Article

2011-10-25 Science & Technology

US Disassembles Its Last B53, 9Mt Nuclear Weapon

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-10-25 08:57|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 In the WoT Operations section, they also announced the last W70 tactical nuke was disassembled as well.

Again, that one was posted at midnight - yours was almost nine hours later

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-10-25 09:29|| 2011-10-25 09:29|| Front Page Top

#2 Hokay, I'll say it
"WE HAVE NO NUJES."

Posted by Redneck Jim 2011-10-25 10:28|| 2011-10-25 10:28|| Front Page Top

#3 For some reason, this *really* bothers me.

Posted by Iblis 2011-10-25 10:47|| 2011-10-25 10:47|| Front Page Top

#4 Pappy, but why make two different announcements from the same plant, in two different forums?

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-10-25 11:01|| 2011-10-25 11:01|| Front Page Top

#5 Tactical warheads for artillery have long been passé, but means to attack deeply buried, hardened targets are not.

If, however, you're wondering about the timing of both announcements, this may be relevant:

The completion of the dismantling program is a year ahead of schedule, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, and aligns with President Barack Obama's goal of reducing the number of nuclear weapons.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-25 12:32|| 2011-10-25 12:32|| Front Page Top

#6 Pappy, but why make two different announcements from the same plant, in two different forums?

I dunno. The first article (in the WoT/Page 1 section and posted first) would have likely been moved by a mod to the proper page, had not 'someone' commented about it. Moving it now, IMNSHO, would just look dumb.

Courtesy to the first poster and prior practice would indicate that the second, duplicate article be deleted. Deleting your, later, article is impossible now, since other readers have commented on it.

Again, why did you post yours nine hours later and then act like it's someone else's fault that there's duplicate articles?

Posted by Pappy 2011-10-25 14:13|| 2011-10-25 14:13|| Front Page Top

#7 Well going back to my prefix 5 courses at O'gau, a 9+ Mt nuke is pretty m uch major overkill. A 1 Mt nuke can kill any major city and destroy large areas outside the urban area with radiant heat and the blast wave.

The 9Mt nuke goes back to the fascination with size that resulted from the Soviets blowing up half of central Asia with 10,20,50 and even a 100Mt(!!!) weapon. As an aside, I bet the film of the detonation of the 100Mt nuke would be very interesting...but I digress.

We'll proven that a conventional 10K bomb with a penetrating nose dropped from 20,000 feet can defeat most any underground bunker. Using 9 Mt to kill a bunker when 1 Mt can wiped out the equivalent of Southern California makes no sense.

It was/is as assinine as having enough nukes targeted at each Soviet city to kill it 100 times when we knew the Soviets had no way of stopping one ICBM/MIRV.

I'm more worried about the loss of our tactical nukes. When you can take out a highway and a major alpine bridge with one nuke assembled in short order and detonated by remote control, it is not sound strategy to have to pack several tons of TNT in a pre chamber designed for a tactical nuke...by the time you get that much crap wired up and checked, you've got an AK stuck in your ear...the tactical nukes should stay and I bet NATO is having a hissy fit over that idea.

Posted by Bill Clinton 2011-10-25 15:37|| 2011-10-25 15:37|| Front Page Top

#8 Wasn't the 9MT weapon for EMP?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-10-25 15:42|| 2011-10-25 15:42|| Front Page Top

#9 Pappy: I was not trying to be critical of the other post or poster, in fact I didn't notice it until after I had posted, and because it was not a duplicate, but parallel to mine I was a bit perplexed about why Pantex made the announcements the way they did.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-10-25 16:01|| 2011-10-25 16:01|| Front Page Top

#10 the tactical nukes should stay and I bet NATO is having a hissy fit over that idea.

The W70s were mothballed 2 decades ago, in accordance with the INF treaty.

Wasn't the 9MT weapon for EMP?

No - it was for massively hardened, deeply buried targets. You might be thinking of the W70-3 variant of the tactical warhead, which was specifically a 'neutron bomb' anti-tank design.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-25 16:16|| 2011-10-25 16:16|| Front Page Top

#11 I was a bit perplexed about why Pantex made the announcements the way they did.

Oh.

/Emily Litella

Posted by Pappy 2011-10-25 16:28|| 2011-10-25 16:28|| Front Page Top

#12 Since the engineers and technicians who designed and built the bomb have long since retired or died, developing a safe disassembly process took a long time...

YIKES!!!

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-10-25 17:50|| 2011-10-25 17:50|| Front Page Top

#13 Yikes, indeed.

A lot of people complain about the cost of military items. Some of that cost is due to massive documentation and testing requirements. Those reqs are a PITA to comply with and often seem not only expensive but just plain overkill.

Until a new threat arises, that is, and we need to figure out just what effect that threat would have on armor or chem-bio suits that our reservists still use, or old electronics. Then that expensive documentation turns out to be valuable.

And if you think it's scary that we had trouble ensuring safe disassembly of old nukes, don't pay any attention to the fact that, with the nuclear test ban treaty in effect, we use *models* and *simulation* to decide whether other nuclear weapons are still safe and would be effective to deploy.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-25 18:49|| 2011-10-25 18:49|| Front Page Top

#14 The CTBT is not yet in force. Signatures from India and Pakistan are required.

Posted by john frum 2011-10-25 19:27|| 2011-10-25 19:27|| Front Page Top

#15 The US is complying with the terms of the CTBT pending Senate ratification and has done so since 1993. You're right that I shouldn't have said the treaty was in effect; however the net effect is the same with regard to safety and assurance of the stockpile.

Posted by lotp 2011-10-25 19:55|| 2011-10-25 19:55|| Front Page Top

#16 No need for such super-Nukies since, as contrary to history, the Govt-DOD says there will be no more major wars thru at least 2050, + perhaps even 2100.

IOW, asteriods + 2012 Solar storms aside, any and all future mil conflicts are mere MINOR/BRUSH WARS = UN-LED "POLICE/PEACEKEEPING/
HUMANITARIAN" ACTIONS.

SNAFU > UNO OWG MINOR WAR(S) meet RADICAL ISLAM'S GLOBAL JIHAD, aka MUSLIM/MOHAMMEDDAN GLOBAL-WORLD CONQUEST.

That weirdly + mysteriously, but only PDeniably coincidentally, also involves Radical Commie-Socialist militant groups.

Lest we fergit, 911 + GWOT > among other, aka WAR FOR PRO-US-VS-ANTI-US OWG = PRO-US-vS-ANTI-US GLOBAL SOCIALIST ORDER.

* 1990's CLINTONISM > "FASCISM"/NATIONAL SOCIALSM = merely LIMITED COMMUNISM/ANTI-NATIONALIST SOCIALISM aka ANTI-RIGHT "GLOBALISM".

But I digress ...

Posted by JosephMendiola 2011-10-25 20:34|| 2011-10-25 20:34|| Front Page Top

#17 See also WAFF > 2,350 OR 3500? HOW MANY NUKE WARHEADS DOES CHINA [really]HAVE?

Ditto Mama Russia???

Doubts on the true size of China's nuclear arsenal, as per US-West estimates vee the "Underground Great Wall".

Pragmatically, wid the decline of the former USSR, Beijing's post-COLD WAR rationale for covertly maintaining more Nuke Warheads than acknowledged or allowed by treaty would be to offset US-NATO MilTech superiority iff not dominance. In any case, post-Soviet Mother Russia + China still fear one another more than they do the US.

* ARTIC > Comments by PLA GEN, ZHU CHENGDU, to the WSJ back in 2005 on how China will launch nuclear missles agz hundreds, perhaps two hundreds, of US Cities iff the US came to the military aid of Taiwan during war with the mainland, SHOWS ANDOR INFERS HOW IMPORTANT OR CENTRAL TAIWAN IS TO CHINA + PLA PACIFIC STRATEGY.

HAINAN may have the big, offshore PLA bases but its Taiwan that Beijing truly wants.

and

* INDIAN DEFENCE FORUM > CHINA NEEDS [counter/anti-UIGHUR] BASES IN PAKISTAN, in the Pak FATA + FANA regions close to Xinjiang.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2011-10-25 23:36|| 2011-10-25 23:36|| Front Page Top

00:00 newc
23:43 newc
23:36 JosephMendiola
23:33 SteveS
23:17 Frank G
23:15 Frank G
23:02 JosephMendiola
22:28 Dale
22:24 Dale
21:59 rjschwarz
21:55 rjschwarz
21:13 Pappy
21:07 trailing wife
21:05 trailing wife
21:05 Pappy
20:45 JosephMendiola
20:39 Frank G
20:35 Barbara
20:34 JosephMendiola
20:20 Mike Kozlowski
20:06 Procopius2k
19:55 lotp
19:35 john frum
19:34 john frum