i am sure everyone remembers about that flight earlier this year, or at the end of 2007, where there were US nuclear munitions aboard that were enabled in nuclear mode. as the plane flew over the US.
Boy that would have been really deep shit if something bad had happened on that trip (missiles fired by mistake, crash of the aircraft, disaffected Americans firing on the plane from the ground, another one of those "tragic friendly fire accidents" that have been accounting for roughly 1/4 of all american military personnel deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.). Yeah that really would have been "tragic" wouldn't it have?
>i am sure everyone remembers about that flight earlier this year, or >at the end of 2007, where there were US nuclear munitions aboard that >were enabled in nuclear mode. as the plane flew over the US.
Nuclear bombs do NOT explode if you crash the plane. They'd be kinda useless if they were THAT touchy.
The plutonium spheres at the heart of modern fission and fusion bombs are not 'spheres' - haven't been since the early days.
The implosive charges around the 'sphere' thus have to go off in a particular ORDER to compress the off-round core symmetrically. If they all go off at once, or just out-of-order, you don't get a proper nuclear explosion ; just a 'fizz' at best.
It's an important safety/security feature. It's also why nobody can just steal a bomb and set it off ... the electronic security code programs the detonator 'brain' to time the implosive charges so they match the needs of the particular bomb core. You can't even swap-out 'brains', because cause every core is intentionally made a little different.
Terrorists would have to remove the plutonium and cast an entirely new core. Indeed, since they couldn't match western tech, they'd probably need the plutonium from TWO bombs just to create one low-tech core of their own.
So, we're double-safe. For once, the engineers thought ahead.
The main danger of a serious crash involving nuclear weapons is that metallic plutonium might get smashed out of a device. It would badly contaminate the area - but only the immediate area. However, since this would involve a B-52 falling on your house, I'd think the plutonium would be the least of your worries ....
> >i am sure everyone remembers about that flight earlier this year, or > >at the end of 2007, where there were US nuclear munitions aboard that > >were enabled in nuclear mode. as the plane flew over the US.
> Nuclear bombs do NOT explode if you crash the plane. > They'd be kinda useless if they were THAT touchy.
> The plutonium spheres at the heart of modern fission > and fusion bombs are not 'spheres' - haven't been > since the early days.
> The implosive charges around the 'sphere' thus have to > go off in a particular ORDER to compress the off-round > core symmetrically. If they all go off at once, or just > out-of-order, you don't get a proper nuclear explosion ; > just a 'fizz' at best.
> It's an important safety/security feature. It's also > why nobody can just steal a bomb and set it off ... the > electronic security code programs the detonator 'brain' > to time the implosive charges so they match the needs of > the particular bomb core. You can't even swap-out 'brains', > because cause every core is intentionally made a little > different.
> Terrorists would have to remove the plutonium and cast an > entirely new core. Indeed, since they couldn't match western > tech, they'd probably need the plutonium from TWO bombs just > to create one low-tech core of their own.
> So, we're double-safe. For once, the engineers thought ahead.
> The main danger of a serious crash involving nuclear weapons > is that metallic plutonium might get smashed out of a device. > It would badly contaminate the area - but only the immediate > area. However, since this would involve a B-52 falling on > your house, I'd think the plutonium would be the least of > your worries ....
sure was a BIG brouhaha about it when it happened though.... if it WAS so safe, and the only way the nuclear missiles could go off was if for them to be fired then we were safe all along, right? except if they "friendly fired" us, and we know they would never do that, right? it's only 1/4 of the US military dead in Iraq that have died as a result of friendly fire. yeah, we're totally safe.......
> > >i am sure everyone remembers about that flight earlier this year, or > > >at the end of 2007, where there were US nuclear munitions aboard that > > >were enabled in nuclear mode. as the plane flew over the US.
> > Nuclear bombs do NOT explode if you crash the plane. > > They'd be kinda useless if they were THAT touchy.
> > The plutonium spheres at the heart of modern fission > > and fusion bombs are not 'spheres' - haven't been > > since the early days.
> > The implosive charges around the 'sphere' thus have to > > go off in a particular ORDER to compress the off-round > > core symmetrically. If they all go off at once, or just > > out-of-order, you don't get a proper nuclear explosion ; > > just a 'fizz' at best.
> > It's an important safety/security feature. It's also > > why nobody can just steal a bomb and set it off ... the > > electronic security code programs the detonator 'brain' > > to time the implosive charges so they match the needs of > > the particular bomb core. You can't even swap-out 'brains', > > because cause every core is intentionally made a little > > different.
> > Terrorists would have to remove the plutonium and cast an > > entirely new core. Indeed, since they couldn't match western > > tech, they'd probably need the plutonium from TWO bombs just > > to create one low-tech core of their own.
> > So, we're double-safe. For once, the engineers thought ahead.
> > The main danger of a serious crash involving nuclear weapons > > is that metallic plutonium might get smashed out of a device. > > It would badly contaminate the area - but only the immediate > > area. However, since this would involve a B-52 falling on > > your house, I'd think the plutonium would be the least of > > your worries ....
> sure was a BIG brouhaha about it when it happened though.... if it WAS > so safe, and the only way the nuclear missiles could go off was if for > them to be fired then we were safe all along, right? except if they > "friendly fired" us, and we know they would never do that, right? > it's only 1/4 of the US military dead in Iraq that have died as a > result of friendly fire. yeah, we're totally safe.......- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
The uproar was not over the safety, the uproar was over them being on a flight where they weren't supposed to be. But don't let reality get in the way of your imagination..
> > > >i am sure everyone remembers about that flight earlier this year, or > > > >at the end of 2007, where there were US nuclear munitions aboard that > > > >were enabled in nuclear mode. as the plane flew over the US.
> > > Nuclear bombs do NOT explode if you crash the plane. > > > They'd be kinda useless if they were THAT touchy.
> > > The plutonium spheres at the heart of modern fission > > > and fusion bombs are not 'spheres' - haven't been > > > since the early days.
> > > The implosive charges around the 'sphere' thus have to > > > go off in a particular ORDER to compress the off-round > > > core symmetrically. If they all go off at once, or just > > > out-of-order, you don't get a proper nuclear explosion ; > > > just a 'fizz' at best.
> > > It's an important safety/security feature. It's also > > > why nobody can just steal a bomb and set it off ... the > > > electronic security code programs the detonator 'brain' > > > to time the implosive charges so they match the needs of > > > the particular bomb core. You can't even swap-out 'brains', > > > because cause every core is intentionally made a little > > > different.
> > > Terrorists would have to remove the plutonium and cast an > > > entirely new core. Indeed, since they couldn't match western > > > tech, they'd probably need the plutonium from TWO bombs just > > > to create one low-tech core of their own.
> > > So, we're double-safe. For once, the engineers thought ahead.
> > > The main danger of a serious crash involving nuclear weapons > > > is that metallic plutonium might get smashed out of a device. > > > It would badly contaminate the area - but only the immediate > > > area. However, since this would involve a B-52 falling on > > > your house, I'd think the plutonium would be the least of > > > your worries ....
> > sure was a BIG brouhaha about it when it happened though.... if it WAS > > so safe, and the only way the nuclear missiles could go off was if for > > them to be fired then we were safe all along, right? except if they > > "friendly fired" us, and we know they would never do that, right? > > it's only 1/4 of the US military dead in Iraq that have died as a > > result of friendly fire. yeah, we're totally safe.......- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> The uproar was not over the safety, the uproar was over them being on > a flight where they weren't supposed to be. But don't let reality get > in the way of your imagination..
