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.
Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
Odd...
I thought this was a bad thing...considerig the non-proliferation treaty and all that.
I really don't see a need for new nuclear bombs. Why not spend the money on armour, education, better fuel technology, fusion, or even free energy.
Originally posted by fritz
Westy, I'm not too sure whether this is still an ongoing project or not, but here is the link:
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Right now, we have to replace the initiators and boost gas about once a year. There's a lot of weapons in stock, and every one of them has to be maintained. That's a lot of tritium, although we recover every little bit.
It would be nice not to have to do that anymore. It would be nice not to make more tritium.
Dear Hillary: ...
Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
So basically, it's to save what materials we already have made...I guess that makes since. Isn't there anything we can make from the left over materials that aren't bombs?
That made me feel sick for some reason, ha. Not to bring politics into this, but I sure hope she doesn't get in. That probably sounds weird coming from such a liberal as myself...
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
For the longest time, it wasn't thought possible to do. That's not true anymore, maybe. I still think they should test, the new designs are oddball and very different.
The RRW Program is unnecessary: current nuclear warheads will remain highly reliable for at least 50 years.
All the evidence indicates that the current stockpile of nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads is highly reliable and that it will remain so for many decades. Since 1997, the DOE has annually certified the U.S. nuclear arsenal to be safe and reliable. Concerns about the longer term reliability of these warheads centered on the plutonium "pits" at their core, and the DOE argued that new RRW designs were needed to compensate for the potential effects of plutonium aging. However, last month the JASONs—an independent panel of scientists and engineers that has long advised the U.S. government on nuclear weapons issues—concluded that the plutonium components in U.S. nuclear warheads have lifetimes of at least 85 years, and possibly much longer. Since the oldest warheads in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are less than 35 years old, U.S. weapons will remain highly reliable for at least the next 50 years. Even then, there would be no need for new weapons designs, since the plutonium pits could simply be remanufactured.
www.ucsusa.org...
Originally posted by rogue1
Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
For the longest time, it wasn't thought possible to do. That's not true anymore, maybe. I still think they should test, the new designs are oddball and very different.
This intrigued me, I have been studying all aspects of nuclear weapons for years, I am curious what these new designs are ? Do you have any information on this with regards to your above statement.
Do they use features which are different from floatng pit or flying plate primary implosion designs ? Are they doing away with teh Tellar-Ulam configuration altogether ? I am familiar with designs up to the W-89.
PS. Found this interesting article on the RRW program.
The RRW Program is unnecessary: current nuclear warheads will remain highly reliable for at least 50 years.
All the evidence indicates that the current stockpile of nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads is highly reliable and that it will remain so for many decades. Since 1997, the DOE has annually certified the U.S. nuclear arsenal to be safe and reliable. Concerns about the longer term reliability of these warheads centered on the plutonium "pits" at their core, and the DOE argued that new RRW designs were needed to compensate for the potential effects of plutonium aging. However, last month the JASONs—an independent panel of scientists and engineers that has long advised the U.S. government on nuclear weapons issues—concluded that the plutonium components in U.S. nuclear warheads have lifetimes of at least 85 years, and possibly much longer. Since the oldest warheads in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are less than 35 years old, U.S. weapons will remain highly reliable for at least the next 50 years. Even then, there would be no need for new weapons designs, since the plutonium pits could simply be remanufactured.
www.ucsusa.org...
Originally posted by super70
Is it possible to hollow out and then fill some of these old missile casings with rubber chickens? Then possibly launch these into the cities of our enemies. When the angry mobs run to the center of town to stomp on the apparent duds, they will angrily hold up rubber chickens in amazment, then no doubt the other soldiers will begin laughing and pointing at eachother, then we will all have a big laugh at how pointless world war really is.
Originally posted by mbkennel
I think it is advantageous for security and proliferation reasons to continue to use tritium---because high quality no-tritium-but-still-boosted long-lifetime nukes are better for terrorist uses. I assume that the ideas and techniques will eventually leak out.
I think that technology ought to stay uninvented/undeployed so that high-tech states with economic apparatus and systems to procure and recycle tritium will continue to have a large advantage.
Suppose Osama did get those supposed "suitcase nukes"----the fact that undoubtably something of that vintage needed boosting and tritium to be compact like that would result in short lifetime outside of state control, entirely for physics reasons even if anybody 'jimmied' the PAL system with insider knowledge.
The requirement to own a nuclear reactor or particle accelerator to maintain nuclear weaponry is good.