NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think of testing Nukes?
Why was it done? Was it justified? Can't you calculate everything that happens without ever blowing one up?
What about the people that live close by? The French have problems with the Polynesians near Mururoa and the US has a fund that pays out money to everyone close to a site (if they get sick). Novya Semlya is pretty much cleared of all life.

If your country announced a test tomorrow, what would you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing

A Big Bang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

A black dot in the Chinese desert (Oh, where could it come from....):
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.722602,88.736184&spn=0.3,0.3&t=k

What do you think of testing Nukes?
Why was it done? Was it justified? Can't you calculate everything that happens without ever blowing one up?
What about the people that live close by? The French have problems with the Polynesians near Mururoa and the US has a fund that pays out money to everyone close to a site (if they get sick). Novya Semlya is pretty much cleared of all life.

If your country announced a test tomorrow, what would you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing

A Big Bang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

A black dot in the Chinese desert (Oh, where could it come from....):
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.722602,88.736184&spn=0.3,0.3&t=k

If John Howard announced Australia was going to start developing, let alone testing, nuclear weapons, I'd be out in the street protesting ASAP.

If John Howard announced Australia was going to start developing, let alone testing, nuclear weapons, I'd be out in the street protesting ASAP.

Ditto.

What do you guys think about the British tests here then?

"The lands were the scene of UK nuclear testing and contaminated with radioactive waste in the 1950s. Maralinga was surveyed by Len Beadell in the early 1950s, and followed the survey of the site called Emu Field, which was further north.

On September 27, 1956, Operation Buffalo commenced at Maralinga. The operation consisted of the testing of four nuclear devices, codenamed One Tree, Marcoo, Kite and Breakaway. One Tree and Breakaway were exploded from towers, Marcoo was exploded at ground level and Kite was released by a Royal Air Force Vickers Valiant bomber from a height of 30,000 ft (9,144 m). This was the first launching of a British atomic weapon from an aircraft.

Operation Antler followed in 1957. Antler was designed to test the triggering mechanisms of the weapons. Three tests began in September, codenamed Tadje, Biak and Taranaki. The first two tests were conducted from towers, the last was suspended from balloons. Yields from the weapons were 1 kiloton, 6 kilotons and 25 kilotons respectively.

The local Aboriginal people were not warned effectively of the explosions and many suffered terrible after-effects from fallout. British and Australian servicemen were purposely exposed to fallout from the blasts, to see what happened. These facts came out in a Royal Commission between 1984 and 1985. Previously many of the facts were kept from the public.

Despite the governments of Australia and the UK paying for an expensive cleanup concerns were expressed that the lands were nowhere near ready, much of the more radioactive leftovers from the tests have been stabilised."

Why would they explode the bombs, when they could check components on their own, and calculate the effects of a full test in advance?

The Maralinga tests were not a high point in Australia's history. If I remember rightly, Menzies was PM. He was a huge fan of the Poms (much like the Howard-Bush relationship today) & would have done just about anything for them. It's pretty shameful that we thought so little of the aboriginals & servicemen that we could cold-heartedly experiment on them. I remember the Royal Commission in the 80s & remember being shocked by what was revealed.

Nuclear testing was bound to happen--the scientists and the generals wanted to find out how they work. The atmospheric nuclear tests were a great mistake in retrospect, but at first there was no alternative. The things like Totsk exercise in 1954, where thousands of soldiers ran across the place where an A-bomb had just been detonated, were totally unwarrantable.

If Russia decides to test tomorrow, I'll support it, although without enthusiasm. It is a good thing to know that those devices work properly, but it would be nothing more than a PR move for Putin ('Just look how strong are we!')

So long as nuclear testing is conducted deep underground, and an effort is made to create "cleaner" bombs, and as long as the testing is conducted by stable regimes like China, Russia, USA, UK, France, and India rather than regimes that support terrorism or are likely to be overthrown I'm in favor.

Can't you calculate everything that happens without ever blowing one up?
[/url]

Well, not exactly.
I read about one of the first tests
of our hydrogen bombs and when they
blew it up, it was way more powerful than
they thought, and it left a crater much
bigger than anyone expected.
We would have to test them out
to make sure we get no unpleasent
surprises when, (God forbid) we have to
actually have to use one. i.e. Failure of
the bomb to detonate properly, premature
detonation, more radioactivity then
expected, or the EMP that can knock
out everything electrical and bring technology
to a standstill. That happened a few times
when they were testing in the desert and in the
Pacific when the electrical systems went haywire
in Hawaii and in Vegas as well from the tests.
At first, they had no idea that coulod happen.

Nuclear testing was bound to happen--the scientists and the generals wanted to find out how they work. The atmospheric nuclear tests were a great mistake in retrospect, but at first there was no alternative. The things like Totsk exercise in 1954, where thousands of soldiers ran across the place where an A-bomb had just been detonated, were totally unwarrantable.

If Russia decides to test tomorrow, I'll support it, although without enthusiasm. It is a good thing to know that those devices work properly, but it would be nothing more than a PR move for Putin ('Just look how strong are we!')

hehe, hell, if Iran tests a nuke, I am going to laugh my ass off. It will definately put the Isralies on edge. I mean, what are they going to do, nuke Iran? Did you guys hear about an Isreali scientist who stated that every european capitol can be nuked with their new missiles? He said it could be in retaliation for all of the "discrimination" the Jewish people went through in Europe. i find that comment way more troubling than hearing Iran is making a bomb. What do you guys think?

I believe nuclear testing was required during the infancy of the Atomic Age, though many mistakes were made. The need for nuclear testing now is pretty much zero. However, should a new bomb be developed and the government want to test it, I would not care under the following conditions:

1. The test is conducted in an area where environmental damage is negligible, and can mostly be contained.
2. No more of this crap where nukes are exploded near inhabited islands or areas. This has been done by the US in the Marshall Islands and by many other countries including Britain and France.
3. Proper measures are used to clean the area as much as possible of radioactivity as the conclusion of the test or test series.

Although, the likelyhood of a democratic government announcing to its people the testing of a secret, newly developed bomb isn't high.

I believe nuclear testing was required during the infancy of the Atomic Age, though many mistakes were made. The need for nuclear testing now is pretty much zero. However, should a new bomb be developed and the government want to test it, I would not care under the following conditions:

1. The test is conducted in an area where environmental damage is negligible, and can mostly be contained.
2. No more of this crap where nukes are exploded near inhabited islands or areas. This has been done by the US in the Marshall Islands and by many other countries including Britain and France.
3. Proper measures are used to clean the area as much as possible of radioactivity as the conclusion of the test or test series.

Although, the likelyhood of a democratic government announcing to its people the testing of a secret, newly developed bomb isn't high.

You do have a really good point there. We dont need them as much any more, but I am a little worried about China ramping up its nuclear program though, and the taiwan problem. What do you think?

hehe, hell, if Iran tests a nuke, I am going to laugh my ass off. It will definately put the Isralies on edge. I mean, what are they going to do, nuke Iran? Did you guys hear about an Isreali scientist who stated that every european capitol can be nuked with their new missiles? He said it could be in retaliation for all of the "discrimination" the Jewish people went through in Europe. i find that comment way more troubling than hearing Iran is making a bomb. What do you guys think?

I think the Israeli scientist was probably drunk or taking drugs. MAD is still a viable strategy when considered on the national scale. Launching nukes on the grounds of "discrimination" is both whacked out and can be paired with actions like wearing a sign saying "shoot me". Israel might devastate Europe. But Europe, being also nuclear capable (at least some of them), would wipe Israel from the face of the planet.

Fortunately, I don't think the Israeli administration is that psychotic...yet.

hehe, hell, if Iran tests a nuke, I am going to laugh my ass off. It will definately put the Isralies on edge. I mean, what are they going to do, nuke Iran? Did you guys hear about an Isreali scientist who stated that every european capitol can be nuked with their new missiles? He said it could be in retaliation for all of the "discrimination" the Jewish people went through in Europe. i find that comment way more troubling than hearing Iran is making a bomb. What do you guys think?
If Israel uses their nuclear weapons they will target the Arab nations surrounding them and possibly Iran. They won't target Europe because although Europe doesn't support Israel it also hasn't pledged to destroy Israel.

Europe doesn't support Israel
It depends on what kind of support we're talking about. They may not pay as much as the Americans do, but support is there nonetheless.
At least in Germany.

I'm all for testing the nuclear bombs provided that those doing the testing already don't have them and can't get them due to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. However, those that already have nukes, should be allowed to test them.

While I believe every civilized country (ie those that can be trusted not to actually use them) should maintain a nuclear deterrent, there really isnt any need to do any testing beyond what has already been done. We already have enought nuclear weapons to deter anyone else fom using them.

Its not like some rogue state will get hold of a nuclear weapon and launch it at a major nation on the off chance that their inadequately tested weapons dont work. Nuclear testing is just showing off. It achieves nothing and makes a mess.

Saying that, the mushroom clouds sure are pretty.

I'm all for testing the nuclear bombs provided that those doing the testing already don't have them and can't get them due to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. However, those that already have nukes, should be allowed to test them.
While I believe every civilized country (ie those that can be trusted not to actually use them) should maintain a nuclear deterrent...

So where do you make the distinction between a civilised, sensible nation that should have nukes and one that isn't allowed to? What are the criteria?

What do you think of testing Nukes?
Why was it done? Was it justified? Can't you calculate everything that happens without ever blowing one up?
What about the people that live close by? The French have problems with the Polynesians near Mururoa and the US has a fund that pays out money to everyone close to a site (if they get sick). Novya Semlya is pretty much cleared of all life.

If your country announced a test tomorrow, what would you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_testing

A Big Bang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

A black dot in the Chinese desert (Oh, where could it come from....):
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.722602,88.736184&spn=0.3,0.3&t=k



We can already obliterate the entire world several times over, what's left to test? :confused:

bump.
Or should I say "boom"?

So where do you make the distinction between a civilised, sensible nation that should have nukes and one that isn't allowed to? What are the criteria?
Unfortunately there are none. Talking about the prescedents--the People's Republic of China in the 60s was not very sensible, IMHO. Nevertheless, the Chinese have never been close to using their bombs.

As for North Korea--nothing prevents it from building more bombs, because Mr Kim withdrew his country from the NPT several years ago. It's a sad situation.

I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with testing nuclear weapons if it's done with all the necessary precautions to avoid harm to the environment or to human beings.

However, a more important issue in my mind is that of the various test ban treaties that many nuclear capable nations have agreed to in good faith. The US in particular has signed several test ban treaties, and I think that it goes without saying that it would be wrong for the US or other countires to violate treaties signed in good faith.

...The US in particular has signed several test ban treaties, and I think that it goes without saying that it would be wrong for the US or other countires to violate treaties signed in good faith.
What about those Nuclear Bunkerbusters then? I assume they'll be tested somehow.

I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with testing nuclear weapons if it's done with all the necessary precautions to avoid harm to the environment or to human beings.

However, a more important issue in my mind is that of the various test ban treaties that many nuclear capable nations have agreed to in good faith. The US in particular has signed several test ban treaties, and I think that it goes without saying that it would be wrong for the US or other countires to violate treaties signed in good faith.
Nobody expects some country violating the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, but the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996 has not entered into force. Therefore, nothing in international law prevents the US or any other country from underground nuclear testing.

What about those Nuclear Bunkerbusters then? I assume they'll be tested somehow.
Well, I might be wrong, but the actual treaties the US has ratified limit it to testing nukes with less than 150 kiloton yield, and all testing must be done underground. So smaller tactical nuclear weapons testing wouldn't constitute a treaty violation.

The US has also signed, but not ratified, a treaty banning all testing whatsoever. I find this slightly hypocritical since the US vocally encourages nations to abandon nuclear testing and to ratify the treaty, but won't do so itself.

So I personally think that given the US's attitude towards other people testing weapons, the US itself should refrain, but I suppose it's better to not join the treaty than to break the treaty as the US would innevitably do once it proved inconvenient.

Well, I might be wrong, but the actual treaties the US has ratified limit it to testing nukes with less than 150 kiloton yield, and all testing must be done underground. So smaller tactical nuclear weapons testing wouldn't constitute a treaty violation.
Olantia is pretty much always right about stuff like that...

Olantia is pretty much always right about stuff like that...
hehe, I hope so! I'm pretty sure I was agreeing with him!

Well, I might be wrong, but the actual treaties the US has ratified limit it to testing nukes with less than 150 kiloton yield, and all testing must be done underground. ...
IIRC it was some US-Soviet treaty from the 70s.

The US has also signed, but not ratified, a treaty banning all testing whatsoever. I find this slightly hypocritical since the US vocally encourages nations to abandon nuclear testing and to ratify the treaty, but won't do so itself.

So I personally think that given the US's attitude towards other people testing weapons, the US itself should refrain, but I suppose it's better to not join the treaty than to break the treaty as the US would innevitably do once it proved inconvenient.
The US signed the CTBT, so it is would be erm... bad form to discourage others from adopting that treaty... :)

Olantia is pretty much always right about stuff like that...
Thanks. :)

the design of the nuclear bobm can be different so to test them for real i guess u could make a smaller bomb size 1/2 or 1/3 of hiroshima bomb and test it underground in remote area ,like india and pakistan did that way wont be polution on surface- i am for that kind of testing.and iam not for massive bomb testings [on surface] -theres no need for that. .

I've been thinking about nuclear testing... is it possible to test a bomb clandestinely today? Something along the lines of the Vela incident, setting off a bomb in some remote ocean region when the weather is bad.

I've been thinking about nuclear testing... is it possible to test a bomb clandestinely today? Something along the lines of the Vela incident, setting off a bomb in some remote ocean region when the weather is bad.
I don't think it is possible on the surface. Even if the weather is bad, that just means that the crap is being blown all over the place (so maybe it'll be in smaller doses) and that the ocean is still contaminated. They reckon Mururoa is a timebomb now because the stone on the ocean floor is contaminated and might break soon, leaving the ocean there radioactive.
Underground tests, maybe. But you still can't tell what tectonic movement or we ourselves will have done to that area in a thousand years or so.

I don't think it is possible on the surface. Even if the weather is bad, that just means that the crap is being blown all over the place (so maybe it'll be in smaller doses) and that the ocean is still contaminated. They reckon Mururoa is a timebomb now because the stone on the ocean floor is contaminated and might break soon, leaving the ocean there radioactive.
Underground tests, maybe. But you still can't tell what tectonic movement or we ourselves will have done to that area in a thousand years or so. exactly thats why it should be done in remote tectonicly stabile areas and the energy of a strong earthquaqe is few atom bombs so small explosion is not a problem and it doesnt create concenquenses for next 1000 year,presumably that theres only 1 testing ever done in the same area.

exactly thats why it should be done in remote tectonicly stabile areas and the energy of a strong earthquaqe is few atom bombs so small explosion is not a problem and it doesnt create concenquenses for next 1000 year,presumably that theres only 1 testing ever done in the same area.
It would have to be a very small nuke. The biggest one ever tested (I have a link in the first post) was detected by the Seismographs three times around the world.

What's a "nucular" weapon? ;)

It would have to be a very small nuke. The biggest one ever tested (I have a link in the first post) was detected by the Seismographs three times around the world. russians tested a hydrogen nuke
hundreds of times bigger then of hiroshima in siberia,but exept for the blast it didnt polute as much because hydrogen [fission-fusion] bombs release less radioactive particles than ordinary fission nukes.

russians tested a hydrogen nuke
hundreds of times bigger then of hiroshima in siberia,but exept for the blast it didnt polute as much because hydrogen [fission-fusion] bombs release less radioactive particles than ordinary fission nukes.
You can build more dirty versions of both though. But even a big Fission Bomb would certainly have the potential to blow a big cave underground - a radioactive cave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

You can build more dirty versions of both though. But even a big Fission Bomb would certainly have the potential to blow a big cave underground - a radioactive cave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba it depends of a type of rock underground if u have lots of silicium and aluminium with low melting temperatures so it would seal off itself from rest of rock in a cocoon, then if u calculate well-u should end up wih a small selfsealed
radioactive cave deep underground in a remote area -not much polution! and 0 polution on surface!

it depends of a type of rock underground if u have lots of silicium and aluminium with low melting temperatures so it would seal off itself from rest of rock in a cocoon, then if u calculate well-u should end up wih a small selfsealed
radioactive cave deep underground in a remote area -not much polution! and 0 polution on surface!
Good.
A small risk remains (who knows if we can remember where the cave is in a thousand years, and what happens if magma comes up from underneath), but that would probably be the best way to test them.
But then - what kind of data does one collect from an underground test?