It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Questions Regarding The Aging 15000 Nuclear Warhead Arsenals.

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2017 @ 11:28 PM
link   
May 14, 2017

With all the recent talk about the use of Nuclear weapons, I looked up how many there are on the planet. The answer is frightening!

""Nine countries together possess around 15,000 nuclear weapons. The United States and Russia maintain roughly 1,800 of their nuclear weapons on high-alert status – ready to be launched within minutes of a warning. Most are many times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. A single nuclear warhead, if detonated on a large city, could kill millions of people, with the effects persisting for decades.""

Source: www.icanw.org...


It bothers me that we (the USA) have at least 6,800 nuclear bombs just sitting around getting old. Some of them probably already have aged a few decades. Therefore, a few questions for those of you who are familiar with the subject...

1. What is the potential for one (or more) of these nuclear weapons to go off ACCIDENTALLY? We hear of regular bombs and fireworks facilities accidentally exploding. An accidental nuclear bomb explosion would be devastating, if it's close enough to a populated region.

2. Are the thousands of U.S.-based nuclear warheads spread out all over the country...or grouped together in clusters? Hopefully they are a good distance from each other, in case one accidentally explodes.

3. If they are spread out, are these locations known? Could some of them be in areas that have become urbanized? (You're eating dinner and a nuclear missile blasts off from under the neighborhood McDonalds.)

4. Are there nuclear missile tune-up/maintenance teams that regularly inspect the (est.) 6,800 warheads/missiles, to ensure that they're stable...and working properly..so that they clear the mainland and not come down on U.S. soil by accident?

5. In the unlikely event the nuclear nations decide to get rid these God-awful weapons, where would they be disposed? Some of the components that make up a nuclear bomb are very poisonous toxic I believe.

Thanks in advance for any knowledge-based responses! Let's hope that mankind will one day realize that nuclear weapons can never be used, and should therefore be totally eliminated from our planet. Or, is it best to keep a very few, in case an incoming asteroid needs to be obliterated?

-CareWeMust




posted on May, 14 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I am in favor of decommissioning all and re purposing the material for nuclear power plants (far away from any oceans deep, deep in the earth that can be flooded within 20 minutes should anything go wrong). You watch films from Bikini Atol experiments and realize just how mad having even a few of these bombs around is.





posted on May, 14 2017 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Then don't we just get another one of these?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Folks better wise up. Our protection is causing our death.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Castle Bravo was a real wake up call, they underestimated the yield significantly..scary stuff.
Maybe close to 100 times the power of what they dropped on Hiroshima..the Russians detonated a 50 megaton device that was scaled down from a 100.
The world is incredibly lucky there were no unintended detonations, while the superpowers were playing with fire.
edit on 14-5-2017 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

That video leaves me speechless. I've seen some vids of nuclear tests, but none that look so "hellish". Looks like it vaporized part of that island!

That was 1954. Was the U.S. satisfied with that yield, and stopped attempting to make even more powerful bombs? Hope so.

Thanks again for sharing that video, SaturnFX.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

i don't know about now but when i was in the Corps i was a guard of a nuclear weapon storage facility.

answers that i know or reasonably sure of.

1. no they are pretty fail safe, but accidents might happen but not just sitting there, they will not go off.
2. yes, there thousands of U.S.-based nuclear warheads spread out all over the country and grouped together in clusters.
i've seen as many as 10 in one magazine, (but that was rare) and there were at iirc 30 mags where i was.
3. yes and no some locations are well known secrets some not, and you would be surprised just how close some people are
to them.
4. yes, they are maintained, on the base i was on they were on a schedule, the Navy ET's would move them on dolly like transports by foot from the mags to their service bays four at a time with us dead on their a@@.
5. can't answer that one first hand but i know that there is a place in the mid west that disposes of nuclear weapon waste and other contaminated material.

this is the base i was on, it was closed a long time ago.
Master Naval Jet Base NAS Cecil Field Jacksonville, Florida Yellow Water Special ( Nuclear) Weapons Storage Facility Magazine

take the picture tour.

edit on 15-5-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

The Russian bomb was about 4 times the power of Bravo


edit on 14-5-2017 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
That is enough nukes to blow up and ruin every planet in the solar system.

Earth needs help fast.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
That is enough nukes to blow up and ruin every planet in the solar system.

Earth needs help fast.


Sigh, there are WAY less nukes than in the day. They are MUCH smaller in yield than the old days.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

so then, 15,000 nuclear fire crackers? Why didn't someone say so sooner?

I'm definitely going to sleep better at night now.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

That is because these day's they can more accurately deliver them, before ICBM's they kept making bigger and bigger bombs, to test the limits and also they only had to get sorta close..more a terror weapon than strategic in reality.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   
You ask some questions that are highly classified but I will answer you the best I can in general terms. All US nuclear weapons have fail safe devices built into them that will prevent an accidental explosion. The devices work by interrupting the exacting sequence for detonation and this is extremely exacting. The weapons are stored as "special weapons" in secure weapons storage areas where access is strictly controlled. In order to detonate the weapon must be armed by sequential codes beginning with the President. Any failure to insert the correct codes or attempt to arm the weapon will result in failsafe activation and render the weapon inert. It will then require a total depot level teardown and repair. The reason for all of this is to prevent somebody from deliberately or accidentally starting WWIII.

It is estimated that if WWIII takes place 10-15% of the weapons used will fail to explode due to activation of their failsafes.

The weapons due have a preventative maintenance inspection (PMI) but that information and the procedures is Top Secret with a departmentalization on a need to know basis only. Several scandals have plagued military units especially the USAF regarding the handling and training of the nuclear force.

I'm with and I would like to see them gone but so long as the other guys have them it won't happen. MAD will reign supreme and I don't mean "what? me worry? My best,
edit on 15-5-2017 by airforce47 because: spelling.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Hard radiation causes things to degrade faster. to oxidise, to rust, faster.

This means that nuclear devices need maintenance with almost everything replaced every 30 years or so.

Without ongoing high level maintenance, the devices could never be reliable and so nuclear armed countries are committed to ongoing intensive maintenance.

The bombs aren't sitting around in storage. They are deployed for a while and then are returned for maintenance and testing and then redeployed on a cycle.

NK is a threat to world security but the greater threat is the country that maintains a far larger armoury and is the only country to use nuclear weapons against people, civilian people, twice.

And this certain countries history shows that they do not seek peace or compromise but are driven to win.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

And this certain countries history shows that they do not seek peace or compromise but are driven to win.


Russia?



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie


Hey HoundDogHowlie..THANK-YOU for the detailed answers to my questions. I feel a bit safer now, knowing that there is regular tests and maintenance performed on our vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

Also, I took the picture tour of Cecil field. When I was stationed at Cory Station/NAS Pensacola, some guys were transferred to Cecil after finishing Electronics School. It seems that every Naval air facility has an old retired 1960's jet perched on a pedestal outside the main gate, doesn't it? Even at NAS in Rota, Spain we had that same jet, LOL.

Thanks again HoundDogHowlie.

-CareWeMust



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

The Russian bomb didn't "look" as powerful as Castle Bravo, but that's probably because it was detonated on the Artic Tundra. No fish, sand, water, etc.. It would be interesting if the temperature there warmed up for a few days after so much heat was released. Thankyou for that video though.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
That is enough nukes to blow up and ruin every planet in the solar system.

Earth needs help fast.


Sigh, there are WAY less nukes than in the day. They are MUCH smaller in yield than the old days.



If that's true, mankind is at least moving in the right direction. Self-preservation is good.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Castle Bravo was about 15 million tonnes of tnt equivalent, the Tsar Bomb was 57 million tonnes, the #s are mindboggling..the shock wave of the Tsar went around the world 3 times, and I think it was detonated in a very barren area and at a higher altitude(if my memory serves me)



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: airforce47


Thanks for sharing as much as you are allowed to AirForce47. It's good to know that the failsafe mechanisms are so reliable. It's kind of amazing that only one person (the President) can order the launching of a nuclear missile. I don't think he personally calls the nuclear weapons control center and reads off a memorized password does he? I suppose if North Korea wanted to launch an attack, they'd aim right for the White House first, to get the guy with the launch codes.

If the expectation is that 10-15% of the U.S.'s warheads fail to explode, I assume that the highest priority target(s) have at least 2 bombs aimed at them.

Wow...I had no idea that so many safety precautions are in place. That's good news. Thanks again, AirForce47!



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


chr0naut, thanks for the scientific perspective. It's good to know that any individual bomb has a limited life-span. Glad that there aren't any 1955 bombs in existence any longer.

If the USA is more of a threat than North Korea, on the nuclear stage, how do you propose we change that to make us LESS of a threat?




top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join