User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 2:11:14 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GhettoCowboy: Nuclear warheads are the only things in the US military inventory that do not have national stock numbers or dollar amounts assigned. I believe that technically they are not in the US military inventory. I think they are property of the NNSA, at least on paper. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 7:47:00 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762: I believe that technically they are not in the US military inventory. I think they are property of the NNSA, at least on paper. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762: Originally Posted By GhettoCowboy: Nuclear warheads are the only things in the US military inventory that do not have national stock numbers or dollar amounts assigned. I believe that technically they are not in the US military inventory. I think they are property of the NNSA, at least on paper. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45306.pdf Responsibility for U.S. nuclear weapons resides in both the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE). DOD develops, deploys, and operates the missiles and aircraft that deliver nuclear warheads. It also generates the military requirements for the warheads carried on those platforms. DOE, and its semiautonomous National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), oversee the research, development, testing, and acquisition programs that produce, maintain, and sustain the nuclear warheads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 10:40:07 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762: I believe that technically they are not in the US military inventory. I think they are property of the NNSA, at least on paper. They're "owned" by the DoE, and in the custody of the DoD. My first job as an officer in the USAF was to be the "MASO" -- the Munitions Accountable Systems Officer -- of a large nuclear weapons account for the USAF. I had to literally sign a joint DoD/DoE document with the serial numbers of all the special weapons accepting custody of them on behalf of the DoD. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 10:43:43 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762: In a strategy sense I'd suggest it should have stayed, for a gravity bomb. I had a close working relationship with both weapons in the mid-1990s, retiring one while flight testing the other. The '53, for all of its lore about its yield and capabilities, needed to go to the "glue factory" at Pantex. It was very elderly, and stockpile maintenance was becoming a substantial issue even then. Not to say that capability wouldn't be useful today, but that specific weapon system wasn't the one to carry it forward. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 10:47:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MudEagle]
[#5]
-deleted-
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 12:33:07 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By high_order1: I missed this nuance rereading. First off, no, it really doesn't if you know what you're looking at. The single stage one does, you can see where they took their design cues from the Brits. Second, I can build one better. The math is already out there. Someone buy me a garage, and a 3d metal printing machine, and I'll build some shit NNSA will swoop in and seize. No question. A truck driver built a model that's in a museum now. The documentary true lies made a really, really good model. But that's all it was, and without anything more, that's all the norks did. Here is what you should be asking, can you see if the 8-10 thousand magnox rods are in there, corroded and sludgy in the pool, or have they been raped for their plutonium? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/17550/Fig3_Yongbyon-Upd-22-0728_22-0722-MAX-15-3194676.JPG Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By high_order1: Originally Posted By swede1986: It can't be ruled out though as the pictures they did release match what is publically known about this kind of weapon. I missed this nuance rereading. First off, no, it really doesn't if you know what you're looking at. The single stage one does, you can see where they took their design cues from the Brits. Second, I can build one better. The math is already out there. Someone buy me a garage, and a 3d metal printing machine, and I'll build some shit NNSA will swoop in and seize. No question. A truck driver built a model that's in a museum now. The documentary true lies made a really, really good model. But that's all it was, and without anything more, that's all the norks did. Here is what you should be asking, can you see if the 8-10 thousand magnox rods are in there, corroded and sludgy in the pool, or have they been raped for their plutonium? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/17550/Fig3_Yongbyon-Upd-22-0728_22-0722-MAX-15-3194676.JPG On that point, there's open source papers on detecting Pu reprocessing through (IIRC) atmospheric Argon isotope levels. Supposedly good enough data to show that only the French were doing it on a large scale. Shrug. I'll see if I can find the references. To your surety questions, it's also open source that we offered PAL tech to Pakistan shortly after their late 90's surprise, they turned us down, and the world kept spinning along. I don't see a nuclear NK being as much of a hard "Absolutely Not!," for the rest of the world such that we'd start a really nasty fight with them, but reasonable people can differ. (We definitely should have sold our slime to SK rather than spend gazillions incinerating it. Provided it could be moved.) A gigantic, directed radiation weapon might have some uses in the comet-moving use case. Always enjoy reading your posts on this subject. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 12:36:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762: In a strategy sense I'd suggest it should have stayed, for a gravity bomb. Multiple lower-yield warheads were the ticket for MIRV ballistic missiles. If you're talking about making a single pass with a B2/B21 to hit some very hard target with one bomb, you might need a megaton yield bomb. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762: Originally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By Gamma762: 9MT is going to be very heavy, modern doesn't change the physics. Tactics changed such that the high yield devices were recognized as being less useful and effective. This is why the B53 is gone and the B61-11 is here. In a strategy sense I'd suggest it should have stayed, for a gravity bomb. Multiple lower-yield warheads were the ticket for MIRV ballistic missiles. If you're talking about making a single pass with a B2/B21 to hit some very hard target with one bomb, you might need a megaton yield bomb. Is it better to have a very large yield, but the device can't survive any delivery beyond laydown? Or is it better to have a smaller yield, that's robust enough to survive earth-penetration to, say, MOP depths? Advantage with the smaller is that you might be able to trap most of the otherwise significant fallout material in the camouflet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 12:59:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: They're "owned" by the DoE, and in the custody of the DoD. My first job as an officer in the USAF was to be the "MASO" -- the Munitions Accountable Systems Officer -- of a large nuclear weapons account for the USAF. I had to literally sign a joint DoD/DoE document with the serial numbers of all the special weapons accepting custody of them on behalf of the DoD. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By Gamma762: I believe that technically they are not in the US military inventory. I think they are property of the NNSA, at least on paper. They're "owned" by the DoE, and in the custody of the DoD. My first job as an officer in the USAF was to be the "MASO" -- the Munitions Accountable Systems Officer -- of a large nuclear weapons account for the USAF. I had to literally sign a joint DoD/DoE document with the serial numbers of all the special weapons accepting custody of them on behalf of the DoD. As the accountable officer, could you, like, sign one out for the weekend? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 3:31:26 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: They're "owned" by the DoE, and in the custody of the DoD. My first job as an officer in the USAF was to be the "MASO" -- the Munitions Accountable Systems Officer -- of a large nuclear weapons account for the USAF. I had to literally sign a joint DoD/DoE document with the serial numbers of all the special weapons accepting custody of them on behalf of the DoD. That's awesome! Thank you for what you did, especially in that Era. ... I have a question I'm dying to ask |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 3:31:55 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: -deleted-  
|
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 3:37:41 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: As the accountable officer, could you, like, sign one out for the weekend? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: Originally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By Gamma762: I believe that technically they are not in the US military inventory. I think they are property of the NNSA, at least on paper. They're "owned" by the DoE, and in the custody of the DoD. My first job as an officer in the USAF was to be the "MASO" -- the Munitions Accountable Systems Officer -- of a large nuclear weapons account for the USAF. I had to literally sign a joint DoD/DoE document with the serial numbers of all the special weapons accepting custody of them on behalf of the DoD. As the accountable officer, could you, like, sign one out for the weekend?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 3:47:18 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: On that point, there's open source papers on detecting Pu reprocessing through (IIRC) atmospheric Argon isotope levels. Supposedly good enough data to show that only the French were doing it on a large scale. Shrug. I'll see if I can find the references. To your surety questions, it's also open source that we offered PAL tech to Pakistan shortly after their late 90's surprise, they turned us down, and the world kept spinning along. I don't see a nuclear NK being as much of a hard "Absolutely Not!," for the rest of the world such that we'd start a really nasty fight with them, but reasonable people can differ. (We definitely should have sold our slime to SK rather than spend gazillions incinerating it. Provided it could be moved.) A gigantic, directed radiation weapon might have some uses in the comet-moving use case. Always enjoy reading your posts on this subject. My understanding is it is dependent on the process. For instance, I don't think you're going to get anything from plasma or from AVLIS. I believe they did reprocess. What actually worries me is, that's a poor country. Who has a fuck ton of unaccountable money, chemical experience from petroleum, but no real research reactors? Nk based on the two reactors is sitting on metric tons of pu. They have their own u mine. I just hope Nato put a spy in the last iaea visit so they can fingerprint all their source material. I've said for years, if a ind happens, it will be fueled with nk, Vietnam or Mexican product. The AEC offered pal concepts to several, including Russia. Russian transports are based off energy consulting. Pakistan is an edge case. India isn't. At least in my view. I'd bet money the few both have are separated like 2nd gen US systems, and prep for strike is probably measured in days. I've laid out my argument best I can. Nk actively threatens and does things I can't see their neighbors accepting if they have actual capacity. US invaded Iraq for way less. I freely admit my position is tenuous at best, and based on fuck all. Lol we can absolutely disagree here, I am no wonk by any stretch. I just don't believe anything they say, and I strongly think sk and Japan would act. Thanks, by the way. Usually my nuc posts get hate mail from inside fence types. My blood sugar runs funny lately so nothing I say probably makes any sense anyway L Oh L |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 3:51:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: high_order1]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: Is it better to have a very large yield, but the device can't survive any delivery beyond laydown? Or is it better to have a smaller yield, that's robust enough to survive earth-penetration to, say, MOP depths? Advantage with the smaller is that you might be able to trap most of the otherwise significant fallout material in the camouflet. What's the vntk of the target? What does the current administration and five sided wind tunnel consider reasonable doctrine? Do you need to couple to a terrain feature? Can you live with fallout? My understanding is a lot of roe in Germany was based on not crapping up their countryside long term Edit: I did a little dive into that when the Big Guy explained counterforce that time. The video helped, too. I don't remember the jargon, and I'm not qualified to use it. Essentially, there is a huge fucking order of battle with multiple layers and hundreds of elements that are timed to the second. A symbiotic part of this is nnsa makes systems based on dod requirements then state fucks that up with treaties and limits so both have to go back and refigure how to hit what with where. It's why the president gets the picture menu. No way to hash out real responses in the time it would take to generate them. There might be nudges based on sources and methods, but the plan is the plan. That's why everyone is terrified of single silo low yield stuff. No planning, drop one tomahawk in bin ladens cave portico. The neighbors one valley over wouldn't even get their hair mussed |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 6:32:19 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheOtherDave: With proper maintenance schedules, they last a long, long, long time. Since Tritium has a half-life of 12.3 years and is a key element of modern bombs; no, H bombs do NOT last a long time. You have to continuously re-process the tritium portion of the bomb to keep the yield where you want, the way the yield "dial" works is how much tritium is positioned where for the detonation of the A-bomb 'trigger'. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 6:37:12 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By high_order1: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By high_order1: Originally Posted By MudEagle: -deleted- Hehe, just decided I was sharing too much. 🙃 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 6:38:53 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By engineer61: Since Tritium has a half-life of 12.3 years and is a key element of modern bombs; no, H bombs do NOT last a long time. You have to continuously re-process the tritium portion of the bomb to keep the yield where you want, the way the yield "dial" works is how much tritium is positioned where for the detonation of the A-bomb 'trigger'. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By engineer61: Originally Posted By TheOtherDave: With proper maintenance schedules, they last a long, long, long time. Since Tritium has a half-life of 12.3 years and is a key element of modern bombs; no, H bombs do NOT last a long time. You have to continuously re-process the tritium portion of the bomb to keep the yield where you want, the way the yield "dial" works is how much tritium is positioned where for the detonation of the A-bomb 'trigger'. Tritium bottle LLC replacement and servicing is a normal maintenance schedule task for weapons in the active, reserve, and depot stockpiles. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 6:42:14 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HappyCamel: You might seem smug and snarky now, but you try to develop a green, biodegradable, carbon neutral, ethically sourced, organic, farm to table, not tested on animals, 100% from recycled materials, thermonuclear weapon. ETA: with an inclusive team of diverse POCs that respects the intersectionality and challenges these people face working within a patriarchal capitalist inherently racist system that marginalizes them and their achievements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 6:47:14 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By high_order1: That's awesome! Thank you for what you did, especially in that Era. ... I have a question I'm dying to ask Hit it! As said, I really enjoy your posts in these threads, too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 6:49:08 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: As the accountable officer, could you, like, sign one out for the weekend? just a little one?  Attached File |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 6:51:17 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WoodHeat: 2030s? WW3 will be over by then. There are plenty of numbers after 3. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 6:54:04 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crownvic96: It's a weird joint DoD/DoE thing. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45306.pdf Yeah and one thing lay people don't realize is the bulk of the DOE budget goes to dealing with nuke maintenance, production, testing etc. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 8:21:27 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: As the accountable officer, could you, like, sign one out for the weekend? Stranger things have been discussed while sitting around a WSA. I think our favorite was, "how would I steal one." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:36:50 PM EDT
[#23]
Originally Posted By MudEagle: Hit it! As said, I really enjoy your posts in these threads, too. Originally Posted By MudEagle: Stranger things have been discussed while sitting around a WSA. I think our favorite was, "how would I steal one." Um, notionally, how many things would have to go wrong before a wr unit was loaded for tactical ferry instead of a type 3?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:40:49 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Hehe, just decided I was sharing too much. 🙃 All I could think reading this thread is y'all are way bolder than anything I would share lol. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:44:15 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Consigli: Probably should rename it the The DEI warhead. Well, the spread of perversion and ignorance will surely destroy any country it’s loosed upon but it takes a lot longer than canned sunshine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:45:55 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HappyCamel: You might seem smug and snarky now, but you try to develop a green, biodegradable, carbon neutral, ethically sourced, organic, farm to table, not tested on animals, 100% from recycled materials, thermonuclear weapon. Nailed it!  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:47:09 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wingnutx: Compare deliver methods from 1945 and 2024, as well as bomb yield and physical size. Bull! It’s 100% because we offshored our vacuum tube technology. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 9:50:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By VaniB: Look at thr havoc just 2 collapsing buildings in NYC did to our society! Yeah, but, worthless, corrupt politicians are a force multiplier we have perfected. What other country in the developed world could have turned 9/11 into a $2T effort that did nothing to enhance our security and absolutely put restraints on the freedoms of law abiding citizens? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 10:03:36 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HeavyMetal: Von Braun would have killed to have modern American rocketry. V-2’s with solid fuel and INS? Britain would have taken some hits. Hell, V-1’s with the INS would have left a mark. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 10:05:53 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheWhiteHorse: Stupid. As we tell everyone else they can’t have one. We should put up “Nuke Free Zone” signs all over. That will save us a lot of money. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 10:17:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Gamma762]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: Is it better to have a very large yield, but the device can't survive any delivery beyond laydown? Or is it better to have a smaller yield, that's robust enough to survive earth-penetration to, say, MOP depths? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: Originally Posted By Gamma762: Originally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By Gamma762: 9MT is going to be very heavy, modern doesn't change the physics. Tactics changed such that the high yield devices were recognized as being less useful and effective. This is why the B53 is gone and the B61-11 is here. In a strategy sense I'd suggest it should have stayed, for a gravity bomb. Multiple lower-yield warheads were the ticket for MIRV ballistic missiles. If you're talking about making a single pass with a B2/B21 to hit some very hard target with one bomb, you might need a megaton yield bomb. Is it better to have a very large yield, but the device can't survive any delivery beyond laydown? Or is it better to have a smaller yield, that's robust enough to survive earth-penetration to, say, MOP depths? Maybe yes, maybe no. Just saying that taking one option off the table, when it's an option that will effectively never be able to be regenerated, might not have been the wisest course of action. Even in some really off-the-wall scenario like space object deflection or something like that, a high-yield bomb might be useful, but not if they've been dismantled. The reality is that we can't build a nuclear weapon as a practical matter. The beginning of this thread is the suggestion that we might be able to rearrange some parts into a new warhead with a couple decades of work. But for the most part, all we have, or will have, is what we already have, with at most some parts re-arranging. So if it was me, I'd keep at least a small quantity of various devices as a hedge against whatever. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 11:16:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MudEagle]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By high_order1: Um, notionally, how many things would have to go wrong before a wr unit was loaded for tactical ferry instead of a type 3? I had the displeasure of being part of the first NSI after the Minot-Barksdale incident in '07...and *everyone* wanted to have an observer attached to the inspection team. After at least a decade, if not two, of wholesale sidelining of the Nuclear enterprise (thanks, Global War On Terror and "peace dividend"), suddenly everyone in the USAF, DoE, NNSA, etc, was *very* interested again. Talk about pressure. Things were even more fun in NATO partner nations. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 11:17:05 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jkees: All I could think reading this thread is y'all are way bolder than anything I would share lol. I don't talk about anything that isn't referenced in open-source publications, however obscure hehe. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 11:20:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Hesperus]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Stranger things have been discussed while sitting around a WSA. I think our favorite was, "how would I steal one." Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By towerofpower94: As the accountable officer, could you, like, sign one out for the weekend? Stranger things have been discussed while sitting around a WSA. I think our favorite was, "how would I steal one." I saw a documentary about that in the mid 90s. I think all you need is an electric shaver, some muscle and a Beretta 93R.  Broken Arrow 1996- The Betrayal |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 11:24:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Wineraner]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Tritium bottle LLC replacement and servicing is a normal maintenance schedule task for weapons in the active, reserve, and depot stockpiles. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Originally Posted By engineer61: Originally Posted By TheOtherDave: With proper maintenance schedules, they last a long, long, long time. Since Tritium has a half-life of 12.3 years and is a key element of modern bombs; no, H bombs do NOT last a long time. You have to continuously re-process the tritium portion of the bomb to keep the yield where you want, the way the yield "dial" works is how much tritium is positioned where for the detonation of the A-bomb 'trigger'. Tritium bottle LLC replacement and servicing is a normal maintenance schedule task for weapons in the active, reserve, and depot stockpiles. PITA too, AIU, given it's hydrogen and hydrogen atoms swap spots in organic compounds a whole lot more than I realized in O. Chem. It likes to get out of whatever you stick it in. We invented saturated flurocarbons for a reason. Kind of surprised tritium luminescent vials ever became things, now that I think about it. I wonder how the tritium in, say, an ACOG, is made to stick around in the event of a catastrophic failure of the sight? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 11:25:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MudEagle]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: I saw a documentary about that in the mid 90s. I think all you need is an electric shaver, some muscle and a Beretta 93R. Interestingly, the DoE Transportation Safeguards Division held a "competition" in the early 90s in a WSA at a BRAC'd base where they invited various DoD units to attempt to steal a simulated weapon. Lots of lessons were learned, but also a lot of systems and tactics were validated. |
|
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 11:28:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Somewhere in China........
Mass Underwater Drone Development and production starts in 3...2...1..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2024 11:34:47 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Interestingly, the DoE Transportation Safeguards Division held a "competition" in the early 90s in a WSA at a BRAC'd base where they invited various DoD units to attempt to steal a simulated weapon. Lots of lessons were learned, but also a lot of systems and tactics were validated. Seems like a good idea to test these sorts of things from time to time. Assuming such things are always going to work, well... What's that they say about making assumptions? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 1:17:19 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jkees: All I could think reading this thread is y'all are way bolder than anything I would share lol. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 1:19:03 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryYou think that's funny, try being me at 11, volunteering at the American Museum of Science & Energy, and telling hippies that uranium is as organic as it gets IT'S FROM THE EARFFFF.... MANNNNNNN |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 1:23:32 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762: So if it was me, I'd keep at least a small quantity of various devices as a hedge against whatever. There is weasel wording, if you read the treaties; a certain state of dismantlement removes the item from the count. But it's not a complete disassembly. I would have trouble trusting any of the pits in storage. Too much helium embrittlement, especially the hotter near critical designs. If they kept the main charge HE molds and a couple of other critical/impossible to dupe from the prints items... dunno. There's a reason they haven't shoved all the pits through ARIES, and I don't think it's an USQ. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 1:33:14 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: I had the displeasure of being part of the first NSI after the Minot-Barksdale incident in '07...and *everyone* wanted to have an observer attached to the inspection team. After at least a decade, if not two, of wholesale sidelining of the Nuclear enterprise (thanks, Global War On Terror and "peace dividend"), suddenly everyone in the USAF, DoE, NNSA, etc, was *very* interested again. Talk about pressure. Things were even more fun in NATO partner nations. Oh, and on top of all that PRP. Once you get past patriotism, and they took Germany away from people... I don't see a lot of incentive to do any of it. Even if you get a shoulder patch that says NUKES like SF and EOD. (shrugs) One of the few things you can do for Defense, and be deep inside CONUS, do something minor, and it can be an international incident. I have a picture somewhere of a 61 with its dick in the dirt and the H gear on top of it, took a corner a little too fast, and maybe a caster locked up. If it were a Mk.82... certain level of spanking. WR unit... I can't even imagine the paperwork, much less everybody from the Wing King on down getting in trouble. Nope, ton of respect for the entire enterprise, especially when you have so many handwringing and being negative about the concept of nweps in general. Fucking thankless, so... again, thank you. I appreciate you guys. Sorry I pester you all so much, but hundreds of you are dying, and no one will ever know your stories. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 1:33:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Jkees]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By high_order1: What do you know that you'd never tell with regards to this topic? I'm in Missouri, currently employed, and a welder. You are a smart guy. I'm sure you can figure it out. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 1:37:17 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: I don't talk about anything that isn't referenced in open-source publications, however obscure hehe. then, on the other hand, it is amazing what USAF/DoE/DTRA will withhold. I tried to FOIA the AF nweps acc? (extension course) FOUO books, after finding one online. They came off of a bunch of 11N TO's, but those? fuck no. Weird. I have almost the entire set of Army MOS publications, though, in their entirety. (shrugs) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 1:39:23 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wineraner: PITA too, AIU, given it's hydrogen and hydrogen atoms swap spots in organic compounds a whole lot more than I realized in O. Chem. It likes to get out of whatever you stick it in. We invented saturated flurocarbons for a reason. Kind of surprised tritium luminescent vials ever became things, now that I think about it. I wonder how the tritium in, say, an ACOG, is made to stick around in the event of a catastrophic failure of the sight? They also invented this interesting phenomena where they made 'beds' of materials that you can chemically saturate with DT, and it will stay stuck there until you heat it. Them guys back then were smart as fuck. Too bad that's not encouraged anymore. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 1:41:28 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MudEagle: Interestingly, the DoE Transportation Safeguards Division held a "competition" in the early 90s in a WSA at a BRAC'd base where they invited various DoD units to attempt to steal a simulated weapon. Lots of lessons were learned, but also a lot of systems and tactics were validated. I may know where a video is out in the wild of some CIF guys chucking a training W62 out of the back of a trailer to take off with it in a wheelbarrow |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 1:47:34 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hesperus: Seems like a good idea to test these sorts of things from time to time. Assuming such things are always going to work, well... What's that they say about making assumptions? In fact, AEC/ERDA got their asses handed to them so consistently, they quit asking and formed their own composite adversary force to do it in-house. To be fair, the guard force had the cards stacked against them how TSA used to get failed. And, when CAG is using chain saws to cut into RB's and take the NEP... that cuts a lot of time down in their evolutions where using the, what was it called? graded design basis threat matrix? they realized that timing responses using gentlemen rules wasn't going to work. I still want to know how they were able to cheat and get those giant fucking doors jacked out of the ground without the normal fuss... I have the emergency destruction manual. No way you could get that done no-notice. I often wonder if they would have blown all the assets in Turkey that one time, too |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 1:49:56 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jkees: I'm in Missouri, currently employed, and a welder. You are a smart guy. I'm sure you can figure it out. ... fuck honeywell. lol |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 1:52:49 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By high_order1: Oh. ... fuck honeywell. lol Couldnt say it better myself! Can't tell if IAMAW or Honeywell is worse most days. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 2:51:37 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jkees: Couldnt say it better myself! Can't tell if IAMAW or Honeywell is worse most days. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
