions arise. How can anyone be sure the things will go bang when needed if they can't be tested? And how far can technicians go in redesigning parts for existing warheads before they end up building what are, in effect, new ones?

So what are they saying- time go go back to good ole nuke testing a luekemia?

It is not as if the RRW kills the bunker-buster. If new warheads are to be built, why not build them with new missions in mind too, like hitting an opponent's buried command-post or weapons cache? It is a thought that will keep many of Mr Bush's critics up at night.

Ah to nuke or not to nuke....

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

For some reason the idea that a nuke could not work properly scares me.

I mean, if there is one thing that should be designes not to fail it would be a doomsday device, no?

 

[KurganFr]

Isn't it a good thing if a doomsday nuclear weapon can potentially fail in an interesting and catastrophic manner? A high probability of destroying your own country if you use it could prove a good deterrent.

 

[Lord 342]

I've never understood some people's morbid fascination with real-life nuclear weapons. When it comes down to it they're just big bombs that make big explosions. Nothing special. Nuclear winter is a myth of the '50s and the kind of bombs that would create a disaster on the scale of the Fallout world are a thing of the past. Modern weapons phillosophy is that it's better to use a whole bunch of little nukes to level a target rather than a huge one. A bomb's explosion is a globe in shape, and nothing can be done to significantly influence this for an explosion on the scale of a nuke. Therefor a big bomb wastes much of its energy digging a crater (From which fallout is born) and blowing said crater into the sky (Where the fallout travels about and spreads chaos). The idea was that even if your missile was innacurate, your bomber off-course or dropping his ordinance in a hurry; it didn't really matter since he'd wipe out the target even if he missed by a significant order of magnitude. Furthermore the kind of nuke used in a "bunker buster" doesn't even reach the kiloton range AFAIK. Yes there are some radiation effects that can result, but we're not talking about massive scale; depending on implementation, a "bunker buster" nuke could have no adverse side effects whatsoever.

 

[Carib FMJ]

Why does man spend so much time making bombs that will poison the land for 50, 000 years? Isn't that over kill?

Damn them all to hell if any power unleashes the Cobalt bomb!!!

Besides, whats the bloody gain?

 

[Wooz]

a "bunker buster" nuke could have no adverse side effects whatsoever.

Doubtful, think about phreatic irradiation, and its potential consequences.

 

[Lazarus Plus]

I'm getting more worried about the "EMP bombs" that people do tend to go on about these days. Scary thought, an entire city going dark overnight.

 

[Zaij]

You mean, as opposed to regular night time?

 

[Lazarus Plus]

You mean, as opposed to regular night time?

Meh.

You know what I mean.

 

[Lord 342]

a "bunker buster" nuke could have no adverse side effects whatsoever.

Doubtful, think about phreatic irradiation, and its potential consequences.

I said "could", not would. But the poisoning of a well or two is certainly among the worst consequences of the deployment of such a weapon, as opposed to the irradiation of huge tracts of land. And it's not like wells don't go undrinkable for other reasons. As to actually having such a bomb go below the water table; I seriously doubt it considering just how deep the phreatic zone is and the fact that nobody would build a bunker in a place where the rock itself is constantly saturated; your bunker would be soaking in weeks and there'd be nothing you could do about it.

But people today have forgotten that we're dealing with WAR. War is not a nice business and there should not be terrible concern with making it one; the concern should be for making it efficient and quick, so that in cases when it becomes necessary, it can be finished with quickly so the world can get on with thigns. Nuclear weapons are an excellent idea for a couple reasons: They give small nations striking power on a par with larger nations, and their immense power tend to make people think twice before going to war.