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: US Nuclear Weapons Test Krakatau - Feb 23 2006

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
While the US and UK are openly arguing against Iran's plans to possess nuclear technology a little known loophole in the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is allowing the them to conduct subcritical nuclear tests in the Nevada desert. The tests that will take place on February 23, 2006 will involve plutonium being shocked by high explosives to produce a subcritical explosion. Although no nuclear explosions will take place a subcritical explosion can aid in the development of nuclear weapons.
 



www.nv.doe.gov
Krakatau, a joint United States/United Kingdom (US/UK) subcritical experiment, will be conducted on February 23, 2006, at the Nevada Test Site. The experiment will be conducted in the U1a complex. The Atomic Weapons Establishment of the United Kingdom and Los Alamos National Laboratory are conducting the experiment to gather scientific data that provides crucial information to maintain the safety and reliability of each nation’s nuclear weapons without having to conduct underground nuclear tests.

What Is Subcritical Nuclear Expierements

Subcritical nuclear experiments differ from traditional nuclear weapons tests in that they are designed to not reach criticality, in other words to not sustain a nuclear chain reaction. Because of this, subcriticals are not explicitly banned under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the international agreement which would prohibit all nuclear explosions with yields greater than zero.

The DOE has not shown that the subcritical experiments are required to maintain a reliable and safe nuclear stockpile. There is no evidence to date to suggest that plutonium aging has degraded the expected performance of the weapons designs used in the current U.S. nuclear arsenal. In fact, in May 1996, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research released a report which showed that there has not been a single aging-related nuclear safety problem in the U.S. arsenal and that nuclear safety problems arose in the context of warhead design, not aging.

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Report

The true purpose of the SS program is questionable. A once-classified document known as the DOE AGreen Book," obtained in 1997 through the discovery process of NRDC v. Pena, indicates that the real purpose of the SS program is the design and development of new weapons, rather than the maintenance of the current weapons stockpile. Not only is this against U.S. policy, but focusing the program on designing and developing new weapons is likely to actually decrease confidence in the reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Report on Nuclear Disarmament


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


These subcritical tests are a little known loophole that some nuclear testing activists are trying to put an end to. Although they are not considered actual "nuclear tests" they can be used to aid in the development of nuclear weapons. While they still use nuclear material like plutonium they send the wrong message to the international community that nuclear testing is acceptable and possible nuclear weapons development is taking place.


These tests that are taking place today are not tests that you will see advertised on CNN or Fox news. They are tests not widely known about by the people in US or the state of Nevada.


Related News Links:

US, Britain Conduct Nuclear Experiment Abc News
US, Britain Conduct Nuclear Experiment at Nevada Test Site - Las Vegas Sun

www.indybay.org
www.politics.co.uk
www.nv.doe.gov
www.scoop.co.nz

Subcritical Experiments- FAS.org





[edit on 24-2-2006 by North Rider]




posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
A bit of a difference between an extremely rogue state that is a destabilizing factor and a state that protects the illusion of liberty.

It seems to me that the argument could be made that it is desirable that the state that stabilizes the world as best as possible would maintain its arsenal in a proper manner.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I think they're trying to counter the alien nuke explodey ray.

o_O

or, if it was one of the aliens, O-)

Computer simulations are sustainable, cheaper, safer, and set a better example. Why conduct sub-critical nukes tests with the right hand while proposing a nuclear test ban with the left?

It doesn't make any sense to me. Hypocrisy is effective, but it's not virtuous. Leaders who aren't virtuous aren't leaders at all, they're villains.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Your source link and your quoted material do not match. This is what your link says.


Subcritical experiments examine the behavior of plutonium as it is strongly shocked by forces produced by chemical high explosives. Subcritical experiments produce essential scientific data and technical information used to help maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The experiments are subcritical; that is, no critical mass is formed and no self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction can occur; thus, there is no nuclear explosion.

The Nevada Test Site's U1a Complex is located 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The U1a Complex is designed to contain these experiments in a safe and secure environment in an underground laboratory of horizontal tunnels with small excavated experimental alcoves mined at the base of a vertical shaft, approximately 960 feet beneath the surface.

www.nv.doe.gov


That's really quite different from the alarmist diatribe of your quote.

This is the dubious source of your quote.

www.scoop.co.nz


[edit on 2006/2/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Computer simulations are not as effective as the real thing - obviously. If that were the case, they would simulate and spend the money on some other gadget, toy or device. Computer simulations only work on the given parameters, not beyond what we do not know to put into the data.

Your last sentence, the pious editorial, really doesn't fit. Compare that to what I stated, which is historically correct, and you will see that it sounds neat but is hollow.
Reality is not the place for hollow words. It only numbs the minds of the weak so they don't feel obligated to face the pain of facts.

[edit on 24-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I know the sources do not match. There was no real news story about this event occuring that I could dig up. The site that I quoted in the paragraph was the press release of the event occuring by the NNSA, a government website. The scoop article was the only news source that I could dig up about the event occuring and the two paragraphs were taking from an article that was writen in 1997 about the subcritical expierements.

These expierements are taking place, just because you dont see cnn and bbc reporting on it doesnt mean its not news.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   
I do not argue that this story is not news, but your source link and your quoted material should match, other wise it is confusing and disingenuous. Furthermore the quoted material is so political biased that it is not a credible news source as it diverts the attention to the real facts, even though they are quoted, and makes an absolutely indefensible case against the tests taking place. Personally, I trust the my government more in matters such as these than the demagoguery of a bunch of eco-fanatics in New Zealand.

[edit on 2006/2/24 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Funny, I trust neither.
What I do understand, however, is how certain things are simply necessary. While we might be pretty sharp in comparison to others, there are still things we do not know about nuclear technology. I'd say we've proven ourselves pretty trustworthy since the Jinn has been released from the bottle. I say Jinn, as Iran is the counter nation referred to in the opening volley.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Here's some reputable sources:


U.S., Britain Conduct Nuclear Experiment -newsday

LAS VEGAS -- U.S. and British government scientists performed an underground nuclear experiment, short of a nuclear blast, at the Nevada Test Site this week, the National Nuclear Security Administration said.

The experiment on Tuesday involved detonating high explosives around radioactive material in a vault about 1,000 feet below ground at a remote part of the desert testing range 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

No radioactivity was released in the subcritical experiment, said Nancy Tufano, spokeswoman for Bechtel Nevada, a contractor at the nuclear security administration in North Las Vegas.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


US, Britain Conduct Nuclear Experiment -ABC News
US, Britain conduct nuclear experiment at Nevada Test Site -Las Vegas Sun

SUBCRITICAL EXPERIMENTS -fas.org

...and here's some crow pie for the doubters.





[edit on 24-2-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Thanks I did a search for hours to find other news sources but couldnt find any. Ill add it to the story sources.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Personally I'm almost at the point were I think nonproliferation strategies have become a complete failure, and we should be desigining and producing new and dreadful types of nuclear weapons such as neutron bombs, cobalt bombs, etc.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Thats typical of the Bush admin...if there is a way around standing laws and treaties they will find it and if there isn't they just ignore them and go ahead anyway. It is one of the reasons why a conservative journalist wrote an interesting book about htem a few years back called "Rogue State" and he wasn't talking about Iraq or Iran. One of the big differences between us liberals and conservatives, we will read books by conservative writers and judge them on their merits...many (not all) conservatives wouldn't be caught dead looking at a book by a liberal...says alot doesn't it



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Personally I'm almost at the point were I think nonproliferation strategies have become a complete failure, and we should be desigining and producing new and dreadful types of nuclear weapons such as neutron bombs, cobalt bombs, etc.


if we did that, cheney the and dumbsfeld would be foaming at the mouth in wanting to use them. Bloody chickenhawks.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
A bit of a difference between an extremely rogue state that is a destabilizing factor and a state that protects the illusion of liberty.

It seems to me that the argument could be made that it is desirable that the state that stabilizes the world as best as possible would maintain its arsenal in a proper manner.
Maybe but thats certainly not the US who rank alongside North Korea for countries that stablilize world peace.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
hopefully nuclear weapons will be a thing of the past soon, its a amazing that this power has created so much shiit over the years (iran, cold war etc)

yet the atom as also created peace throughout the years.

britain have already tryed to encourge countrys to disarm, britain have dismanted 400 of its nuclear weapons in 1998 (from 600) after the cold war finished.

we now process around 200 nuclear warheads (which is still enough to cause a nuclear winter).

but its going to go one way or the other, either countrys will disarm or we'd starting building up arms again.

i think britain can easy build up if another cold war scenario started as we produce our own nuclear weapons.

but it would make the whole world safer if every country disarmed, but for some reason i can't see the US or Russia (or china) ever doing that, so therefor neither will britain



[edit on 24-2-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
You (the author) are forgetting a key difference between us and Iran...

Our leader (idiot though he may be), did not publicly state the clear intention of "wiping another nation off of the map"....

Please keep this in mind when even remotely agreeing with the idea of Iran becoming a nuclear power....and then see if you still think it's an issue of "well the US is doing it...so why can't everyone?".

Thing is, we've had nukes for over half a century, and aside from the initial war they were developed for, we haven't used them on enemies since that time (despite being in numerous military engagements since). Iran has no such history of this kind of restraint, and states publicly that it has no intention of such restraint, so yes, it's little surprise that the world community has a vested interest in this not happening in Iran.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Personally I'm almost at the point were I think nonproliferation strategies have become a complete failure, and we should be desigining and producing new and dreadful types of nuclear weapons such as neutron bombs, cobalt bombs, etc.


Almost to that point? Well, hurry up; I hate showing up early and being the only one here.

I love it when tiny fringe interest groups turn a fairly unremarkable event into a huge news story, as if some holy, inviolable line were being crossed for the first time. What do these people expect exactly? For America to just let itself lapse into ignorance in regards to the most sensitive and dangerous technology currently avowed to exist on this planet???

If they want all of the nukes to go away, their best bet is either to start bribing people into treaties, or to fake an alien invasion and get us to launch them all at some distant planet. This back-door nonsense where they say, "hey, the American public is gaggle of morons, let's just make a big hype about something routine to send their uptight, pannicky butts fleeing in cowardice from every aspect of the normal world that our little minority interest would like to see done away with"- that's just gotta stop. If I want to be treated like an idiot I'll take an art appreciation class; I don't need it from Green Peace and company.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I agree the Unted States should definelty fund the development of the neutron bomb. It would make taking control of the whole damn world alot easier for America. I mean these wars are a piss-off and slow us down from global domination. If we could wipe the planet clean without damaging the global infrastructure at the same time we could make the game of Capitalism a hell of alot more fun!! I call dibs on Madagascar.
The sooner we stop using the nast stuff, the quicker we can eliminate our enemies the clean way.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it DYepes. I can scarcely fathom actually USING nuclear weapons, much less any new and more potent class thereof. The weapons have not been meant for use since the early late 40s or early 50s.

The point for the USSR was always to take out our weapons if they ever thought they saw a strike coming, and our point was always to make it clear that we would destroy them as a people if they ever struck us. It was all about deterrence.

The neutron bomb is in perfect keeping with that. It's a relatively humane weapon. Its first strike value and its afteraffects are more limited than a conventional nuke. Had it been developed during the cold war, it would have emphasized better than any other weapon the decidedly deterrent nature of our nuclear stockpile, and I think we should develop it, and phase out at least some number of our conventional bombs in favor of it to reaffirm our commitment not to launching first strikes on our enemies, while retaining our stance of being able to make such a war so awful that nobody could ever dream of starting one.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The point for the USSR was always to take out our weapons if they ever thought they saw a strike coming, and our point was always to make it clear that we would destroy them as a people if they ever struck us. It was all about deterrence.


The term you are looking for is Mutually Assured Destruction.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join