This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA.
The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore,
The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them.
Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted.
Blog author serves as a moderator.
For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com
Blog rules
Stay on topic.
No profanity, threatening language, pornography.
NO NAME CALLING.
No political debate.
Posts and comments are posted several times a day.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Debate Heats Up Over Conventional, Nuclear Deterrence Trade offs
Anonymously contributed:
A long but worthwhile read...
Debate Heats Up Over Conventional, Nuclear Deterrence Trade offs Friday, March 19, 2010
interesting article. looks like we will be heading for a hybrid of the two. I think the fact that these weapons(long range conventional) can actually be used as opposed to a threat of use (nuclear weapon) will give pause to those nations seeking nuclear capability. We would have the capability to take out nuclear programs using weapons launched from the United States. I think Iran, Korea should be very concerned.
We would have the capability to take out nuclear programs using weapons launched from the United States. I think Iran, Korea should be very concerned.
March 23, 2010 7:22 AM
Not proven. The "bunker buster" warheads have never penetrated as far or had the explosive effect advertised. Shielding technology outpaces penetrating technology every time.
Bunker busters have never been used to take out nuclear facilities and besides, aren't you the guy who claims there is only a few KG of HE on the ICBM? Research before you post next time.
Bunker busters have never been used to take out nuclear facilities and besides, aren't you the guy who claims there is only a few KG of HE on the ICBM? Research before you post next time.
March 25, 2010 7:02 PM
Nope, not that guy. Why does it matter if a facility is "nuclear" or not? The only issues are amount of HE, amount of penetration, and amount of coupling to the geologic formation. None of these are sufficient to destroy a deeply buried, hardened target.
The reactors that would be targeted in this case are all siting above ground. Reactors have been taken out with conventional weapons successfully in the past. Israel is expert in this field. It is very difficult to build a weapon without the key component, uranium.I suggest you check into it.
The reactors that would be targeted in this case are all siting above ground.
March 27, 2010 7:41 AM
The targeted facilitities to take out Iran's nuclear weapon program would not be above ground nuclear reactors, but buried uranium enrichment facilities. Try to keep up.
March 27, 2010 8:43 PM Right... Pu-239 is produced using the most common isotope of uranium, U-238. Pu is made in virtually all operating nuclear reactors.
According to Paul Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute, if Iran were to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and renounce the agreement with Russia, the Bushehr reactor could produce a quarter ton of plutonium per year, which Leventhal said was enough for at least 30 atomic bombs. Harmon W. Hubbard raised similar concerns in an April 2003 article titled "Plutonium from Light Water Reactors as Nuclear Weapon Material" published by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC). Another report published by the NPEC in 2004 reiterated the concerns about light water reactors and plutonium production.
March 27, 2010 8:43 PM Right... Pu-239 is produced using the most common isotope of uranium, U-238. Pu is made in virtually all operating nuclear reactors.
I think I am way out in front of you on this one.
March 28, 2010 7:12 PM
Right... If Iran were primarily interested in producing Pu for weapons, why are they building ever more underground centrifuges to enrich U above 20%? That makes no financial, or proliferation, sense except for a U weapon. A U weapon is much simpler technically (why little boy preceded fat man) and with a couple of sub-critical masses, can be made by almost anyone.
12 comments:
interesting article. looks like we will be heading for a hybrid of the two. I think the fact that these weapons(long range conventional) can actually be used as opposed to a threat of use (nuclear weapon) will give pause to those nations seeking nuclear capability. We would have the capability to take out nuclear programs using weapons launched from the United States. I think Iran, Korea should be very concerned.
We would have the capability to take out nuclear programs using weapons launched from the United States. I think Iran, Korea should be very concerned.
LOL... Neville Chamberlain would never allow it ... especially since he's in charge of America at the time. After 2012, you might be correct.
We would have the capability to take out nuclear programs using weapons launched from the United States. I think Iran, Korea should be very concerned.
March 23, 2010 7:22 AM
Not proven. The "bunker buster" warheads have never penetrated as far or had the explosive effect advertised. Shielding technology outpaces penetrating technology every time.
March 23, 2010 8:45 PM
Bunker busters have never been used to take out nuclear facilities and besides, aren't you the guy who claims there is only a few KG of HE on the ICBM? Research before you post next time.
"Shielding technology outpaces penetrating technology every time."
Right, a perfect reason to dump our nuclear weapons. The best and the brightest have spoken.
Bunker busters have never been used to take out nuclear facilities and besides, aren't you the guy who claims there is only a few KG of HE on the ICBM? Research before you post next time.
March 25, 2010 7:02 PM
Nope, not that guy. Why does it matter if a facility is "nuclear" or not? The only issues are amount of HE, amount of penetration, and amount of coupling to the geologic formation. None of these are sufficient to destroy a deeply buried, hardened target.
March 26, 2010 8:46 PM
The reactors that would be targeted in this case are all siting above ground. Reactors have been taken out with conventional weapons successfully in the past. Israel is expert in this field. It is very difficult to build a weapon without the key component, uranium.I suggest you check into it.
The reactors that would be targeted in this case are all siting above ground.
March 27, 2010 7:41 AM
The targeted facilitities to take out Iran's nuclear weapon program would not be above ground nuclear reactors, but buried uranium enrichment facilities. Try to keep up.
March 27, 2010 8:43 PM
Right...
Pu-239 is produced using the most common isotope of uranium, U-238. Pu is made in virtually all operating nuclear reactors.
I think I am way out in front of you on this one.
Nuclear Weapons Potential
According to Paul Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute, if Iran were to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and renounce the agreement with Russia, the Bushehr reactor could produce a quarter ton of plutonium per year, which Leventhal said was enough for at least 30 atomic bombs. Harmon W. Hubbard raised similar concerns in an April 2003 article titled "Plutonium from Light Water Reactors as Nuclear Weapon Material" published by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC). Another report published by the NPEC in 2004 reiterated the concerns about light water reactors and plutonium production.
March 27, 2010 8:43 PM
Right...
Pu-239 is produced using the most common isotope of uranium, U-238. Pu is made in virtually all operating nuclear reactors.
I think I am way out in front of you on this one.
March 28, 2010 7:12 PM
Right... If Iran were primarily interested in producing Pu for weapons, why are they building ever more underground centrifuges to enrich U above 20%? That makes no financial, or proliferation, sense except for a U weapon. A U weapon is much simpler technically (why little boy preceded fat man) and with a couple of sub-critical masses, can be made by almost anyone.
April 2, 2010 9:08 PM
The answer is: Iran is not building underground centrifuges (unless you know something the rest of us don't).
You can't make stuff up and then peddle it as fact. Fact trumps fiction every time.
Post a Comment