Labs Compete to Build New Nuclear Bomb 949
An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo! News is reporting that two labs are currently competing to design the first new nuclear bomb in twenty years. The new bomb was approved as a part of the 2006 defense spending bill. From the article: 'Proponents of the project say the U.S. would lose its so-called "strategic deterrent" unless it replaces its aging arsenal of about 6,000 bombs, which will become potentially unreliable within 15 years. A new, more reliable weapon, they say, would help the nation reduce its stockpile.'"
Strangelove (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Strangelove (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perhaps... (Score:5, Funny)
"Labs Compete to Built New Nuclear Bomb"
Take another couple of swigs of Vodka and it somehow sounds even better.
"Lab Completes two Built Nude Nuclear Boobs"
Now finish the bottle as you ponder how the term 'fall-out' would apply to the last reading.
Re:Perhaps... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perhaps... (Score:5, Funny)
Weapons of mass terbation?
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Old hat (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, can you imagine what a pain in the ass antimatter weapons would be? One power failure, and BOOM - say goodbye to your stockpile, and most of the continent you were storing it on.
Great job America... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great job America... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I just choked up a lung.
Re:Great job America... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see why people would want them to get rid of all nukes, and not just some, but you'd never convince a military-minded government to do that. It's probably better that they keep a smaller, less destructive arsenal purely as a deterant.
And I don't see why this article would neccesarily mean more nuclear weapons yet. If the labs develop better bombs, and those bombs are built while the old ones are taken out of storage and dismantled, that at least accomplishes something (since old bombs lying around in storage are probably more of a safety hazard than new ones). Plus, there is no guarantee that the next administration will be as military focused as the current one, so even if they do build a better moustrap, it may not be deployed.
As long as the total number of nukes is decreasing, there is progess.
Re:You've swallowed it (Score:3, Insightful)
The old bombs have a lifespan. That isn't doublespeak - it's FACT. New bombs will have to be built if we wish to keep them as a deterrant - and convincing politicians and generals that there is no need for such a deterrant is futile, so that's right out. The US no longer has bomb production capability, so the new bombs will need to be made in new factories. And they might as well update the elderly designs while they're at it, since there's
The Headline is Wrong (Score:5, Funny)
So now it's official (Score:3, Funny)
Who's up for 'liberating' them?
Re:So now it's official (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So now it's official (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice straw man. The US isn't worried about the use ofIranian atomic bombs, but about unprovoked (terrorist) use, in a holy war, against an idealogical enemy, who poses no real threat. Civilian targets or not, doesn't make that big of a difference. Use of atomic bombs during a war with an approximately equally matched enemy doesn't make much of a difference. Just look at India and Pakistan's bomb programs, where the US did not threaten to invade. Of course, this is nothing like Japan.
Back in the 40s, there wasn't pin-point accuracy bombing. War was all about carpet-bombing your enemies industries, population, etc. The only alternative was to sit around and do nothing as your enemy bombed your country instead.
People look at the first atomic bombs in terms of the modern day, but that's just not the way it was. Looking at the evidence, even in hindsight, it was the least-terrible option.
In fact, even today, when faced with the option of droping atomic bombs on a waring country, or losing millions of American lives, droping the bomb would still be the better option, and nobody would argue, until 50 years later, when some idiot will post some brainless comment on the web about it.
Re:So now it's official (Score:4, Interesting)
If you think of everything in a modern day perspective, then it easy to find fault with most things that every country has done. We can rant 'n rave about how bad nuclear weapons are, because they are; we have 60 years of hindsight to teach us why. Someone, and by some I'm referring to the political and military leadership in the 1940's, that had never seen the destruction wrought by an atomic bomb would have a difficult time comprehending its power.
Unfortunately, the past is unchangeable. If you'd don't want the US to have nuclear weapons, then get involved with your government, write your congressmen, start a movement. Do something about it!
Or, you could just make jokes or bitch about it on
Re:So now it's official (Score:3, Funny)
Libratn'
Re:So now it's official (Score:4, Funny)
No no no, we only need to liberate countries that are run by mad men. You know the type that torture people, spy on their citizens, and violate international law.
Re:So now it's official (Score:4, Insightful)
>others, and yet, it may very well be minor compared to what we
>are doing in gitmo
What, pray tell, COULD we be doing to people that would make sawing off a man's head with a knife "minor"?!
Are you fucking KIDDING me?
I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and say there's no way you've actually seen the Berg video. Look it up, then come back here and tell me that a guard wiping his ass with the Koran is staggeringly brutal and horrible compared to that.
For fuck's sake.
-l
Re:So now it's official (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called "neo-liberal hysteria". The usual gambit is to say that the West is morally equivalent to the Middle East. This is followed by wringing of hands and shedding of tears.
Not a true increase in stockpile (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not a true increase in stockpile (Score:4, Insightful)
I would prefer no nuclear weapons, but unfortunately, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, I don't see any practical way out. A total global disarmament just doesn't seem likely, and is possibly hopelessly idealistic. I think history shows too many times that those without a strategic deterrence are the conquerred ones, and at times, they are are ones that get massacred.
Re:Not a true increase in stockpile (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, Iraq.
Re:Not a true increase in stockpile (Score:5, Insightful)
There is not only the choice between safe and non-safe nukes. There is also the choice of no nukes at all. Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually pledged that he would be happy to give up Iran's nuclear ambitions if there was a genuine commitment of all nations with nuclear weapons to disarm. Now, this is a dishonest offer, because he knows that it is not going to happen. But what better way to, literally and figuratively, disarm Iran than taking him up on it? What is the use of nuclear weapons in this world? Who are you going to nuke? "The terrorists"?
If you look at the comments in this thread, you will find that America has no moral leadership anymore whatsoever. It's gone. Note that this is an America-based forum. Don't even try to suggest any kind of moral leadership of the United States in a European context. You will quickly hear: Iraq civil war. Abu Ghraib. Secret CIA prisons. Guantanomo. Police state. Religious fanaticism. Violation of international treaties. And so on, and so forth. What's the last moral defense against an undeniably terrible regime like Iran or the PRC? Democracy? Bullshit. Hardly anybody outside the US takes this so-called democracy seriously anymore. We are talking about an electoral system which tolerates the candidate in an election running the election, legally. Third world countries have more refined democratic systems than the US.
It's time to stop using false dichotomies and poorly constructed slippery slope arguments. "We can have safe nuclear bombs, or unsafe ones!" "We can invade countries, or let terrorists kill us!" "If we let the evil homosexuals marry, goats and chickens will be next!" "We must scare teenagers so they won't have sex and get pregnant!" "We must lock up 2 million people so there won't be criminals in the streets!" What scares me the most is that there are a lot of people who actually believe that.
Take My Gun When You Pick Up Yours (Score:5, Insightful)
Answer me this. If China was to launch an assault on Taiwan tomorrow, would Europe run to the defense of a fellow democracy? Of course not. The only friend Taiwan could expect to come to its aid would be the big evil US. The US would park a battle fleet off the coat of Taiwan, drop a few thousand marines on the shore, and start sinking anything that tried to cross the channel despite the fact that it would be rumbling with the most populace nation in the world off of its own coast.
Europe has merrily thrown the defense of democracies to the wind and has actually tried to sell China weapons for which it could use to attack Taiwan despite pleading from the US not to. Europe has not entered into any sort of defense pact to defend Taiwan as the US has. Europe has put their economic prosperity and safety above defending fellow democracies.
When Europe can unite and show a willingness to strap on their boots and go kick some ass for democracy, I would be more then happy to see the US put down its arms and call it a centaury. I don't see that happening. The only time Europe comes out guns blazing is when it has to do with one of their former colonies or the US is leading the charge and carrying over half of the load. As long as the US is the only nation swinging its weight, you can expect the US to have a hefty supply of nukes to keep the people it pisses off at bay.
Personally, I think that the South Park guys sum up the argument for the good that the US provides to the world pretty eloquently in Team America, World's Police.
We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!
Re:Not a true increase in stockpile (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats just not possible, not for any nuclear yield anyway. Its possible to destroy them and explode the high explosive charge and spread radioactive debris around but you just cannot set one off properly without a certain sequence of events with very precise timing and order.
Labs Compete to Built New Nuclear Bomb (Score:5, Funny)
Deterrent? Who? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Deterrent? Who? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is what I *think* the US is trying to do:
1) Strengthen it's military power as well as the fear and respect it generates
2) Use this military power (as well as its expertise with finance) to obtain new resources as well as improve the result of bargaining situations
3) ???
4) Profit!
Developing new weapons, especially those designed to inflict maximum civilian damage, pretty much follows the US plan. I wonder if China will actually take the bait of going into an arms race with the US, given that it will be ahead economically in a decade or less.
Oh well, since Australia is both an ally to the US and China (uranium deal), I think we will be fine...
Atoms for peace? (Score:5, Insightful)
Many new designs in past 20 years (Score:5, Funny)
The point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line: much less plutonium lying around, smaller yields, cleaner designs, and reduced risk profile. They are not expanding the arsenal, just cleaning it up. Since the US is going to have nukes regardless, I do not have a problem with this.
Bear in mind... (Score:4, Informative)
For example, one possible use for US nuclear weapons is a strike against hardened targets in North Korea. At the moment we don't really have appropriate bombs for that purpose. If North Korea started lobbing nuclear weapons, we'd want to take as many out on the ground as possible. The current arsenal is poorly suited for that purpose.
Also remember that the only way the US can credibly deter others from using nuclear weapons is to convince those others that the US is willing and able to strike back. Building new weapons is part of that plan.
For more on the aspect of prevention and counterforce, you could read The Wizards of Armageddon [amazon.com], which is about how such issues played out in the 50's - 80's. Building new nuclear weapons is business-as-usual rather than a radical departure.
Re:Bear in mind... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also remember that the only way IRAN can credibly deter others from using nuclear weapons is to convince those others that IRAN is willing and able to strike back. Building new weapons is part of that plan.
Really. (Score:4, Insightful)
The rational objections to U.S. policy with regard to Iran are not bourn from a desire to see a 'fair' distribution of nuclear weapons. The rational objection to U.S. policy with regard to Iran is that ALL the social awareness sculpting through the media and the actions of the government are designed to start another war in the Middle East. Period. ANY semi-logical sounding argument for doing so will be employed to trick the public into going along with this desire. It is easy to come up with good sounding arguments for even the dumbest ideas.
War is profitable. Chaos is profitable. That is the bottom line. (Well, that and speeding along the Christian cultic agenda toward the apocalypse. But that's another story). --Priming the U.S. population for war with Iran has nothing to do with any of the reasons you suggest. Bush and his people are not interested in any philosophy which does not seek to maintain imbalance, chaos and a steady flow of public funds into their pockets through third party companies, (oil, defense, etc.).
They fooled the world once with WMD's in Iraq. They're doing it again with this nonsense about uranium plants in Iran. It's all propaganda and social programming.
-FL
Re:Bear in mind... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sure?
USA: "We're going to invade Iran, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity."
Iran: "Try it and lose New York."
USA: "Do that and we'll destroy you completely."
Iran: "You're going to kill us anyway. What have we got to lose?"
USA: "Er... fuck."
Iran's hypothetical nuclear capability, even if nowhere near capable of destroying the US entirely, is still enough to raise the costs of invading Iran to an unacceptable level. If the costs of invading Iran are 'billions of dollars, and a lot of Iranians getting killed' then Bush will probably do it. If the costs of invading Iran are 'billions of dollars, and nearly all the Iranians getting killed, and a big radioactive crater where Manhattan used to be' then Bush will probably think twice...
One Issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Boobs & Guns (Score:5, Insightful)
SNAFU
WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
The United States should be more focused on fighting 'conventional' (specifically urban and desert) warfare than nuclear warfare. The fact that there is currently no superpower poised to take over the world makes these relics of the Cold War era obsolete both in technology and in practice. They simply aren't needed. If even half of the USA nuclear stockpile were to be dismantled tomorrow, there would still be more than enough deterrent to wipe out any prospective enemy that might arise in the foreseeable future. As it stands, America has the power to blow most all countries on the planet to kingdom come and have some left over for the Martians, too.
Nuclear weapons have their purpose, but to have so many is insane. Deterrence is fine; Hell, even tactical nuclear weapons are fine, but why so many? And why bother researching more into the subject? The only possible plus I can see to research into new nuclear weaponry is to reduce the amount of radioactivity left over from the blast (or to increase the rate at which it dissipates or decays). Aside from that, it's still just new technology to do the same thing.
I say that if keeping the stockpile is that important, then just dismantle the ones that are ready to fall apart, and upgrade/repair the newer ones. Saves a lot of time, effort, and money.
Nuke design's not physics, its COMP-SCI 'surety' ! (Score:3, Interesting)
Really.
A W87 warhead (our last and greatest warhead from 1987), is a bitch to open and reservice the tritium. That part should have been made a tad easier, but opening a warhead is MEANT to be a monumental puzzle. tritiums half life is short enough that the damned things are useless without recharge after 15 or so years.
In fact... to set off a nuke (w87) its mainly designed to mistrust rogue theft even if using really clever computer hackers.
If you DO MANAGE to get all three launching keys (15 digits total) (Class-F its called I believe) (one key is merely in-flight key, or vessel key)
it cannot be detonated by lightning, fire, or explosive shock, however it can disintegrate itself if casing compromised or tampering detected. The explosive used in the fission component of the bomb (fission-fusion design obviously) is a special newer type of explosive resistant to fire, and lightning, but before critical temperatures can be reached the bomb immolates itself to destroy most components, though the housing will rupture and the "enriched goodies" could be harvested and utilized in a new-from-scratch weapon
To detonate :
It needs to be spinning about its central axis at a specific range of RPMS to detonate.
It needs to be increasing barometric pressure to detonate (simulating descent trajectory).
It needs to sense a specific airspeed flowing past the w87 warhead.
It needs to armed (yield set, keys set, timers set) a certain amount of time to detonate.
Its casing monitor needs to not detect atmospheric oxygen within (evidence of tampering) though pure nitrogen used in drilling entry could thwart that single test.
It needs to not sense large amounts of magnetic "ferrous" material nearby (unconfirmed).
All circuitry boards (three or so, totally uncoupled) need to pass tamper checks of runtime code on firmware, and some other paltry stuff.
There are a few other clever sensors in it.
But nuke design of ultra high tech SDAMS (small micro nukes similar to w87, but with negligible fusion litium payload) is all about SURETY, not physics.
Physics was completed and reached state of the art in late 1980s.
Everything about SDAMS and generic multiple warhead ballistic W87 design is anout anti-computer hacking. ALL OF THE HARD STUFF is about how to make it impossible for even an expert from being able to hack one up and use it in a non-ballistic manner.
SDAMS are even more of a bitch as they are Abrams "tank shell" style weapons used for all manner of non ballistic purposes, including dam-busting, bunker busting, building demolition, etc.
SDAMS are slated for use in upcoming invasion of Iran to get at the enrichment centers that are all 600 feet underground (no daisy-cutter or modern MOAB can cause harm at 600 feet deep, only a SDAM or reduced yield w87.
But SDAMS have no axis spin to thwart, have no barometric pressure to thwart, have no restriction on detecting ferrous metal in environment, have no airspeed safety... in fact an SDAM has so few safety mechanisms, its practically a terrorist weapon in an of itself in my opinion. and of course it fits neatly inside a classy looking anodized metallic Zero-Halberton brief case.
The fed program want surety design... not physics design. They want DRM. DRM for nuke logic boards. And Even the xbox360 was hacked in a week.
I am shocked that the posts here do not realize this fact at the time I posted this.
outsource (Score:5, Funny)
xD
Lotsa gotchas!: Count 'em: (Score:4, Interesting)
Excuse me if I'm cynical, but couldnt this just be another way of keeping the bomb-builders employed and busy? Isnt there something more useful they could be doing, like fusion research?
It must be great to know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's simple - if you have the bomb, you're safe. If you don't have it, you'll be invaded. Given that the US seems fully ready to use military force in the middle east, what possible reason would Iran have for NOT building nukes? Nukes make a wonderful deterrant after all.
I'm not saying I agree with them, but they're certainly being logical. Given a choice between, say, a non-agression pact and a stockpile of nuclear weapons that can make the other guy think twice about declaring war, I'd take the nukes. Assurances that you won't be invaded are just words on paper after all.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no question that the US is stable (as is China, and the USSR back in the day). Nor is there any question that Iran is a dangerous theocracy. Under no circumstances am I defending Iran, or attacking the US.
However, the US has already acted with military force in the middle east, on the pretext of preventing a dictator from aquiring weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, America considers Iran to be its enemy, both geopolitically and ideologically.
Given those two facts, why would Iran give up its nuclear program? Even if the country was run by secular moderates, they'd have no logical reason to get rid of their nukes, and every reason to want to keep them as insurance. The fact that the people in power there are neither logical nor moderate just makes it even harder to convince them. Even a treaty assuring the Iranians that they will not be invaded is not enough - treaties are just words on paper, whereas nukes are a tangible and frightingly effective deterrant.
Like I said, I'm not defending them, only their logic.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, at this point it's eminently clear that Iraq was invaded because we knew they didn't have WMD's. If they'd had nukes (not sure if chemicals or biologicals would have stopped us, although they sure could have made things rough) we'd still be saber-rattling.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Funny)
If that's the case, why isn't Canada a state yet?
We don't have nukes.
We have a shitload of oil
We have less of a military than Granada, albiet worse weather, so an invasion wouldn't be costly
And you'd finally be able to field a half-decent hocke
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
In a phrase, entangling alliances. Sure, you may have a military made up of mounties and pop-guns, but England doesn't, nor the rest of NATO, and one NATO member invading another on any pretext would begin the quickest and most devastating political destabilization in world history.
And of course there's the fact that you kicked our ass the last time we invaded.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather, in an
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3)
That would be idiotic. If an Iranian bomb went off in Tel Aviv or New York, they know they'd be toast within a week. The real world is not like a Tom Clancy novel.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Iran is full of religious zelots.
So is the USA.
2. Mamood Ahmadi-Najad (president of Iran) denies the holocust happend and threatend Israel to be "wiped off the map"
They just threatened. The USA actually attacked Iraq.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Informative)
To be perfectly clear, they didn't even go so far as to threaten to "wipe Israel off the map." No such idiom even exists in Persian [nytimes.com]. He did say he hoped its regime would collapse.
One should really blame poor translation and propagandists on that line.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the conclusion of Brommer, after looking at translation issues, is that he very much did say so [iht.com], but that he didn't go as far as to declare war.
Relativism on the Iran issue (Score:3, Insightful)
So is the USA.
When was the last time a US citizen was put to death for practicing the wrong religion? Your tendency toward relativism and moral equivalence have clouded your judgement.
They just threatened. The USA actually attacked Iraq.
Do you believe the US is not trying to rebuild Iraq and institute stable, lawful government in Iraq? Do you contend that the US is systematically plundering that country? Ahmadinejad's comments are pure malice, the fantasy of a homicidal madman who wants to kill Je
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
And realistically, those are examples of war-by-proxy; minor conflicts fought between two major powers by way of of a third party government. The US and the USSR didn't fight each other directly, and the reason is nuclear deterrance.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, look at India and Pakistan. Nukes have worked really well as a deterrent.
Ever since both have gotten nukes, they've gotten close to war and just had to back off until the tempers cooled off because of MAD.
Now, they're working towards being friends instead of enemies.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Interesting)
After 9/11, Pakistan freaked out and began to lock the locks on their nuclear arsenal. A year afterward, reports that Pakistan had been helping North Korea develop nuclear weapons comes out. In international speak this says, 'we are unstable (we have security concerns regarding our nuclear arsenal), we crave war (peaceful nations don't share nuclear secrets with countries that are technically still at war) and we still have not taken steps to prevent a nuclear exchange despite these serious concerns (they're fighting a grudge that has lasted for half a century, armed with nukes and bedding with known terrorist groups.)'
India is just as bad. Pakistan border both Afghanistan AND Iran, two of the most unfriendly nations currently (remember all those reports about Al Qaeda reportedly escaping into India through the mountains?), so India is paranoid of the radicals/terrorists/refugees that have recently come into Pakistan. If the reports about Pakistan helping North Korea develop nuclear weapons is true, this could set nuclear talks back DECADES. In international speak this says, 'we are paranoid of Pakistan launching a first strike/pre-emptive attack against us (Pakistan has fewer nukes so they would want to do this to minimize damage in a nuclear counter-attack), we believe Pakistan is socially and politically unstable due to recent events (U.S. invasion of Afghanistan) and we do not believe that the international community would come to our aid in a serious confrontation (the U.N. is still in a pissing match against the U.S. for invading Iraq, North Korea has everyone second-guessing their intelligence agencies to avoid another "Iraq has WMDs!" fiasco and Iran has everyone kicking the crap out of each other trying to figure out what to do without losing their precious oil/without military action/without having the U.S. go off on its own again).
Suggested tags (Score:3, Funny)
Suggested misspelling doubling as political commentary on the US government: hypocracy
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that you are exaggerating the differences. Another view is that Isreal and Iran are locked in a regional power struggle. Isreal has a very capable nuclear capability (uses submarines) so a first strike against Isreal is impractical. Isreal would love to see Iran gone as would the US. Their constituency is a little more sophisticated and hence their rhetoric is more refined. But the underlying message is the same.
Also, for months there has been talk in the US of "bunker busting" nukes to be used against Iran's facilities, and knowing this the administration states that "All options" are on the table. So do not think that the stockpiles are simply a "benign" deterrent against attack on the US. This was clearly a provocation. Like the "we'll play poker with you if you show us your cards" deal Ms. Rice offered reciently. Personally, I think that this is meant to isolate Iran and solidify European/US resolve for war down the road.
Iran is a lothesome regime, but the US and Isreal are not the exactly benign innocent lamb-kittens.
Cheers,
-b
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
The most significant real issue is stability, but we've already had the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had more nuclear weapons than Iran could build in two centuries. So the horse is several leagues from that particular barn, though I agree it's in the world's best interests to keep as few nuclear horses from running around as possible.
But at the end of the day, Iran would be crazy NOT to develop nuclear weapons, assuming they look after their own best interests. An American policy that doesn't recognize this and try to overcome it is doomed to failure -- we need a HUGE carrot or a gigantic stick to stop them, and we don't seem willing to do the former or capable (for several more years) of the latter.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Interesting)
Finally, the stability of the US government is much greater [fundforpeace.org] than that of Iran.,/p>
Interesting list, I notice all the states in the green (best) section of the list do NOT have nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Interesting)
If you wonder why Iran mistrusts the US, look up the US's role in the ouster of Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah. How would the US feel about a foreign country that had supported a coup to replace your elected president with a dictatorial monarch? (Not that there's much difference at the moment, but that's a different flame war).
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has wanted to remove Iran's government ever since it came to power. Relationships have historically been bad, originally because the US supported the previous dictator, the Shah of Persia, over the popular and democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh [wikipedia.org]. Iraq was not threatening to build WMDs, but this did not stop Bush.
I think I heard that the Bush administration planned devising a smaller nuclear bomb that could be used in the battlefield or for bunker busting [wikipedia.org]. It is obvious, since there is no longer a nuclear-capable adversary (except North Korea, which is left alone just because of that).
Israel usually denies, but everybody knows they have extensive nuclear capability and that they can deliver it to Iran if they wanted. Attacking a nuclear power far stronger than you are, which is tightly allied to the major nuclear power on the planet with whom you don't have a good relationship to begin with is such a stupid thing not ever Ahmadinejad can possibly contemplate that. On the other hand, nukes have caused the longest period of peace in Europe in centuries, the cold war. If anything, nukes have a stabilising effect as they effectively make it impossible to wage a war in which a side gains something.
No doubt about that, but an invasion did not help in Iraq. People were killed before, now they are still killed—only now it's more like random violence. In addition, the country became a gigantic terrorist training ground, so if peace were to come to Iraq we would have a few thousands terrorists on the loose. Want to do it over in Iran?
Sure. But the same can be said about North Korea and especially Pakistan, home to most Talibans. Pakistan is also a dictatorship, but an "aligned" one. In your source about state instability, Iran is 53rd, Pakistan is 9th. If you have to be seriously worried about terrorists getting nukes, that's the most likely place to look at.
If it costs less I find it more likely that the government will keep funding constant and just have more warheads. The weapon industry will surely lobby not to cut into their profits, and they have influence. "You don't want to give the terrorists a sign of weakness by reducing our military expenditure, do you?"
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, right. Tell that to Saddam Hussein.
I'm not going to bother digging out the links, but take a few minutes to google "petrodollar" and "petroeuro" and read up on it. Notice what happens to countries that consider selling oil for something other than dollars. Iraq--invasion on trumped up charges. Venezuela--attempted coup with US backing. Iran?
"the US maintains its stockpiles of nuclear weapons solely to serve as a deterrent against other nations, while Iran's leadership has publicly and repeatedly declared that Israel should not exist as a state and has funded terrorist acts in order to remove it - it may very well use nuclear weapons in a first-strike effort against Israel [...]"
Oh, "we've got that bomb and that is good 'cause we love peace and motherhood?" [aol.com]
Iran's Ayatollah Khameini has explicitly stated that using nuclear weapons is against Islamic rules. [juancole.com] Believe him or not, but remember that the US has explicitly stated that "all options are on the table" and has not explicitly ruled out a nuclear first strike.
Well, one good thing, though. The United States of America has never funded terrorists [wikipedia.org]. We fund "freedom fighters." Big difference.
"And for a third, Iran's government maintains a stranglehold over its people - the people are fairly Westernized as the region goes, and they are interested in legitimate democracy. [...] Finally, the stability of the US government is much greater than that of Iran. The chances of Iran's government collapsing at some point in the future, relegating their nuclear weapons to whoever can get their hands on them first, are significant."
Okay, okay. Now I'm a bit confused.
The reason the current leaders of Iran are in power is because of their stranglehold over their citizens. If it were up to their citizens, they'd throw the bums out and have a legitimate democracy. So, in other words, the biggest threat to "stability" in Iran is...the forces of democracy? And these people might get ahold of nuclear weapons?
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference between Iran wanting to build a new nuclear weapon and the US wanting to build a new nuclear weapon is vastly significant in my opinion. I think it's light years away from a, "do what we say, not what we do" situation. The US *currently* possess a nuclear weapons capability, and it has for over half a century, while Iran -- we hope -- doesn't yet have the means to produce a destructive nuclear device.
At this point, any new nuclear weapons program in the US will do little more than refine existing US nuclear capabilities. It likely won't increase the number of nuclear weapons in the US stockpile, nor will it increase the yield of the average nuclear weapon. The program seems geared towards producing a new mainstay weapon for the US arsenal that's easier to maintain than what the US has right now.
The DOE has a brief document [doe.gov] explaining why the US needs a new nuclear weapon. Again, the prime reason behind the initiative seems to be a maintenance issue, not a military need. Considering that the US nuclear weapons program, in its heyday, produced gems like the "Atomic Annie" [wikipedia.org] mobile artillery piece, as well as the man-portable Davy Crockett [wikipedia.org] nuclear rifle, the current initiative seems mild in comparison. I think it's a stretch to presume that the Iranians should get any moral satisfaction, or a break in the on-going negotiations, simply because US officials see a need to modernize the nation's current Cold War-era nuclear weapons stockpile.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Insightful)
But there is, so far, no evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. And nobody, not even Iran, is arguing that Iran having nuclear weapons would be a good thing. The point of contention relates to nuclear power plants. Under 1968's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nations have the right to develop nuclear power [wikipedia.org], including enriching their own uranium.
What we (that is, the U.S., Germany, and a few other nations) are trying to block is Iran's uranium enrichment program, instead insisting that they purchase enriched uranium from us.
Iran, however, does not want to be dependent on foreign nations for their energy needs, as they are familiar with where that sort of thing leads.
They have in the past said they'd allow inspectors from the IAEA, but that giving up their enrichment program altogether was non-negotiable.
We have refused to negotiate on allowing enrichment, even overseen by IAEA inspectors. So, because of our complete unwillingness to negotiate, they now have an on-going, and uninspected, uranium enrichment program going on.
And, if they've learned anything from the lessons of Iraq and North Korea, they will now be doing all they can to develop nuclear weapons, knowing that we won't invade if they have them, but we almost certainly will if they don't.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not an either/or proposition -- voting out the Amerikkkan fascists in November* doesn't mean that they'll be replaced by a bunch of Iranian mullahs.
* Difficult to do, I admit, when the Democrats respond exactly the same as the Republicans 98% of the time.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative to ignorant and misguided use of military force is informed and wise usage of military force.
The main cause of the current disaster in Iraq is that the invasion and post-invasion rebuilding were planned and executed under the direction of folks who were actively misinformed and ignorant of basic facts of the Middle East and Iraq. For instance, "crusade" is the absolute worst word to use to describe a policy in the Mideast, but GWB used it. Turkish involvement in Iraq would bring back memories of the Ottoman Empire, but some idiots thought that all Muslims are alike, so involving Turkey would smooth things over; anybody who could count the population of Iraq figured it would take about 300,000 troops, but Shinseki was shitcanned and we went in with half that number; Iraq had nothing to do with (and Saddam Hussein was absolutely opposed to the agenda of) Islamic fundamentalism and Al Qaeda, but the Bush administration seems to actually believe it's political rhetoric tying those together; Iraq was a barely cohesive entity made up of three distinct ethnic/religious groups with no history of peacful and democratic co-existence, but the administration believed it could be magically turned into a multi-party multi-ethnic democracy overnight.
Somebody who knew anything about Iraq, for example, the British experience there in the 1920's and 1930's, would have agreed with GHWB's decision that toppling Saddam Hussein would cause mass disruption and create a fertile environment for lots of stuff bad for America to happen. In fact, they might have recognized that the main threats to America on Sept 12th 2001 were something like 1) Al Qaeda based in Afghanistan 2) North Korea 3) Pakistan 4) Iran
Can we suggest replacing fucking idiotic incompetent faith-based morons with capable, intelligent, fact-based experts without being labeled as wimps?
And, by the way, the primary reason Bill Clinton didn't get Osama bin Laden with cruise missiles is because our "ally in the war on terror" Pakistan tipped him off.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Insightful)
When the US stops making the world a worse place to live in for all non-US citizens, we'll stop criticizing your politics.
And tell me, how exactly would you know what other countries' citizens are focused on ? I assume you visited each and every one of those countries ? Or at least have access to their mainstream media ? You do speak other languages, right ?
What the US should be focused on internally is educating its people. Stop this celebration of stupidity. You don't need a president you would like to have a beer with, you need a president who can run the @#!? country !
Teach people that issues are almost never black and white.
Teach them that being criticial on human rights abuses by the US does NOT mean you can't also be critical on human rights abuses by other countries.
But hey, making "France surrenders" jokes is much more fun, right ?
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't make fun of rednecks to feel better about myself (I feel fine, thank you, I don't need to measure my self-worth against anyone else), I make fun of them because they deserve to be made fun of. That whole "culture" is about being proud of being an ignorant fool. It's about preferring "likable" over "competent". It's when being perceived as a good guy by others (going to church, putting flags everywhere, ...) becomes more important than actually being a good guy. This behaviour is certainly not exclu
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
This behaviour is certainly not exclusive to Americans, it's just that's it's so incredibly obvious in their case.
I think it is not so much that it is more obvious, particularly (I can't think of the last time any nation didn't act in a manner that didn't stink to high heaven of unenlightened self-interest, nor can I think of any people or nation who hasn't had similar lapses of taste or sense as Redneck [tm] Americans). I think rather it is problematic because it matters more. Simply, when the next-door neighbor is a jackass, it isn't that big a deal...unless he's got fistfuls of dollars and 'guns, lots of guns'. Similarly, if Liechtenstein were as assholey as the US, nobody would particularly care.
This, incidentally, is why it is perfectly reasonable for people who are not Americans (disclaimer, I am an American) to take a great interest in, and criticize, US policy: it affects their lives, sometimes in ways more profound than the actions of their own governments (Think, in particular, Columbia, though there are other obvious examples). I do not think it appropriate to deny the legitimacy of the complaints of people who are aggreived by the actions of a neighbor.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Insightful)
Now you tell me how that "matters more". It has nothing to do with which action is more important, or more harmful. People around the world simply take pleasure in ragging on the Americans. It's like the way Americans used to talk about blacks back in the 50's. "Damn n***rs causing all our problems. It's their fault wer don't have jobs. Uneducated savages. They keep murdering people. Criminals.".
Every culture, every country, needs someone to demonize. Most of the world has picked the USA to fill that role. The only unusual thing here is that most Americans have picked their own government to play that role for them.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Informative)
No. They just don't want us to turn them into a bunch of Devout Christians -- or, worse yet, a bunch of dead Muslims.
The US has already forced a regime change in Iran in the early '60s -- It was fear of a repeat of that that led to the hostage taking in 1979. The US responded by trashing the political fortunes of every moderate (then) alive within Iran. Since then the US has been making noises about overthrowing their government (again).
Fears of the US trying again have intensified since Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and started sabre-rattling at Iraq's neighbours.
It's a bit disappointing, but not a complete shock that Iran decided to push for a nuclear option. The US reneging on it's own non-proliferation responsibilities doesn't really help them (or any body else) feel safe about US intentions in the future.
Parable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Insightful)
He got the date wrong. Look it up [google.co.uk] if you want. Operation Ajax [wikipedia.org], 1953. It's not exactly a secret or anything, however they don't teach it in school and I don't think the movie is out yet. This is one of the cornerstones of why some islamists have issues with the USA.
And it wasn't a popular revolution. Popular revolutions by definition do not involve outside funding and state-sponsored terrorist campaigns.
The overthrowing of a democratically elected government in 1953 Iran was the first of MANY such operations. The US has overthrown more democracies that it has "created". It's all about the magical word..."socialist". Elect one of them and you are Fuxored.
Threatening to build nuclear weapons in 5 years isn't a normal reaction from those who are afraid of an imminent threat.
Iran is making no such threat. We are the ones talking of them building nukes in five years, not them.
So it looks like another war might be neccesary after all. You figured they'd have learned from Iraq's example, but common sense seems to be in short supply in the middle east.
another? Which previous war was also "neccesary". This I can't wait to hear...
Common sense? You clearly haven't been following the news. Numerous leaked memos and whistle-blowers have come forward to prove that the Iraq invasion was going to proceed regardless of any diplomacy. Any "diplomacy" you saw was to placate YOU and the international community. The PNAC have been planing that one since 1997 [newamericancentury.org]. These plans involve using Iraq as a gateway to the middle east. Irans recent nuclear sabre-rattling has nothing to do with the fact that the PNAC has their sights on them. They've had their crosshairs aimed for several years, they are just looking for a justification to do it now.
Often I wonder how great nations allow bad things to happen. How populations can turn a blind eye to what is going on in their name. Your ignorance has helped me understand this problem greatly. Thank you, thank you very much.
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, getting little things like "facts" wrong tends to be a common theme amongst those who take pleasure in blaming the US for everything.
Incorrectly stating a date is not "facts", it's details. When it happened is not relevant to this debate. But I'm not defending someone elses post, nor should it be valid critism of the central point here.
The UK came up with the plan and pursued it, the US agreed to assist. So why, pray tell, is the US the country being blamed?
Who said the UK wasn't to blame? It was the UKs idea but "agreed to assist" grossly downplays the USA's involvement. The CIA did most of the work, managed by Americans.
Ofcourse, the revisionist historians who see this as some blatant power-grab, or the removal of a "democratic" regime for political purposes, all fail to acknowledge the realities of that time period.
How much hypocracy can you get in one sentance? You refer to the time period (start of the cold war); how could this be anything other than a "power grab"? It's a power grab if the soviets take the country and it's exactly the same when you do it. The entire cold war was one big power grab; the later invention of the ICBM changed all that of course. Back then, power was territory. Turkey, Afganistan, Cuba, they all had conflicts due to these cold war power grabs. They also had short-range missles stationed on them, pointing at the enemy. But hey, the US had the Iranian peoples best interest in mind all along, right?
Back then Global Communism under a totalitarian USSR was much more threatening and terrifying than the prospect of a Global Islamist Caliphate is today.
Bull. This is before the legacy of Stalin. Prior to that asshat, there was no reason to fear Communism. The fact that you capitalise "Global Communism" suggests that you disagree with me on this for ideological reasons. If Stalin wanted to promote Communism, he'd have been better off never being born!
By the way, there is no threat of a "Global Islamist Caliphate". Never was. All we have here is a bunch of people screaming "get out of my country" then after 40 years of that some fly some planes into some buildings. They have no desire to take over the world. They don't want the whole world to be islamic (well, a couple do, but we have our own Christian equivalents in Fallwell etc). Their goals are clear and stated every other month. Get out of the middle east. Stop dicking around with their goverments. Stop supporting repressive brutal dictatorships. Never once have I seen Al Qaida say "global islam" or anything along those lines.
A revolution in an Iran increasingly leaning towards communism (and sharing a border with the USSR) was a logical way to avoid more intense warfare later on. And, as history shows, NATO nations won the Cold War without having to fight much.
Complete conjecture. Would Iran being communist be any worse than the current state of affairs? Without a time machine we cannot answer that. I'd argue that the cold war turning into real war was always unlikely, due to the M.A.D. brought about by the nukes. The 1953 revolution in Iran is largely responsible for the anti-US feeling over there. It could be argued that the majority of terror has roots in this event.
As for the rest of your nonsense, the time for diplomacy in Iraq came and passed in the 1990's. Sadam survived one war, years of inspections and negotiations, followed by years of sanctions. Negotiating any more at that point was sheer lunacy.
No, thinking that invading was an improvement was lunacy. I'll argree that the situation was pretty dire over there with Saddam in charge. But I'd like to see anyone make a convincing argument that the current situation is better. Or that it will be better in five years. You do realise that we are now there forever? We have built 15 or so permament bases. Most of the US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia (long term deterent stationing) have been moved to Iraq. And the his
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:3, Insightful)
lol, very true! When it comes to messing up the middle east, you guys learned from the best! (us)
If that's the way you see it, you have SERIOUSLY misunderstood geo-politics in the 20th century my friend. The US hasn't been an expansionist nation in centuries.
It depends on how you define expansionist. For the soviets it was making the USSR itself bigger. For the west it was establishing "democ
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Insightful)
The Arab world (and indeed most of the third world including Africa, Indochina and South America) hate the Western powers not because they are democratic, but because they are exploitative fascists. The west is always pulling stunts like this [democracyctr.org] which is why there are so many "terrorists" out there trying to bring the west down. The moment the US stops trying to act like a global dictator the sooner crazy lunatics will stop flying planes into US buildings.
Get a grip. And get rid of that huge gas guzzling 4x4 you use to haul your collection of shotguns around in.
No military or half the worlds military? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, the states need a military to defend itself from 'rival nations marching in'. However, does the US expect half the world to come marching in? Because last I checked, the US military budget is half of the annual spendings on defense worldwide. Yes, that's right folks, the US spends half of all the money spent on defense. Also, 80% of the increase in military spending was due to the US last year. ( see for instance http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spen
I hate to break the news to you, but the US does not have a defensive army. You have a mostly offensive army which is basically strong enough to take on the rest of the world.
"Remember, there are no world police."
Yes there is. It's the states. Although police implies a force controlled by some agreed upon laws, and without it's own interests. This is not the case. The police here is governend by _your_ laws, and guided by _your_ interests, with a guiding principle of fear, feeded by _your_ government because some fscking Saudi Arab made up some so-called global terrorist group which is _absolutely_ no threat to the imperialist empire the states have become.
Re:No military or half the worlds military? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only that, but according to these figures, the amount the US spends is half of their own discretionary spending budget [deviantart.com] on warfare.
Eisenhower touched on this in his leaving speach. He was concerned that WW2 had set in motion a new wave of US industry; weaponry. He believed that it had the potential to corrupt the country. He was essentially right; the arms industry is one of the most influential industries around now.
Re:No military or half the worlds military? (Score:3, Insightful)
You could be making just as good money building more useful stuff. Except, of course, there arent any state funds for the more useful stuff because they're used for military stuff.
Dont kid yourself, excessive military industry is a net loss for the citizens and the economy as a whole; like with any other artificial transfer of funds the jobs and resources gained in one sector are lost in other sectors, and the non-competetive output is usu
Re:Remember Iran: (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever hear of a dirty cop?
Re:I wonder who is the target (Score:4, Insightful)
p.s. And before the knee jerkers decide to blame Bush for this, realize that these bombs were there under Carter and Clinton, and would still be here even if Gore and Kerry had won.
Re:I wonder who is the target (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wonder who is the target (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I wonder who is the target (Score:3, Interesting)
Only thinking about today's threats is a shortsighted way to run your military, we've already paid a price for not thinking beyond the USSR. There isn't another superpower around today, but what about 20 years from now?
Having 6000 nuclear bombs does not mean you are going to use 6000 nuclear bombs. Its about survivability. The more bombs you have, and the more spread out they are, the less likely it is than an enemy can neutralize them all in a preemptive
Re:I wonder who is the target (Score:3, Funny)
To begin with, you need to clear your head of the misconception that Al Qaeda is any more of a threat to the world than drunk driving. Next, realize that the point of this research is to remain on top, which is the only way to "win" when nuclear is an option. Nuclear ordnance is not built to be used, at least not in the last half-century. It's buil
Re:Sweet (Score:3, Funny)
Yes and no (Score:5, Interesting)
But it gets better. Instead of U-238, you can surround the fusion stage with "salt", a non-radioactive isotope that is transmuted into a highly radioactive isotope from the resulting neutron bombardment. The most infamous candidate is Cobalt-59. In a fission-fusion-fission bomb with the last "fission" stage omitted and a Cobalt-59 jacket substituted, the neutron flux will turn most of it into Cobalt-60 and the blast will scatter it across the land. Cobalt-60 is very unique, in that it puts out enough gamma rays to be very lethal (as in you *will* die if exposed to it for longer than a month or so. Not die as in die of cancer 20 years from now--you'll succumb to radiation poisoning), yet it has a relatively long half-life--around five years.
In another thread someone joked that nuclear weapons were passe--that we should be moving on to antimatter or something. Trust me, nuclear is quite scary enough. Depending on the wind conditions, a single bomb could quite literally destroy all life on the east coast of the USA. Make no mistake about it, if we really wanted to we could build enough Cobalt bombs to destroy all life on the planet. We take comfort in the fact that we're not crazy enough to do something like that, but I am not entirely convinced that Iran is similarly sane. MAD (Mutually Assured Distruction) worked against the relatively rational, aetheistic Soviets... but now we're up against cultures and ideologies that glorify martyrdom and kamikaze attacks to a ridiculous degree. I'm really not sure what's going to happen, but I feel most people in this country have become far to complacent, far too comfortable with the idea of nuclear weapons that everyone has but no one uses.
Let me hasten to say that on the other end of the spectrum are the retards who become hysterical every time the word "radiation" or "nuclear" is mentioned (fun fact--a single coal power plant pumps more radioactive particles into our atmosphere and water supply in a year than the three mile island accident), but we shouldn't forget that in the wrong hands, these weapons have very real potential as doomsday devices.
Re:fission to fusion (Score:4, Interesting)
Ummm, no. A fusion bomb is called a staged thermonuclear weapon. It uses a plutonium trigger to ignite a fusion reaction. The yield of the weapon is adjusted by manipulating the amount of deuterium injected into the weapons core milliseconds before the trigger is set off. It is in reality a fission bomb augmented with fusible hydrogen.
Fission bombs typically yield in the kilo-ton range. They produce fallout of radioactive decay products (radioactive strontium, iodine, etc) and unspent plutonium. They also create what is known as an electro-magnetic pulse which is deadly to computers and electronics.
H-bombs are every bit as dirty as fission bombs. They yield in the mega-ton range. As they are souped-up fission bombs, they have similar fall-out. As the fusion reaction is much more energetic than a fission reaction, there are even worse effects. If the H-bomb hits the ground, ordinary materials- dirt, bricks, motor, etc- is irradiated causing even more problems. The gamma-flash of an h-bomb will kill any exposed persons for a radius of many miles. The optical flash will blind anyone looking in its direction for 10s of miles. EMP effects from H-bombs are equally impressive creating massive power, electronic and computer disruptions.
The biggest h-bomb ever set off was ~50 megatons by the Russians on a small island off Kamchatka. That particular bomb could theoretically yield as much as 100 megatons. They toned it down for testing purposes.
There was a big difference in the design philosophy between nukes of the US and USSR. American missile technology was much more precise than the Soviets with the early ICBMs so the US made smaller, cleaner warheads. The Soviets on the other hand designed their nukes for the biggest possible bang. Although Soviet missile accuracy improved in the late 70s and 80s, their warheads were essentially the same- big, honking H-bombs.
Another type of nuke was designed in the 70s called a neutron warhead. It was designed not for its explosive potential but the ability to cause a deadly pulse of radiation which would kill all humans (I've always wanted to work that into a conversation somehow.) who aren't in hardened shelters. This is a very "clean" but ghoulish weapon designed in anticipation of a super-power conflict in Europe. [Since Europeans were tired of being bombed flat, I suppose being zapped like a frog in a microwave was an easier sell.]
As an old Cold Warrior era fossil, I hate nukes. They suck in every conceivable way. They are NOT a warrior's weapon. They are weapons of indiscriminate murder killing warrior and innocent alike. Their cost is obscene considering all the other uses that money could be put too.
IMHO there is no such thing as a good nuke, only the ones necessary to make retaliation to an attack suicidal.
It seems reasonable that another redesign would try to produce more efficient fusion bombs
The nukes that are being considered are small: 20-60 kilotons. NOT fusion weapons. They are essentially bunker busters on steroids.
which is only a good thing.
I don't think it's a good thing at all. Creating a small, battlefield nuke makes using one more likely.
Nukes aren't battlefield weapons. They are political weapons. Using one could start a chain reaction that no one could possibly predict.
Thermonuclear weapons 101 (Score:4, Interesting)
There are essentially two nuclear bombs within a thermonuclear weapon. There is a fission bomb and a fusion bomb. The fission bomb is needed to detonate the fusion part.
The fission part, at one end of the bomb casing, consists of an initiator (neutron generator), a sphere of fissile material (plutonium), and a neutron reflector (IIRC, natural uranium tamper) all wrapped in a spherical set of explosive lenses. The entire fission device is a sphere. The fusion part is behind a radiation shield, and is cylindrical. Coming through this shield is an enriched uranium "spark plug" that goes from the fission bomb and up the centre of the cylinder of fusion fuel. The fusion fuel is a solid fuel - lithium deuteride.
Around this cylinder of fusion fuel is a natural uranium tamper. Then there is a layer of polystrene, and the bomb casing. So essentially you have a cylinder that consists of bomb casing, polystyrene, natural uranium tamper, lithium deuteride and the highly enriched uranium 'spark plug'.
The sequence of events in detonation is that the explosive lenses are detonated around the fission first stage. This causes the contents of the spherical fission stage to implode - increasing the density of the fission bomb. When it is assembled into a critical mass, the initiator is fired, which fires neutrons into this highly compressed mass of plutonium. It starts to fission. The goal of the design is to keep this mass assembled for as long as possible - the longer you can keep the critical mass assemble before the nuclear reaction blows it apart, the better the efficiency.
The fission bomb is now emitting a significant amount of prompt radiation. Most of this won't reach the fusion part just yet because of the radiation shield. However, X-rays are now vaporizing the polystyrene wrapping the cylinder of fusion fuel. This enormously compresses the tamper, the lithium deuteride and the spark plug into a tiny fraction of its original volume. At the same time, the spark plug starts fissioning. Basically, a bomb the size of the Nagasaki bomb is being used to crush this cylinder of fusion fuel. The fusion reaction starts taking place. Again, the bomb is designed to keep all this stuff assembled for long enough that a significant fusion reaction can occur - and this time is measured in tens of nanoseconds. Finally, the fusion reaction's energy starts the natural uranium tamper fissioning - the third stage - adding yet more power to the explosion.
All this has to be exquisitely timed or you just spread some radioactive material around rather than start a nuclear reaction. If one of the explosive lenses in the fission device explodes a couple of nanoseconds late, the bomb won't go off.
Eventually (eventually, as I said, is measured in nanoseconds) the energy liberated starts to disassemble the bomb, and the reaction completes. By the time the bomb casing has started to break apart, the nuclear reaction has finished.
As you can see, there are several stages to this reaction. Any fault in the bomb will mean it either won't detonate at all or will "fizzle" (in this instance, a "fizzle" means only enough energy to blow up, say, Long Island). Various components in the bomb degrade - the electronics, the explosives and the plastics. If any degrade sufficiently it's likely the bomb simply won't go off at all.
Re:I hope I'm not over simplifying here but... (Score:3, Insightful)