This is great news. We have continued to abide by a testing ban that other countries ignore it. Countries like China and Russia have continued to develop new weapons while we sat on the sideline.

We have not tested weapons since 1992. There are a number of new weapons we need to produce that required testing.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-orders-pentagon-to-begin-testing-nuclear-weapons-immediately/ar-AA1Psz4e?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Time to invest in defense stocks!!

I think we have the nucs down pat. It is more about the delivery systems.

Yeah, I'm not sure we need to detonate more devices. I'm good with developing and testing better launch and intercept platforms.

doubledog said:

---

I think we have the nucs down pat. It is more about the delivery systems.

---

I'm good with keeping up to date with all things military.

Granted, seeing as how we know China is a paper tiger, and Russia can't even take out Ukraine, I'm sure we're good for another decade or so with where we're currently at, but it doesn't hurt to upgrade.

Why? We had nukes in 8inch artillery shells by the 60s, do we really need to do anymore testing?

Please, no detonations. Radiation is bad for everyone and everything.

Just think of how many freeloaders, illegals and democrat voters we could feed with that money! Bad Trump

CDUB98 said:

---

Please, no detonations. Radiation is bad for everyone and everything.

---

That's not how that works. Fallout from modern weapons is relatively small and almost nonexistent if detonated via air burst. They can design the test to be low to no risk.

I knew after reading this earlier this morning, I would come to F16 and see something to the effect of "great news."

Didn't let me down.

V8Aggie said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Please, no detonations. Radiation is bad for everyone and everything.

---

That's not how that works. Fallout from modern weapons is relatively small and almost nonexistent if detonated via air burst. They can design the test to be low to no risk.

---

Hopefully the area will not have cellular service.

we should be entirely focused on matching chinese hydrogen bomb capabilities. We've got to figure this magnesium hydride process out ASAP.

Them having that capability (which produces zero radiation), against us only having nuclear options is something we should be focused on addressing as fast as possible.

CDUB98 said:

---

V8Aggie said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Please, no detonations. Radiation is bad for everyone and everything.

---

That's not how that works. Fallout from modern weapons is relatively small and almost nonexistent if detonated via air burst. They can design the test to be low to no risk.

---

Please show your work.

---

Modern weapons testing is done underground. I could run the calcs for gamma emission and absorption in hundreds of feet of strata but it seems unnecessary.

Quote:

---

I made a claim that radiation is bad. Pretty sure that's a common knowledge thing for decades.

---

Not all radiation is the same, and yes some is actually good and critical for life. Some, even from nuclear weapons is virtually harmless and stopped by the skin. Some penetrates concrete and can give you a lethal dose in milliseconds. Words matter. Context matters.

I appreciate the point and you're right that radioactive fallout projections have decreased significantly as we've moved from fission to fusion weapons. honestly though does that even really matter? we're talking about detonating nuclear weapons here... i fail to see how them producing less radioactive fallout moves the needle much if at all.

we need to catch up with the magnesium hydride technology after developing a more robust domestic missile defense network.

Magnesium hydroxide weapons are a parlor trick at this point and aren't even in the same class as nuclear weapons in terms of use. It's 40% less destructive than equivalent TNT. But it's use case is that it burns hotter and and longer. That limits it to certain applications, and definitely not as a standoff or even tactical weapon.

doubledog said:

---

I think we have the nucs down pat. It is more about the delivery systems.

---

We can always find ways to blow up **** better

Is Trump ordering them to test just because? Or did the pentagon ask for permission to test for some need?


Also, they talking about underground testing or above ground?

DannyDuberstein said:

---

doubledog said:

---

I think we have the nucs down pat. It is more about the delivery systems.

---

We can always find ways to blow up **** better

---

Another reason is that our pits in these weapons are old. Almost all contain plutonium manufactured in the 60's. They are often sent to Pantex for refurbishment and upkeep because a lot of the materials are unstable and prone to oxidation. We can simulate how they will perform now but we don't know for sure as they haven't been tested in over 30 years. It wouldn't be a terrible thing to see if yields or effectiveness have decreased in real world conditions.

CDUB98 said:

---

V8Aggie said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

V8Aggie said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

V8Aggie said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Please, no detonations. Radiation is bad for everyone and everything.

---

That's not how that works. Fallout from modern weapons is relatively small and almost nonexistent if detonated via air burst. They can design the test to be low to no risk.

---

Please show your work.

---

You made a claim based on feelings. I refuted. Feel free to do your own work to prove me wrong.

---

I made a claim that radiation is bad. Pretty sure that's a common knowledge thing for decades.

YOU are the one who made specific claims about low fallout potential. YOU need to prove your work. Since you're so confident, should be easy for you.

If you can't, sounds like you are the one who just popped off on feelings to protect Trump.

---

Not all radiation is bad. Again, ignorance.

Also, I double checked myself before posting. I know your posting history and understand regardless of what I state or prove, it won't matter.

---

If we want to get into discussions of dosage, correct. The dose always makes the poison. The levels of radiation from a nuclear weapon are quite high. I made a statement. You're the one who got his jmmies rustled and came out with an accusation.

I am skeptical of the statement.

I would like proof of statement.

I've now asked twice. You have failed to produce both times and just whined and attacked me back on "posting history." You know jack **** about me.

Provide your proof, so I can learn, or STFU. Specifically about air burst, as above ground is what concerns me.

---

Are we proposing air bursting weapons? If not then it seems like a moot point.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

I made a claim that radiation is bad. Pretty sure that's a common knowledge thing for decades.

---

Not all radiation is the same, and yes some is actually good and critical for life. Some, even from nuclear weapons is virtually harmless and stopped by the skin. Some penetrates concrete and can give you a lethal dose in milliseconds. Words matter. Context matters.

---

God, I hate responding to you.

Yes, you're correct in the larger context of radiation. This thread is about nuclear weapons testing and the radiation produced thereby. Thus, my very first statement should be read in context of that.

CDUB98 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

I made a claim that radiation is bad. Pretty sure that's a common knowledge thing for decades.

---

Not all radiation is the same, and yes some is actually good and critical for life. Some, even from nuclear weapons is virtually harmless and stopped by the skin. Some penetrates concrete and can give you a lethal dose in milliseconds. Words matter. Context matters.

---

God, I hate responding to you.

Yes, you're correct in the larger context of radiation. This thread is about nuclear weapons testing and the radiation produced thereby. Thus, my very first statement should be read in context of that.

---

And we haven't tested a weapon by air burst since 1962, and there's no indication that's what we are pursuing here. An underground test of a nuclear device won't produce any ill effects from radiation hazards at NTS.

iirc aren't all tests now required to be underground?

We're not going to be doing atmospheric testing. We've been a signatory of the Limited Test Ban Treaty since the 1963 which prohibits all but underground testing.

Any test would be underground at the Nevada Test Site (or whatever Obama renamed it to).

We're currently developing a new warhead for the Trident II SLBM. The only way to be certain it works is to test it.

These won't be multimegaton detonations. It will be the test of the weapon's primary, which is the atomic bomb part of the thermonuclear device. We can also test the thermonuclear device at reduced yield to stay within agreed limits. Also, the NTS can only handle tests to a certain yield. If we ever wanted to test something in the megaton range, we'd have to find another location, which is why we did a 5MT test on Amchitka Island in 1971.

Some of us think the government should be performing one of its few legitimate functions: protecting citizens.

You clearly believe in something other than. That.

No mention of a neutron bomb?

I find nuclear weapons fascinating and only dabble in them.

To emphasize my first point, modern H-bomb designs derive a large fraction of yield from fusion which produces far fewer long-lived radioactive products than fission. That can mean less long-term fallout per unit of explosive yield compared with a pure fission bomb of the same yield THOUGH only if the weapon's fission components and surrounding materials are minimized. Note almost all real weapons use a fission "primary" and many use a fission "tamper" or uranium casing. Those fission reactions create most of the dangerous long-lived fallout (isotopes like Cs-137, Sr-90, various transuranics). A design that uses more fission or a uranium tamper that undergoes fission produces much more fallout.

Again, design for test is important to minimize fallout.

An airburst (which seems moot since we have to test underground) maximizes blast over a wide area and produces relatively little local fallout because less earth and debris are vaporized. A ground or surface burst vaporizes soil/structures and injects that contaminated debris into the plume resulting in heavy localized fallout that can travel downwind for miles.

The important isotopes I-131 (short half-life, thyroid risk), Cs-137 and Sr-90 (decades of concern).

Two bursts of equal yield can deliver two different dangers of fallout.

It's all in the design of the weapon and method of testing.

Edit to add I am not formally educated in the matter. Self taught.

I don't care about doses or specific kinds of radiation, nor tests. I'd just like the tests to be done in the safest way possible to achieve our goal. And we should make sure test locations are safe as well, like our democratic lead cities.

Teslag said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

V8Aggie said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Please, no detonations. Radiation is bad for everyone and everything.

---

That's not how that works. Fallout from modern weapons is relatively small and almost nonexistent if detonated via air burst. They can design the test to be low to no risk.

---

Please show your work.

---

Modern weapons testing is done underground. I could run the calcs for gamma emission and absorption in hundreds of feet of strata but it seems unnecessary.

---

Ask St George Utah how that worked out. My dad took part in some tests that were totally f'd up as far as calculated vs real yield, so Im always skeptical. He even "fuzzed" the TV one time after coming in from tests, and many crew member's wives lost babies at Columbus AFB (including my mom) during that timeframe.

I'm with other posters in that this is about delivery systems vs full on detonation.