Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Strategic Nuclear Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: W76
french stratege    4/24/2005 7:41:18 PM
A rumor?
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Yimmy    RE:W76   4/24/2005 8:46:52 PM
"They say the warheads have not been tested for 13 years because of the global moratorium on the testing of nuclear weapons but were successfully detonated before then" Well unless we changed the design any, I see no reason why they wouldn't work. And I hardly think the article damages them as a deterrant, who is going to take the risk that all 190 warheads will be duds?
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:W76   4/26/2005 2:15:50 PM
"British and American nuclear warheads carried by submarines are so poorly designed that they may fail to detonate if fired, scientists have said." Meadow muffins! The Trident while it had originally had the W-76, now uses the W-88. Can't speak for the Brits, but I suspect they are not fools.
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    The reason for the article   4/26/2005 2:32:38 PM
This is a leak to promote the idea of new nuclear test and developement. By frightning people into thinking we dont know how reliable the nukes are and thus our deterent, the administration might be able to build political clout enough to conduct some test detonations.
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:The reason for the article   4/26/2005 2:52:47 PM
Gixxx - the last thing we want is to promote testing. We have the computers that can do the models and testing without making craters. It is to our advantage to not promote testing, since the bad guys don't have the ability to use computer testing and modeling. Thank goodness for Cray computers.
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:The reason for the article   4/26/2005 9:09:29 PM
Oh dont get me wrong. Although I would not oppose some test. I do have mixed feeling about it. But the ecological damage is minimal outside of the immediate area.
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:The reason for the article   4/26/2005 9:49:11 PM
Maybe a stupid question - but can't we just organise an international treaty where it is only legal to test nuclear weaponry, in space? Now, I don't have any dreams of Star Treck here, but surely a nuke would work in space, and with the right equipment could be analysed as to tell us what real effects it would have when detonated in the Earths atmosphere. In effect, this would allow us to conduct such tests, and Russia and China if they could find the money, while everybody else would be left in the dark still...
Quote    Reply

EW3    RE:The reason for the article - gixxx/yimmy   4/26/2005 9:55:48 PM
Gixxx, it's to our strategic advantage to not have any testing since we have the computers that can test for us. The other guys have to hope their weapons still work ;) Yimmy, problem with that is you'd be launching a nuclear weapon. If for some reason the missile didn't make it into space it would upset a lot of people. Even though it couldn't go off it would be a political mess. The greeners won't even let us launch a nuclear powered satellite into space.
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:The reason for the article - gixxx/yimmy   4/26/2005 10:02:22 PM
I do understand your point EW3. But the processing power to condict the simulations is no longer out of reach IMO. Also it seems that your arguement is stronger than mine in the current climate.
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:The reason for the article - gixxx/yimmy   6/4/2005 4:55:49 AM
Actually processing power per se may not be the issue. Remember the 1980s before the Cold War ended, the US went all hysterical (again), some CIA wizard had concluded that because the Sovs were building advanced nucs, aircraft, subs, etc, they needed advanced computing power, however, it was known that Sov computers weren't capable of this. The conclusion was that therefore the Sovs were illegally obtaining US ones. Once the Cold war ended it became clear they weren't illegally acquiring US computers (at least not on the large scale needed to support the CIA hypothesis), they just had better mathematical models, not really surprising given their traditional strength in maths. It also highlights the great US failing, the assumption that if the US does something a particular way then everybody else must do it the same way because the US way is 'obviously' the best. Codswallop.
Quote    Reply