Skip to main content

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

By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire


http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100319_6793.php

Comments

Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
"Shielding technology outpaces penetrating technology every time."

Right, a perfect reason to dump our nuclear weapons. The best and the brightest have spoken.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
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.
Anonymous said…
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.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

LLNL un-diversity

Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!