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.

 

NEWS: Security Costs Could Shut Some A-Bomb Labs, Experts Warn

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
The cost to protect materials for nuclear bombs from terrorists is rising so high that the Energy Department will need to close some weapons laboratories, or at least consolidate the weapons fuel that they hold, government officials and outside experts are warning. Security costs threaten to eat into the budget for building and maintaining warheads, the experts say.
 



www.nytimes.com
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: May 7, 2005

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the department re-examined potential threats to the 13 laboratories and other plants across the country where it has what it calls "special nuclear materials," or plutonium and bomb-grade uranium. The department theorized that attackers might not try to steal the material, but rather fabricate a nuclear bomb on the spot and detonate it.

The reassessments, which included assumptions of a larger attacking force than previously, have led to sharply increased security costs, now $740 million a year and highly likely to rise. The underlying problem, critics say, is that a complex that was set up for the cold war, when the pace of design and manufacture was quick, is not suited to current needs.

The Project on Government Oversight, a group here that has made a specialty of making critiques of nuclear security, estimated in a study it will release next week that consolidating the weapons materials could save $2.7 billion over three years.

But, Danielle Brian, executive director of the project, said, "No one so far has looked at the entire complex, and said, 'Why do we still need this?' "

In a major speech on laboratory security on May 7, 2004, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said, "We have a responsibility to balance the important work we do at our facilities, which is often critical to the war on terror, with protecting those very same facilities against the threat of terrorist acts."

Mr. Abraham said the number of sites with special nuclear material had to be reduced "to the absolute minimum, consistent with carrying out our missions."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I don really know what to say. But should it really matter?
I mean can't the U.S. defend it self without nuclear weapons? And should'nt they want to not use the weapons knowing how much damage they cause?




posted on May, 8 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Does anyone have anything to say?



posted on May, 8 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

...that attackers fabricate a nuclear bomb on the spot and detonate it.

What? MacGyver style? There are some serious assumptions in that article and one of the most glaring ones is that terrorists could fabricate a nuclear bomb on site and detonate it! What are these people thinking? That any one can construct a nuclear weapon and detonate it in the space of a few hours? Get real!


"No one so far has looked at the entire complex, and said, 'Why do we still need this?' "

And adhere to the NPT? Is she crazy? Adhering to the NPT is the domain of Iran and North Korea, not the United States


If the United States aspires to any international credibility on nuclear proliferation it should ratify the CTBT and start dismantling its arsenal as required by the NPT. Then, and only then, can the United States demand North Korea and Iran to do the same and be respected once more.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Subz: Quit jumping the gun, and looking for an excuse to debunk everything just because it's often the "fashionable" thing to do on this website these days...

The article is not suggesting the the terrorists would be capable of producing a weapons-grade thermonuclear war-head on the spot, complete with detonator, and delivery system. It's suggesting that terrorists would be more likely to sneak into the facility with lots of C4, strap it to the nuclear material, and blow it up on the spot "dirty bomb" style.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I think having one or two ohio class missile subs worth of nukes is all the U.S. needs....

I found a great link on the subject Nuclear weapons archive

If the attackers had a explosives expert and constructed all of the componets off-site they could get in, set up the device and detonate it within hours, even minutes with the proper intel and planning...

Technicaly with enough C-4 and the fissionable material, (and a copy of atom bombs for dummies) I could put together a device in my basement in a month or two...

Its gonna be set off where its constructed, it can afford to be huge and ungainly.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Dirty bomb? Nuclear research facilities are in the Boonies. They are so far away from civilization for saftey reasons. An accidental explosion is feasible so they locate these facilities for that very reason. Hence a dirty bomb will not cause fatalities outside of the bases and would be useless for terrorists. They would be better to just steal the radioactive material and detonate a dirty bomb in a city. They are clear that it would be a nuclear bomb detonated on the spot so this is not what they are speaking about.

The report clearly states that they will "fabricate a nuclear bomb", not a dirty bomb, and "detonate" it on the spot. I jumped no guns, the language is very clear. They are hamming up the threat of a nuclear bomb, not dirty bomb, to get more funding.


fabricate a nuclear bomb on the spot and detonate it.


Read the language again.

[edit on 9/5/05 by subz]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Dirty bomb? Nuclear research facilities are in the Boonies. They are so far away from civilization for saftey reasons. An accidental explosion is feasible so they locate these facilities for that very reason.


As much as I would like to agree with you, your argument is flawed. If you read the article, it mentions a humongous amount of the fissile material stored there. If you detonate even a small nuke in the immediate vicinity, the whole pile will blow, due to the neutron flux, and that, my friend, is no joke. Also, since it'll happen right on the surface, the resulting cloud of dirt and dust would be of fantastic proportions and we are talking Chernobyl on steroids.

I doubt, however, that it'd be possible to create a working device on spot.




top topics



 
0

log in

join