0
   

North Carolina nearly nuked.

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Sep, 2013 07:31 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
or they are parroting a standard line about how hard it is to set off an implosion bomb accidentally, because all of the lenses need to detonate at exactly the same time. Which is sometimes the right approach (though not all American bomb designs were “one-point safe” — that is, there were designs that ran a real risk of producing a nuclear yield even if just one of the explosive lenses accidentally fired),


A fizzle is highly unlikely to produce even a few kilotons explosion let alone megatons city wiping nuclear explosion.

Quote:
It’s a film for internal consumption by a nuclear weapons laboratory. So it’s hard to not take this as authoritative, along with the other aforementioned document.


A dumb down film for internal consumption of a nuclear weapons lab personal !!!!!!!!!

Have a feeling this was target to the politicians not the experts as the film is how you would communicate to non-experts.

Quote:
fact that this is what the nuclear weapons designers tell themselves about this accident.


Nonsense there would have been a great deal more details if it was what the experts was telling each other about the accident and it would not be in a film version either in my opinion.

Quote:
This one’s interesting because it embeds these accidents in a context as well — the possibility of either us, or the Soviets, accidentally launching a nuke and wondering if a full-scale nuclear exchange has to follow


This accident had zero to do with launching in error a nuclear attack as that is a command and control issue not a safety issue of the nuclear devices themselves.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 07:24 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Wellerstein's blog wrote:
Mr. McNamara went on to describe the possibilities which existed for an accidental launch of a missile against the USSR. He pointed out that we were spending millions of dollars to reduce this problem to a minimum, but that we could not assure ourselves completely against such a contingency. Moreover he suggested that it was unlikely that the Soviets were spending as much as we were in attempting to narrow the limits of possible accidental launch. He went on to describe crashes of US aircraft[,] one in North Carolina and one in Texas, where, by the slightest margin of chance, literally the failure of two wires to cross, a nuclear explosion was averted.

So what happened with the "close call" in Texas?!?


Could they be referring to this event? It's the only one in Texas that even seems to come close:

Quote:
November 4, 1958 / B-47 / Dyess AFB, near Abilene, Texas

A B-47 caught fire on takeoff. Three crewmen ejected successfully; one was killed when the aircraft crashed from an altitude of 1,500 feet. One nuclear weapon was aboard the plane; the resultant detonation of its HE made a crater 35 feet in diameter and six feet deep. There was some local contamination; nuclear materials were recovered intact near the crash site.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 11:26 am
@oralloy,
The conventional explosives went off but no nuclear explosion so a real life example that in order to get such a nuclear explosion you need everything to work as design within nanoseconds.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 12:25 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

The conventional explosives went off but no nuclear explosion so a real life example that in order to get such a nuclear explosion you need everything to work as design within nanoseconds.


How can you possibly think it is logical to assert that what did not happen is actually proof that everything has to work as designed within nanoseconds in order for it to happen?



Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 12:27 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Or even that it is a real life example that it must?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 12:32 pm
@Frank Apisa,
He's not asserting anything; the proof is that there has never been an accidental nuclear explosion in the history of nuke weapons in the US. The safeguards work, because they are simply safeguards. It takes more than one person to trigger a device. That makes it impossible for one crazy nut to set off a nuclear device.

Where do you learn your information about nukes? From comic books?

The assumptions you make about nuclear weapons are from the same basis you want others to prove there is no god. Hopeless.

I'd even venture to say they have better safeguards today than when I worked with them fifty years ago.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 12:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

He's not asserting anything...


Yeah, he is. Read his comment again. He is asserting something.

Quote:
... the proof is that there has never been an accidental nuclear explosion in the history of nuke weapons in the US. The safeguards work, because they are simply safeguards. It takes more than one person to trigger a device. That makes it impossible for one crazy nut to set off a nuclear device.


He was asserting that because there was no explosion...that had to be due to things not happening in nanoseconds.

You cannot get from the scenario to that conclusion logically.

Quote:
Where do you learn your information about nukes? From comic books?


Nope. I was in SAC, remember. Back in the 1950's. We learned lots about nukes then...and I've learned lots about them since.

Quote:
The assumptions you make about nuclear weapons are from the same basis you want others to prove there is no god. Hopeless.


WHAT ASSUMPTIONS HAVE I MADE ABOUT THEM?

Why do you make stuff up like this, ci. You are better than this. Stop allowing me to bother you so much.


Quote:
I'd even venture to say they have better safeguards today than when I worked with them fifty years ago.


Well, I am impressed. You are actually "venturing" to say that things may be better and more sophisticated now than they were fifty years ago.

That is amazing, ci.

You are a pleasure to deal with in a conversation of this sort! Wink
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 12:45 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Yes he can! Where's your proof/evidence that it can?

You do know what "proof/evidence" is don't you? Please provide your proof?
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 12:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes he can! Where's your proof/evidence that it can?


Who is he...and what "can" he do?

Control, ci. It is very important in these kinds of discussions. Your discussion partners can never make a fool of you...but you CAN make a fool of yourself if you lose contorl.

Quote:
You do know what "proof/evidence" is don't you? Please provide your proof?


My proof of what?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 01:21 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
My proof of what?


That implosion plutonium base nuclear weapons can go off if everything does not function correctly in time units of nanoseconds just to start with.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 01:35 pm
@BillRM,
Frank plays dumb when he can't answer simple questions. Typical.

I bet most everyone else understands the question.

"Where's the proof/evidence that a nuclear weapon will detonate in the US?"

How does anyone prove god does not exist? LOL Frank doesn't even understand logic 101.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 01:39 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
My proof of what?


That implosion plutonium base nuclear weapons can go off if everything does not function correctly in time units of nanoseconds just to start with.


Why would you ask me for proof of that. I have never suggested otherwise. I have merely qusetioned the logic of your assertion.

I have NO IDEA of all the circumstances that will allow the weapons to fire...and I strongly suspect neither you nor ci know either.

In any case...the fact that the bomb did not detonate in the instance you cited...IS NOT PROOF that they only can detonate if "everything functions in nanoseconds."
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 01:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank plays dumb when he can't answer simple questions. Typical.

I bet most everyone else understands the question.

"Where's the proof/evidence that a nuclear weapon will detonate in the US?"


Well...there is the fact that several already have detonated in the US. That is pretty decent "proof."

But I have not asserted that I know they can. I am merely questioning the logic of Bill's asssertion...the one you said he did not make.

Quote:
How does anyone prove god does not exist?


I don't think anyone can. So I wonder why anyone would assert that no gods exist. Not that you have...but some people have asserted that no gods exist.

But we both agree...with smiles on our faces...that one cannot prove that...so the assertion is a guess of sorts.

Quote:

LOL Frank doesn't even understand logic 101.


Frank understands logic 101. And higher!
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 01:44 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, Playing dumb again. We're talking about a nuclear explosion. I've already said that it's possible for a conventional explosion several pages back.

We're talking about nuclear weapon's safeguards against nuclear explosions in the US.

dummy.....or stupid. Any one is POSSIBLE.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 01:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Frank, Playing dumb again. We're talking about a nuclear explosion. I've already said that it's possible for a conventional explosion several pages back.


I was talking about a nuclear explosion. Get yourself calm...and you will be able to comprehend more easily.

Or are you saying that there has never been a nuclear explosion in the United States?

(Time to reword your comment again!)

Quote:
We're talking about nuclear weapon's safeguards against nuclear explosions in the US.


Perhaps you are talking about accidental nuclear weapons safeguards. If so...you really should state so.

Quote:
dummy.....or stupid. Any one is POSSIBLE.


If you think I am stupid or a dummy...there is nothing I can do about it. I have to accept that you feel that way.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 02:05 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Or are you saying that there has never been a nuclear explosion in the United States?


Never been an accidental nuclear weapon explosion in the US or anywhere else for that matter!!!!!!!

Quote:
you are talking about accidental nuclear weapons safeguards.


Due to their very nature they are inherently as safe as any other type of weapons devices/system mankind have ever come up with in relationship to accidental operations.

Then you placed engineering safeguards on top of these inherently safe devices.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 02:18 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Or are you saying that there has never been a nuclear explosion in the United States?


Never been an accidental nuclear weapon explosion in the US or anywhere else for that matter!!!!!!!


Aha...now we are getting somewhere. That took a bit of time...but you finally got to include the word "accidental."


Quote:


Quote:
you are talking about accidental nuclear weapons safeguards.


Due to their very nature they are inherently as safe as any other type of weapons devices/system mankind have ever come up with in relationship to accidental operations.

Then you placed engineering safeguards on top of these inherently safe devices.



Okay...and it does seem that way.

But the statement you made earlier that started this give and take...was not logical.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 02:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
That took a bit of time...but you finally got to include the word "accidental."


!!!!!!!!! The subject of this thread concerned an accident that involved a nuclear weapon so what the hell are you talking about??????
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 02:33 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
That took a bit of time...but you finally got to include the word "accidental."


!!!!!!!!! The subject of this thread concerned an accident that involved a nuclear weapon so what the hell are you talking about??????


I was very specific in what I was saying. I even asked you a question that showed what I was saying.

I am talking about what I was talking about.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Oct, 2013 02:44 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
The conventional explosives went off but no nuclear explosion so a real life example that in order to get such a nuclear explosion you need everything to work as design within nanoseconds.

Yes. That is what did happen.

But there was apparently an accident in Texas where what almost happened was: everything working as designed within nanoseconds.

There are very few details about the November 1958 crash near Abilene (not even what model of bomb was on the plane), but it looks like that was the only accident in Texas that came close to that level of severity.

I wonder if the bomb was a Mk-36. Setting off a Mk-36 on our own territory would have been bad.
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/28/2022 at 10:03:40