US Forgets How To Make Trident Missiles 922
Hugh Pickens writes "The US and the UK are trying to refurbish the aging W76 warheads that tip Trident missiles to prolong their life and ensure they are safe and reliable but plans have been put on hold because US scientists have forgotten how to manufacture a mysterious but very hazardous component of the warhead codenamed Fogbank. 'NNSA had lost knowledge of how to manufacture the material because it had kept few records of the process when the material was made in the 1980s, and almost all staff with expertise on production had retired or left the agency,' says the report by a US congressional committee. Fogbank is thought by some weapons experts to be a foam used between the fission and fusion stages of the thermonuclear bomb on the Trident Missile and US officials say that manufacturing Fogbank requires a solvent cleaning agent which is 'extremely flammable' and 'explosive,' and that the process involves dealing with 'toxic materials' hazardous to workers. 'This is like James Bond destroying his instructions as soon as he has read them,' says John Ainslie, the co-ordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, adding that 'perhaps the plans for making Fogbank were so secret that no copies were kept.' Thomas D'Agostino, administrator or the US National Nuclear Security Administration, told a congressional committee that the administration was spending 'a lot of money' trying to make 'Fogbank' at Y-12, but 'we're not out of the woods yet.'"
Like James Bond destroying his instructions? (Score:3, Informative)
Mission Impossible, yes. James Bond, no.
Ah the naivety of youth (Score:3, Informative)
"In the current global climate, there's no point in having nuclear missiles"
Right, because russia isn't being beligerant, Iran isn't keeping up its worn out Death to the USA rhetoric and hasn't just developed a ballistic missle capable of carrying nuclear missiles, various islamic groups arn't trying to obtain fissile material etc etc.
"and are now allies "
Really? Tell that to Georgia (the european country).
"who are hostile and nuclear capable can't reach us"
Yes, because making a rocket go a few extra thousand miles is such a challenge compared to developing a nuclear bomb.
Can't let it happen? (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry to point this out but it looks like it already has. Anyway , the russians have always been pretty smart when its come to high speed kit whether it be rocket motors or jet fighters. Look how far ahead of their time the Mig 25 foxbat and Mig 29 fulcrum were/are.
Re:sounds like a good time for some innovation. (Score:3, Informative)
Everything was better in the 80's. ... so why not missiles too?
Music, TV, Films.
So much so that this last decade has seen more remakes, covers sequels and reimaginings from that era than any other...
Re:This is very scary! (Score:3, Informative)
If the US keeps going the way it is we'll get to see them in action soon enough. It's believed that Iran got Sunburns via China a few years ago.
The fifth fleet is sitting off their coast in a what is basically a bay, otherwise known as being sitting ducks.
NOTA BENE: This is not possible. (Score:5, Informative)
Having worked at this facility in the '80's as an engineer, I can say definitively that this scenario is either misunderstood, or incorrectly reported, or deliberately obfuscated, or a lie, or postulated from sketchy evidence, but it is factually and wholly wrong.
Every project for every material or product, special or otherwise, was properly documented. These files would not be destroyed. (Note here that I'm assuming the files on "fogbank" were not lost in an accident or by malicious destruction.)
Now, has the practical and hands-on knowledge of the step-by-step, moment-by-moment synthesis reaction to make this material been lost? Perhaps in the course of 25 years it has. Lots of people have left the plant since then. But all the information, notations and observations necessary to reconstruct the process/project do exist, I assure you.
Re:I have this really novel idea (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:4, Informative)
Not that the US did not create the situation, but more Iraqis killed other Iraqis than US soldiers killed anyone in the past 8 years.
At its heart, radical, fundamentalist Islam is a death cult.
Saturn V Urban Legend (Score:4, Informative)
According to a friend that did a stint in high level strategy at NASA, that's not really an urban legend. When the project was shelved, the documents were more or less destroyed. Our Shuttle launch capacity isn't the same as then, and we really don't have the capacity to just "put err up." It's not that the blueprints are gone, one presumes that a certain level of that was archived, and reverse engineering the rest of the tech wouldn't be the issue, but you are right about the industrial base.
Also, changing environmental and work conditions would prevent just throwing together the Saturn V. Also, engineers of today don't have the same skill sets as back then. I never learned drafting, the core of engineering then. The archived records would presumably let skilled engineers recreate the project, but we don't have the same skills. Reorienting NASA for the Mars mission was a complete reorg of most of the agency, and a LOT of the work is recreating our technology from the space race with modern techniques and materials, because the old stuff doesn't exist.
Same reason you can't buy a 57 Chevy new... it's not that GM couldn't make a similar truck, but with modern environmental and CAFE standards, you couldn't recreate the classics, even if all the plans were there, and the guys working the lines are trained for robotic factories, you couldn't just recreate the 57 lines.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Informative)
They're not really clean. They're "clean" from the perspective that they kill all the people while leaving the buildings *mostly* intact. However, they greatly increase the amount of radioactivity in the area. All those buildings that are penetrated with neutron radiation become radioactive themselves. A significant "rest" period is required before the city can be inhabited again. (Which is arguably unwise anyway.)
Air-burst nukes are already relatively clean. Putting aside the fact that they mow over cities, the detonation event happening in mid-air leaves very little ground material in a highly radioactive state. Topsoil still should be replaced and drinking water checked for possible contamination, but the long term effects of an area that is properly cleaned up are usually fairly minimal.
It's the interim before cleanup that's the big deal. With plenty of short-term radiation to go around, the bombs do a pretty good job of turning any area into a hell-hole. Which is a far more deterring effect than turning a city into a ghost town.
Ground detonations are another matter altogether. Those are just about as nasty as you can get. The fallout does an extremely good job of making the area unlivable for a very long time. (As the US found out after it unhelpfully blasted dozens of islands into nothingness during nuclear testing.)
You still haven't answered the question: WHY? What possible use could such weapons be?
A few orders of magnitude off, there (Score:3, Informative)
> non-nuclear weapons with megaton yields
No such thing. The largest thermobaric weapons have yields in the tens or at most hundreds of tons.
From Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not the only time (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not the only time (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Informative)
"The origins of the group can be traced to the Soviet war in Afghanistan. The United States viewed the conflict in Afghanistan, with the Afghan Marxists and allied Soviet troops on one side and the native Afghan mujahedeen on the other, as a blatant case of Soviet expansionism and aggression. The U.S. channelled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the native Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupation in a CIA program called Operation Cyclone."1 [wikipedia.org]
Cited, yo.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Informative)
No offense, but stuff it. The US does not set out to kill as many people as possible.
I certainly hope not. But unfortunately what one "set out to do" isn't what counts. What counts is what actually happens, especially when it was a forseeable result of one's actions. "I didn't mean to" is okay for children, but not so good for adults.
91,060 - 99,433 [iraqbodycount.org] is the complete total for civilian deaths in Iraq.
No, actually it's the number of documented deaths. That is, it's actually only a lower bound. The true number is certainly higher. No one knows how much higher. It would seem that there has been a studied effort by the governments involved not to determine the true number of men, women, and children killed.
But having a hundred thousand people die due to being killed by their own people (#1 cause) and accidental deaths during live fire
If these people would still have been alive had the US not acted, the US bears a responsibility. It might be true that this was the best of the available alternatives, but this case has not been seriously made at this point. "It's not our fault" is a pretty pathetic substitute.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Informative)
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -George Orwell
Not to be pedantic (well, OK, it's thoroughly pedantic, but I'll point it out anyway), but there's no evidence that Orwell ever actually said this. I see this quote all the time, but it's never sourced or dated. More info here [wikiquote.org]. (And yes, I'm aware of the irony of pointing to wikiquote to debunk a quotation that's not sourced. I think the burden of proof is probably on the person attributing the quote, though.)
That said, misquote or not, I agree with the sentiment 100%.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Informative)
Scorched fucking earth in Afghanistan. The American people called for retaliation, and they got it.
That's generally what happens when you provide logistical support and a base of operations to a terrorist organization that attacks a Great Power. You think Afghanistan would have come out better if Bin Ladin had murdered ~3,000 Chinese or Russians instead of ~3,000 Americans?
Bin Laden was in Afghanistan not because the Taleban invited him but because the CIA did. He was an American puppet for as long as it suited the US to stir up Muslim fundamentalists against communism. Then the US 'won the war against communism', and suddenly their CIA trained and CIA funded fundamentalist friends were looking around for a new target.
The Taleban were anything but nice people, of course - they were also CIA clients, after all - but you really cannot blame the people of Afghanistan for Bin Laden. He isn't Afghani, andthe Afghans didn't invite him.
It would be a bit like - oooh, I don't know - blaming Fidel Castro for Guantanamo.
Re:Reality.. (Score:3, Informative)
What is your point then? Nuclear weapons at the time were strictly a Soviet and American technology.
At the time, they were strictly an American technology. It was only later that treasonous Americans and Brits sold the secrets to the Communists.
That is far from the case these days and also worth noting that Japan was not wiped off the map and was already preparing to surrender.
Japan was preparing to defend its islands inch-by-inch. Without the atomic bombs, 1 million+ Americans would likely have died in block-by-block fighting in Japan.
There are theories that the detonations were just a way to show off to the world the power of the atomic bomb and for the Emperor of Japan to save face when he was ready to surrender.
Well, there are theories that NASA didn't land on the moon and that the world is really flat, but so what?
Going up against a nuclear power ensured destruction so many countries became nuclear powers.
...for some values of "many". There are 5 countries with nukes as allowed in the non-proliferation treaty (USA, Russia, UK, France, China), 3 that cheated (India, Pakistan, North Korea), and 1 unofficial (Israel). South Africa had nukes but got rid of them. 9 countries out of 191.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:4, Informative)
And for the record, your figures are complete bunk. 91,060 - 99,433 is the complete total for civilian deaths in Iraq.
No, it's not. Those are perfectly-documented, reported-in-the-media deaths.
Statistical study in the Lancet (British medical journal) in 2006 came up with a more likely number of over 600,000 violent Iraqi deaths since the invasion. ORB (British polling agency) in 2007 came up with a number more than 1,000,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html [washingtonpost.com]
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78 [opinion.co.uk]
Re:Ah the naivety of a mass media informed pundit. (Score:3, Informative)
So you mean they were accurate ?
Idiot [uwe.ac.uk].
Re:Scorched Earth? (Score:2, Informative)
This is the biggest difference between America and Russia's involvement in Afghanistan. The US is there with the support of Karzai which is the legitimate government of the nation. Russia tried to put up a puppet government which failed. The US's goal is to take out the garbage on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, and in the process make life for the citizens there not suck.
Remember, the US is fighting the same people who were blowing up statues of Buddha and doing Nazi-like book and film burnings. There are stories about libraries and film repositories hiding the classic footage they had by using fake walls and handing the rabid thugs copies to go burn, keeping the originals safe.
The real enemies are on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border and are trying to take over Pakistan. Should they get nukes, they are more than happy not to just use them on Washington, but other cities like Shanghai, Moscow, Tehran (remember the Sunni/Shia hatred), Dubai, or any city or nation that gets in their way of trying to do a caliphate.
Re:What the hell is wrong with you? (Score:4, Informative)
You can't just murder them over something as transient as a rape
on the contrary, you can respond with deadly force for pretty much any kind of physical assault--- and it's self defense, not murder.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:4, Informative)
In today's environment, there's plenty to go around. It's not so much "haves and have nots" but "I have and you can't have" that's the problem. People call it the "evils of capitalism" and while greed is a big motivator, look at the pain it causes. They aren't kidding when they say money is the root of all evil.
Most war today is occurring in countries with very low levels of economic freedom. There are far greater evils from government control and over-regulation of economies than from the "free market" of capitalism. The science shows that free markets cause peace [ucsd.edu].
So greed for power of government over economies is the greed we should truly fear. Lack of economic freedom causes both poverty and war.
Tommy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:3, Informative)
You don't respond to a terrorist attack by filing a lawsuit -- you respond by killing and/or imprisoning those responsible.
We in the UK tried that with the Irish problem on and off for about 400 years.
The thing that finally worked was when a lot of the funding for the main terrorist organisation disappeared - the main catalyst for which was, ironically, 9/11. It taught the US what a terrible thing terrorism is and in so doing destroyed one of the IRAs greatest sources of funding.
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Scorched Earth? (Score:5, Informative)
Well... the truth is considerably more nuanced.
Here's a quick summary (which is itself nowhere near the full story)
Afghanistan was ruled by a king, but then it had a Communist student revolution. They happened. Lots of people saw Communism as a way to eliminate social injustice and more than one country had themselves a Communist revolution spearheaded by idealists (and no doubt encouraged and supported by the Soviets with whom they shared a border)
But like a lot of revolutions, it is one thing to be outraged by social inequity and take action to overthrow a government; it is quite another to sucessfully pick up the controls of state machinery and run an effective government - student revolutionary committees aren't particularly good at training adminstrative skills (they do better with sloganeering and inspirational poetry). The new Afghan Communist government simply wasn't very good at governing. And they did themselves no favours by trying in fix every single perceived social problem (some of which were real, like poor education amongst rural women) all at once. In particular, the Communist outlawing of religion did not go over very well in a nation where the majority self-identify as devout Muslims.
So in very short order, they were having to get increasingly heavy-handed when it came to ruling the population, and as a direct side effect, were soon facing a counter-revolution. Backed into a corner, the Afghan government called for Soviet help, and the Red Army rolled in.
Of course, Russia had had Afghan ambitions since the days of the Czar....
The problem was that the Red Army was not particularly suited for fighting counter-insurgancy warfare. It was comprised primarily of undertrained conscripts, and was much better off fighting large-scale manouvre warfare that required mass and firepower but little finesse or skill. The Red Army started taking horrific casulties, and inflicting horrific reprisals (which only fueled the insurgency)
And then the West (primarily the US) realized that the USSR more-or-less had its own Vietnam on the go (there are many similarities) and started arming and supporting the insurgents, providing them with weapons well suited to the kinds of battles they were fighting. Of course, most of these insurgents were motivated by a radical Islamic worldview... but the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?
The bleeding of the Red Army got worse and worse and worse, and finally the whole operation reached the point of untenability, and the Soviets left. But they left behind the Afghan Communist government that had invited them in the first place. The Mujahadeen kept fighting the remnents of the Afghan government, and soon started fighting each other.
The fighting in Afghanistan never really stopped after the Soviets left... it just kept right on going, and what little was left of any sort of state infrastruture was pounded into mush.
Of course, once the Soviets pulled out, the West stopped paying the area any attention. The goal was "bleed the Soviets dry" not "Help restore Afghanistan".
Eventually, Mullah Omar and the Taliban took over - that's a fascinating story in of itself - the Taliban started out as the good guys - but after corruption set in, they allowed Al Quaida to operate in their territory (and they weren't really very big on rule of law either)
There hasn't been a real, true, functional Afghan government since the early 80s - and the life expectancy is *** 35 *** years. The place is a mess. This is state-building in the rawest sense.
Progress IS being made. Things ARE getting better. But Lord O Mercy is there a long way to go.
DG
Re:Good reason to get shut (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone needs to remember that the United States is the one that funded Hussein and Bin Laden in the first place
I really wish people would stop repeating this line. We never funded Bin Ladin. We funded the various Afghani Mujahideen groups via Pakistan. Bin Ladin went in with his own resources (recall that he comes from wealth), his own agenda and his own non-Afghani fighters.
Re:Just lay back and enjoy it? (Score:3, Informative)
"Remember, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. "
This is the silliest regurgitated saying ever. The whole principle of "an eye for an eye" is that when lawful justice is applied it should be commensurate with the transgression. "Let the punishment fit the crime" is a pithier way to express the sentiment. Either way, the idea is to make sure that both the victim, the criminal, and the court are all subject to an overarching principle of fairness and neutrality.
Somehow I can't see how an appropriate punishemnt for a convicted criminal will make anyone blind, even figuratively. The only way to make this venerable re-saying resemble anything cognitively relevant is to think that justice is blind (treats all people the same regardless of station and without prejudice) and therefore we should all embody that spirit of blindnes when considering fair treatment of others when they offend.
how about mini-guns? (Score:3, Informative)
Seth
Re:Not the only time (Score:1, Informative)
Actually Iowa has been in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Reserve_Fleet [wikipedia.org], and is still listed as of January this year.
It was struck from the naval register for the 2nd time in 2006 (It was reinstated 1999-2006)
As the only Navy ship with a bathtub (I kid you not), she'll end up as a museum, but that may be a while yet.
In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 (and restated in the report for fiscal year 2007):
"The committee seeks to clarify that the battleships USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa must be regarded as potential mobilization assets and both the recipients and the U.S. Navy are instructed to treat them as such. The committee notes that the following measures should be taken: (1) the ships must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility"..."(3) spare parts and unique equipment such as 16-inch gun barrels and projectiles, be preserved in adequate numbers to support the two ships, if reactivated;"
So yes, you may very well want to make new 16" shells, or at the very least refurbish the warheads to ensure safety. Decomposing explosives are a huge safety risk as they become more shock sensitive over time.
Re:Desceptive title (Score:3, Informative)
When you read some of the background material on this (http://www.banthebomb.org/newbombs/fogbank%20material.doc) you find:
Fogbank is like part of the "interstage" between the fission primary and the thermonuclear secondary. Design contraints for the W76 make the use of exotic aerogels such as Fogbank necessary. The need to recycle and refurbish the warheads past their design lifetime require use to deal these materials again and again.
Fogbank was likely only produced at one place the Y-12 facility at Oak Ridge TN.
Fogbank was produced at Building 9404-11 from the mid '70 to 1989. The Building 9404-11 was decomissioned and a new "Purification Facility" at building 9420-1 was finally constructed from 2003 until 2006.
The need to produce more Fogbank was likely found relative to the W76 warhead in 1996 to 1999 review when the life extension of the W76 was deemed the thing to do.
There are those who would like the production of a reliable replacement weapon (RRW) which would (or could) bypass the need for Fogbank.
The nuclear genie can't be put back in the bottle and these difficult decisions will continue for decades. The nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea and who knows where else will just continue the problems.
In contrast we don't operate Nike missle batteries anymore with acceptable US civilian casualty rates of 25% in San Francisco, New York, Philadelphi, Pittsburgh....