Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
type: channel
description: C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
items: U.S. Building new nukes

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/science/07bomb.html?ex=1108443600&en=545ac52ec1d83ca6&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY Just thought I would provoke a discussion "U.S. Redesigning Atomic Weapons By WILLIAM J. BROAD Published: February 7, 2005 Worried that the nation's aging nuclear arsenal is increasingly fragile, American scientists have begun designing a new generation of nuclear arms meant to be sturdier and more reliable and to have longer lives, federal officials and private experts say. The officials say the program could help shrink the arsenal and the high cost of its maintenance. But critics say it could needlessly resuscitate the complex of factories and laboratories that make nuclear weapons and could possibly ignite a new arms race. Advertisement So far, the quiet effort involves only $9 million for warhead designers at the nation's three nuclear weapon laboratories, Los Alamos, Livermore and Sandia. Federal bomb experts at these heavily guarded facilities are now scrutinizing secret arms data gathered over a half century for clues about how to achieve the new reliability goals. The relatively small initial program, involving fewer than 100 people, is expected to grow and produce finished designs in the next 5 to 10 years, culminating, if approval is sought and won, in prototype warheads. Most important, officials say, the effort marks a fundamental shift in design philosophy. For decades, the bomb makers sought to use the latest technologies and most innovative methods. The resulting warheads were lightweight, very powerful and in some cases so small that a dozen could fit atop a slender missile. The American style was distinctive. Most other nuclear powers, years behind the atomic curve and often lacking top skills and materials, settled for less. Their nuclear arms tended to be ponderous if dependable, more like Chevys than racecars. Now, American designers are studying how to reverse course and make arms that are more robust, in some ways emulating their rival…
creator: Blazer
date: 2005-02-07T07:34:58-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Does the ban cover detonations in space? Can't they launch/carry them into space and do the tests up there? That would eliminate any radioactive effects on the environment. They could test the newly designed warheads in space, then test the newly designed missiles/detonators/equipment/etc. on the ground with small conventional warheads.
creator: Sir Phoenixx
date: 2005-02-07T15:14:24-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Sir Phoenixx Does the ban cover detonations in space? Can't they launch/carry them into space and do the tests up there? That would eliminate any radioactive effects on the environment. They could test the newly designed warheads in space, then test the newly designed missiles/detonators/equipment/etc. on the ground with small conventional warheads. It would? Gee whiz, I guess gamma rays are a thing of the past then.
creator: DaveGMM
date: 2005-02-07T17:05:10-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Are we forgetting something? Possibly like the O3 in our stratosphere, or does a bomb's explosion create more gamma rays than the sun itself?
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2005-02-07T19:23:43-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Earth has a huge magnetic field, that goes through the north and south poles. This magnetic field deflects a lot of the radiation from space (if it wasn't there, we wouldn't be here as Earth would be constantly bombarded by radiation from the Sun), also, if gamma rays (ionizing radiation) got past this, they would get absorbed very quickly by the atmosphere, so they'd be gone before they can get in far enough to cause any harm.
creator: Sir Phoenixx
date: 2005-02-07T19:53:30-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Till the nukes hit a meteor
creator: JPNOD
date: 2005-02-07T20:43:51-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Sir Phoenixx Earth has a huge magnetic field, that goes through the north and south poles. This magnetic field deflects a lot of the radiation from space (if it wasn't there, we wouldn't be here as Earth would be constantly bombarded by radiation from the Sun), also, if gamma rays (ionizing radiation) got past this, they would get absorbed very quickly by the atmosphere, so they'd be gone before they can get in far enough to cause any harm. That was my point.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2005-02-07T20:45:48-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: ...As if we don't already have enough nuclear weapons... For all the money this program will cost, we could spend it on something more useful, like education, or paying back our enormous debt, or heck, even donate it to Southeast Asia. And Sir_Phoenixx, the problem with detonating nukes in space [the only one I'm aware of] is getting them up there. What if the shuttle carrying nukes up explodes mid-transit? A big shower/cloud of radioactive debris would canvas a HUGE landscape.
creator: SuperFlyingEngi
date: 2005-02-07T21:29:40-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Engi, i believe the plan was to scrap the aged ones and make a few new ones. After all, as a super power we do need them even if they should never be used. This would reduce the cost of the old one's upkeep and in turn we would have LESS nukes. You should be happy about this Engi. Also if a shuttle is destroyed it would not "blow up" a nuke. Nukes cannot be armed until activated. We dont use Atom Bombs any more lol.
creator: Jecht
date: 2005-02-07T22:45:06-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: First off, how much waste would throwing away our old nuclear weapons create? Second, what functions do these new ones offer that we were lacking? Third, a new nuclear development program could cost an incredible amount of money, and given how many times over we can entirely devastate the earth, what reason is there to spend money on more nuclear weapon? You seem to have read the section, I only skimmed. Of course it wouldn't detonate the device. I'm saying it would scatter radioactive material everywhere. Nuclear bombs don't become radioactive only after they're detonated.
creator: SuperFlyingEngi
date: 2005-02-08T00:12:51-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: You don't need a whole lot of radioactive material to create an effective bomb. Plus, if it's scattered across distances, it's not going to cause any damage. You do realize that just about everything is radioactive. Most rocks are radioactive. Shit, even your glow in the dark watches are radioactive.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2005-02-08T00:19:14-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Quote: We dont use Atom Bombs any more lol. Not by themselves, but they're still used inside the hydrogen bombs to start the chain reaction. Quote: First off, how much waste would throwing away our old nuclear weapons create? They don't have to throw the nuclear material away, they can be used in the new weapons. This is just to update the old missiles/electronics/etc. Quote: Second, what functions do these new ones offer that we were lacking? More reliable, easier to maintain and thus less costly to maintain. Quote: and given how many times over we can entirely devastate the earth Assuming they still work, a lot of them are much older then their life expectency.
creator: Sir Phoenixx
date: 2005-02-08T00:29:31-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: We sure don't need any MORE missiles, but since we seem to just be updating old equipment here, I don't think there's a problem.
creator: PointlessAmbler
date: 2005-02-08T04:17:54-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Quote: Small size was prized for many reasons. It meant that warheads could fit into cramped, narrow missile nose cones, which streaked to earth faster than blunter shapes and were less buffeted by winds during the fiery plunge, making them more accurate. It also meant that ships, bombers and submarines could carry more nuclear arms. nothing like 1 nuclear sub with enough firepower to wipe out half the planet nukes will be the end of our race
creator: Majiin Vegeta
date: 2005-02-08T04:30:03-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: No, they won't. In fact, they're what has and probably will continue to save our race. One of the few reasons why neither Russia nor America declared war on another during the heated times of the Cold War was because both sides had enough nukes to decimate the world.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2005-02-08T04:35:48-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Glad to hear it, I was wondering what all our poor advanced science degree holding fellows had been doing since the Cold War. Also if you've ever seen a rocket fail, they don't explode in some 15 mile wide explosion. They explode in a neat tidy cylinder and if they are still in the initial stage of launch come down in a neat pile right on the pad. Also if an explosion were to occur that was to compromise the fissionable material chamber it would not instantly vaporize and travel the world round. Most likely if any were to become fragmented it would fall. Uranium is hella heavy. It takes strong winds just to blow a tiny bit around and we aren't talking about a vapor like was released in chernobyl we're talking particles like sand. You don't see sand flying around in a light breeze do you? It takes a WHOOSH-tastic gust to push Uranium dust about. That's the Doitle view: In summary, Yay US, Go Weapons Labs, Rest of the world -> Your next... Also as a after thought, I'm near positive nuclear detonations in space were banned by the SALT Treaty...
creator: Doitle
date: 2005-02-08T04:55:03-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Sir Phoenixx Quote: First off, how much waste would throwing away our old nuclear weapons create? They don't have to throw the nuclear material away, they can be used in the new weapons. This is just to update the old missiles/electronics/etc. As long as the Plutonium or enriched Uranium is not used, then it won't be much of a waste at all. This is just a revamp of electronics.
creator: IRON FART
date: 2005-02-08T05:23:30-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Doitle Also if you've ever seen a rocket fail, they don't explode in some 15 mile wide explosion. They explode in a neat tidy cylinder and if they are still in the initial stage of launch come down in a neat pile right on the pad. You mean like Challengers booster rockets did? :rolleyes:
creator: Blazer
date: 2005-02-08T10:03:59-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Blazer, ever watch ANYTHING Russia ever tried to launch during the space race? Go find yourself a video. Like I said if it fails in the initial stage they come down in a neat tidy firey cylinder.
creator: Doitle
date: 2005-02-08T13:43:05-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: That's nice if it explodes when its < 1000 feet off the ground, but what happens when there is a high altitude explosion and there is a load of plutonium etc aboard? It's the reason that we bury nuclear waste instead of shooting it into space...it's not worth the risk.
creator: Blazer
date: 2005-02-08T18:19:52-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: If the plutonium is spread out far enough, it won't do any damage.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2005-02-08T18:29:21-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: They say the same thing about fallout.
creator: Blazer
date: 2005-02-08T19:48:13-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: A lot of things around you are radioactive. Smoke detectors, watches, rocks, glow in the dark stars, cell phones, etc... Yet, none of these items cause no damage to your health because of how little radiation it gives off. If plutonium is spread out over a wide enough distance, it's not going to do any damage.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2005-02-08T19:51:39-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Gah, you're right about that, Sir P. I seem to have forgotten about the fact that we have an o-zone Whoops.
creator: DaveGMM
date: 2005-02-08T22:09:58-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Should say "j_ball" instead of "Sir P."
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2005-02-08T22:22:48-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Ha! We should call you js4[p] instead. LOL
creator: IRON FART
date: 2005-02-08T23:25:46-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Funny.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2005-02-08T23:27:37-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: And what if instead of exploding high in the troposphere, instead it malfunctions 5 seconds after liftoff and drops a nice big contaminated wreckage in a populated area? Who gets the blame then? How many would die that day? How many would die the next week after succumbing to radiation poisoning? How many decades would that area be uninhabitable? These are the questions that we don't want to even have to think of the answers for, when considering rocketing thousands of tons of highly radioactive material into space.
creator: Blazer
date: 2005-02-09T01:35:34-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: No one. If it exploded 5 seconds after lift off it would be on the pad still. After Ignitition it takes something like an estimated 10 seconds just to get much upwards motion at all. That's when you always see the gigantic cloud of exhaust with it sitting there shaking then it really starts to truck once it gets high in the sky. We also would not be launching these horizontally so the chance of them getting from a remote launch site to downtown anywhere are highly implausible.
creator: Doitle
date: 2005-02-09T02:09:00-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Stop splitting hairs...You know I didn't mean literally exactly 5 seconds...I meant if it exploded or malfunctioned a few thousand feet off the ground versus exploding high in the air. Most rockets are not launched "straight up"...once they leave the pad they go at a determined pitch, and even if something goes straight up, and explodes, the debris doesnt came falling straight down in an orderly pile. Take a look at this mapping of where the shuttle debris fell...would you want those zones to be death zones and uninhabitable for the next 100 years? http://www.sfasu.edu/pubaffairs/Feb2003/Shuttle-debris-path_l.jpg
creator: Blazer
date: 2005-02-09T02:42:23-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: I am not a barber, I split no hairs. You said 5 seconds so I think we're talking about liftoff here. Earlier we did mention it exploding high in the air. I didn't know exploding high in the air was a totally unique topic from exploding kinda high in the air. Now, the shuttle is a completely different situation. The shuttle comes in very shallow because eventually it has to land on a run way lol. Airplanes don't come straight down and nose dive into a run way, but missiles do. If a rocket explodes in mid air the debris come down according to the angle the rocket was traveling in. It's pretty much parabolic if the thrust is lost either through a fuel explosion or a seperation of thrust from the main rocket body. Now these diagrams assume no wind. The wind can only adjust the final ground distance by a bit however the results will in general be as follows. Now you'll notice I did a steep angle launch and a shallow angle launch. The steep angle launch would be what would be employed. A shallow angle launch is really more similar to an airplane take off which is what you encounter in the space shuttle disaster. Essentially it exploded while setting up for an airplane style landing. Our nuclear missiles will not be making 3 point landings so we should not have to worry about any shallow angle physics on them Now, You will notice that the rocket explodes and begins to decend, Accordingly that the explosion is at or near the peak of the parabolic flight path the same time to the peak will be taken to reach the ground. You will also notice the ground path traced is relatively small. There is nothing to compare this with other than perhaps the size of the rocket but the y axis is horribly trunctated... lol Assume this is a bit into the flight. It goes up, kablammo and down. Now the next example, You will notice in this example the path along the ground is noticeably longer. This would be the situation in a shallow angle launch. Similar to your Space shuttle analogy. However i…
creator: Doitle
date: 2005-02-09T03:56:55-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: j_ball430 You don't need a whole lot of radioactive material to create an effective bomb. Plus, if it's scattered across distances, it's not going to cause any damage. You do realize that just about everything is radioactive. Most rocks are radioactive. Shit, even your glow in the dark watches are radioactive. My knowledge of nukes is only what I learned from pushing them around while serving on subs. The latest nukes have been primarily neutron types that leave little radiactive debrie and most buildings would still be intact after they detonate overhead. They don't have quite the blast effect of earlier bombs. However, the huge kill radius is a result of being toasted to a crisp or having too many cells in your body being ruptured from the overload of neutrons passing through. The farther away you are or how shielded you are determins your survivability. Nuetrons particles can really penatrate. Infact, you have neutrons particles (& gamma) passing through your body whenever you expose yourself to the sun. If you spend too much time in high altitude aircraft, you are exposed to a lot more of them. These weapons are harder to maintain because of a certain gas needed (I'm still not supposed to disclose what type but you can find it easy enough with a little research) to make them effective. These nukes have a shorter life span because this gas dissapates or changes chemically over time.
creator: sloppyme
date: 2005-02-11T08:03:23-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Blazer That's nice if it explodes when its < 1000 feet off the ground, but what happens when there is a high altitude explosion and there is a load of plutonium etc aboard? It's the reason that we bury nuclear waste instead of shooting it into space...it's not worth the risk. My knowledge of nukes is only what I learned from pushing them around while serving on subs. The latest nukes have been primarily neutron types that leave little radiactive debrie and most buildings would still be intact after they detonate overhead. They don't have quite the blast effect of earlier bombs. However, the huge kill radius is a result of being toasted to a crisp or having too many cells in your body being ruptured from the overload of neutrons passing through. The farther away you are or how shielded you are determins your survivability. Nuetrons particles can really penatrate. Infact, you have neutrons particles (& gamma) passing through your body whenever you expose yourself to the sun. If you spend too much time in high altitude aircraft, you are exposed to a lot more of them. These weapons are harder to maintain because of a certain gas needed (I'm still not supposed to disclose what type but you can find it easy enough with a little research) to make them effective. These nukes have a shorter life span because this gas dissapates or changes chemically over time. The actual package of explosives & radioactive materials is about the size of a basketball. There is more conventional explosive material then radioactive material. The conventional explosive (like c-4) make up most of the container (sphere) that surrounds the plutonium with the special gas in the center. It is the even detonation of the surrounding c-4 like explosive to such perfection that causes the radioactive material to be pushed to the exact center to get the proper yeild of the chain reaction that happens in an instant. If this basketball sized core is somehow ripped out of a missle or whatever, it has lost all…
creator: sloppyme
date: 2005-02-11T08:41:44-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Quote: http://www.sfasu.edu/pubaffairs/Feb2003/Shuttle-debris-path_l.jpg That's the debris path of the Columbia when it exploded as it re-entered. Shuttles launched from Cape Canaveral are launched towards the east over the ocean, and the only shuttle that blew up on launch was the Challenger, which blew up over the Atlantic, where the vast majority (if not all) of it's debris fell. Since the smaller Challenger debris fell into the water, then something as heavy as a warhead with uranium, which would be much heavier would also fall into the water. Quote: And what if instead of exploding high in the troposphere, instead it malfunctions 5 seconds after liftoff and drops a nice big contaminated wreckage in a populated area? Who gets the blame then? No one... Unless someone tries to colonize the Atlantic near Cape Canaveral. Quote: How many would die that day? None, besides the shuttle crew. Quote: How many would die the next week after succumbing to radiation poisoning? How many decades would that area be uninhabitable? Since everyone would be shielded from the radiation by hundreds of feet of water, none. And I wasn't aware that the Atlantic was inhabitable to begin with...
creator: Sir Phoenixx
date: 2005-02-11T14:21:16-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: lol theres like 4 posts here for you Blazer, respond!
creator: Doitle
date: 2005-02-12T01:12:22-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout
creator: warranto
date: 2005-02-12T02:24:02-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: What a pretty Wiki. Mind explaining its relavence at all?
creator: Doitle
date: 2005-02-12T03:20:57-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: I'm not talking about warheads that explode in the air. I was referring to a payload of nuclear *waste* exploding in the air. Nuclear waste will never be shot into space, because if there was an explosion it would rain down death from above. Your analogy of a nuclear missile exploding in the air and the warhead falling and not doing much damage is correct, but thats not what I was talking about
creator: Blazer
date: 2005-02-12T06:15:24-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Doitle What a pretty Wiki. Mind explaining its relavence at all? The point it makes about a explosion in the air, opposed to one lower to the ground, dictated by the subsections entitled "world-wide fallout", and "local fallout". The discussion had started talking about missiles exploding in the air, and those specific subsections give a discription as to what would occur.
creator: warranto
date: 2005-02-12T19:13:50-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: IRON-FART Ha! We should call you js4[p] instead. LOL Fuck you.
creator: Jaspah
date: 2005-02-12T20:04:43-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: j4S[p], he wasn't being mean. He was just referring to the time where he typed my name instead of yours.
creator: cheesesoda
date: 2005-02-12T20:21:54-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Right, however a mid air explosion of a nuclear missile does not rain down fall out as I've said like 15 times. You would have a giant "engine block" of a war head falling from the sky and digging itself like 30 feet into the ground. It's a really heavy chunk of metal. That's it. Just because there's an explosion doesn't mean it'll do Didly to the warhead. They're designed to withstand mad crazy duress for exactly this reason.
creator: Doitle
date: 2005-02-13T06:14:03-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: I say *again*, I am not disputing that. If you go back to page one, note that besides my initial post, I have been talking about a rocket carrying a payload of nuclear waste exploding (a topic which was injected into the thread by someone else, which I replied to). I totally agree if a nuclear missle exploded in the air there would be little for people to worry about (except for maybe the one house that the debris would fall on). However, if a rocket carrying a payload of nuclear waste exploded in the air, the results would be ... bad.
creator: Blazer
date: 2005-02-13T08:17:12-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Uh, no, that discussion was about launching nuclear warheads into space to test them, not disposing of nuclear waste in space. No one mentioned launching nuclear waste until your post. Also, nuclear waste is currently transported in containers that can survive direct hits from high speed trains, ramming into a wall by a rocket sled, large explosions, sitting in fire for some time, falling to the ground, etc., without any cracks or openings at all. They'd probably need to be strenghtened and tested for high altitude drops, and higher temperatures/re-entry though.
creator: Sir Phoenixx
date: 2005-02-13T13:41:23-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Blazer, that "as I've said like 15 times." post was directed at Warranto, sorry for the confusion. As Sir Pheonix has said though, those containers are so insanely damn strong you couldn't destroy one if you tried. lol
creator: Doitle
date: 2005-02-13T17:46:02-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Ah, I see. An explosion caused by the missile itself blowing up, not an explosion caused by the warhead detonating.
creator: warranto
date: 2005-02-13T17:55:15-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Right, and the chances of the warhead detonating are like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000001% I think it sounds like a pretty safe idea to me, besides the fact that again, I thought that one of the SALTs decklared that space was for everyone and there could be no military actions in space.
creator: Doitle
date: 2005-02-14T02:14:45-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: I thought it was the nuclear waste containers that were built so durably, not the warheads. I've heard a story of when scientists testing one of these waste containers decided to ram it with an 80 mile an hour train. The canister was unharmed, but the train recieved an enormous dent for its troubles.
creator: SuperFlyingEngi
date: 2005-02-14T02:17:37-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: They design both with skill. The waste containers are unbeleivable. You could prolly only knick one by dropping it into the sun... lol. The warheads however are built in a durable and secure fashion as well. Nobody wants free radiation and no body wants your fissionable fuel falling out of a rust spot. That's why they build those very well too.
creator: Doitle
date: 2005-02-14T03:21:15-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Because of the destructive ability of the warheads, they are near impossible to detonate outside of their intended time period. That's why there is that distinguishment between the missile exploding, and the warhead exploding. The only way it would explode is if the jolt set off the timing mechanism so that both atoms fired at the same time.
creator: warranto
date: 2005-02-14T03:29:45-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: Again they have so many redundancy systems and things. I would imagine it is impossible to accidentally detonate. I mean there are like 70,000,000 checks and failsafes on a nuclear missile. After all the people who design these things, ARE rocket scientists .
creator: Doitle
date: 2005-02-14T03:39:33-00:00

U.S. Building new nukes
type: item
description: ya guys, its not like this is brain surgery , its only rocket science im sorry, i know thats a bad joke.
creator: Jecht
date: 2005-02-14T04:41:19-00:00