magnesium hydroxide is a fire suppressant, fyi. magnesium hydride is the explosive compound.

The Chinese did the first test of the technology in April of this year. I find it hard to process that you write it off considering it's been post-proof of concept for 6 months.

Detonating nuclear explosions on our planet is bad on so many levels for so many reasons. The fact that we're even debating that fact or splitting hairs on whether radiation is "worse" or "better" to justify it is wild to me. I'm flummoxed by the lack of context, much less the concept, of how dangerous this is. To preempt your response that the dictators of the world are doing it so we should too, absolutely no we f'ing shouldn't.

Read Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobson.

You forgot that this is all after the reaction levels/burns/destroys everything within a 5-30 mile radius.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

magnesium hydroxide is a fire suppressant, fyi. magnesium hydride is the explosive compound.

The Chinese did the first test of the technology in April of this year. I find it hard to process that you write it off considering it's been post-proof of concept for 6 months.

Detonating nuclear explosions on our planet is bad on so many levels for so many reasons. The fact that we're even debating that fact or splitting hairs on whether radiation is "worse" or "better" to justify it is wild to me. I'm flummoxed by the lack of context, much less the concept, of how dangerous this is. To preempt your response that the dictators of the world are doing it so we should too, absolutely no we f'ing shouldn't.

Read Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobson.

---

Detonating underground weapons is harmless if done within limits at NTS



I didn't write it off, it's just not comparable to a nuclear weapon in yield. Not even remotely close, as it's blast force is 40% of TNT. Also, here's the image of the chinese test. Real Trinity Test they've got going on there...

B-1 83 said:

---

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.

---

St George Utah was irradiated as part of an atmospheric test, not underground.

Nothing to add other than I think it would be awesome to have one more above ground test videoed at 4k or 8k from various angles and distances with high quality sound.

That is nonsense. There are more consequences other than radiation and general destruction, the worst of it being how governments react when other governments start exploding civilization-killing weapons.

Delivery systems should be continuously tested.

Im sure the times St George got "dusted" everything was carefully planned. The base medic told all personnel to not drink the milk, and more than a couple of my sister's HS friends died with cancers consistent with radiation exposure. The point is, $#@& happens no matter how good the planning is, and these aren't firecrackers under a soup can we're talking about. Try the Banberry and Pascal-B tests for size.

B-1 83 said:

---

Im sure the times St George got "dusted" everything was carefully planned. The base medic told all personnel to not drink the milk, and more than a couple of my sister's HS friends died with cancers consistent with radiation exposure. The point is, $#@& happens no matter how good the planning is, and these aren't firecrackers under a soup can we're talking about. Try the Banberry and Pascal-B tests for size.

---

Nothing is perfect, but almost all of the contamination to St. George was during the atmospheric testing days.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

---

Okay folks.

We really need to take a break here and recognize that this is the best post on the thread. It should have way more stars for mike.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

That is nonsense. There are more consequences other than radiation and general destruction, the worst of it being how governments react when other governments start exploding civilization-killing weapons.

Delivery systems should be continuously tested.

---

What is nonsense? What is the use case for the Chinese weapon with 40% blast yield of TNT? Be specific. It doesn't have the capability to be a "civilization killing weapon".

B-1 83 said:

---

Im sure the times St George got "dusted" everything was carefully planned. The base medic told all personnel to not drink the milk, and more than a couple of my sister's HS friends died with cancers consistent with radiation exposure. The point is, $#@& happens no matter how good the planning is, and these aren't firecrackers under a soup can we're talking about. Try the Banberry and Pascal-B tests for size.

---

Again, that was an atmospheric test, which we haven't done since 1962. If you want to explain to me how a city can be irradiated a hundred miles away through over a thousand feet of rock I'm all ears.

it doesn't today, no.

The Chinese used 2kg of material for the test. They are currently ramping production to 150 tons/year. They clearly see something in it. It's more similar to a high yielding thermobaric weapon than a nuclear device in the current iteration. Mostly because it creates zero radiation, which means authorizing its' use would be quite easy by comparison.

What I'm calling nonsense is how you minimize the risk and overall stupidity of detonating nuclear devices. It's ridiculous.

Except that it has significantly less blast yield than thermobaric weapon, which also produces no radiation.

Fake News.

Trump is Putin's pal and wouldn't do that.

And the risk of detonating underground nuclear weapons is minimal, to almost near zero.

B-1 83 said:

---

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.

---

Don't forget the movie The Conqueror starring John Wayne and Susan Hayward. It was made in Nevada about 100 miles from the test site. A large number of the cast and crew reportedly died of cancer following the making of he movie.

I couldn't disagree more. The risks associated with detonating nuclear devices are not solely radiation related. If you can't see that, then you're willingly not looking at the situation comprehensively. Frankly, irradiating a small area in the middle of nowhere is towards the bottom of my list of concerns.



As for the magnesium hydride situation. The weapon has less blast capacity than a traditional explosive, yes. However, that is not the only useful metric when discussing a weapons efficacy.


I've noticed that you have a tendency to latch on to a small portion of any given topic and become very myopic in your argument, pounding your proverbial fist on the table harder and harder while ignoring the broader context of the contested subject. You try to drive home a very specific point that has very little to do with the overarching discussion at hand. Examples in this case being radiation contamination in an underground nuclear test and the comparison between the explosive output on new thermobaric weapons tech (that is designed to destroy hardened infrastructure, not cause nuclear-level destruction).

Testing nuclear weapons is bad. It's so bad, that as a member of humanity you shouldn't need why explained to you.

The real question to me is whether we need to test or is the desire to test only for chest thumping purposes?

eric76 said:

---

The real question to me is whether we need to test or is the desire to test only for chest thumping purposes?

---

As I said earlier, we're currently developing the W93 warhead to use on our SLBMs and replace the W88s.

The only sure way to know it will work is to test it.

It also sends a message to Russia given Putin's sabre rattling with his nuclear powered/armed cruise missile and torpedo.

Rapier108 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

The real question to me is whether we need to test or is the desire to test only for chest thumping purposes?

---

As I said earlier, we're currently developing the W93 warhead to use on our SLBMs and replace the W88s.

The only sure way to know it will work is to test it.

It also sends a message to Russia given Putin's sabre rattling with his nuclear powered/armed cruise missile and torpedo.

---

I understand that early in the nuclear age, we had to detonate to find out what would happen. Now, we've got supercomputers at Los Alamos dedicated to nuclear simulations. Are our models not accurate enough to predict what will happen, or at least are inaccurate enough to justify going back to detonating them (even if underground)?

mickeyrig06sq3 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

The real question to me is whether we need to test or is the desire to test only for chest thumping purposes?

---

As I said earlier, we're currently developing the W93 warhead to use on our SLBMs and replace the W88s.

The only sure way to know it will work is to test it.

It also sends a message to Russia given Putin's sabre rattling with his nuclear powered/armed cruise missile and torpedo.

---

I understand that early in the nuclear age, we had to detonate to find out what would happen. Now, we've got supercomputers at Los Alamos dedicated to nuclear simulations. Are our models not accurate enough to predict what will happen, or at least are inaccurate enough to justify going back to detonating them (even if underground)?

---

Modeling is great, but even the best models are based on the data fed into them.

The only 100% way to know if a design will work is to test it.

mickeyrig06sq3 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

The real question to me is whether we need to test or is the desire to test only for chest thumping purposes?

---

As I said earlier, we're currently developing the W93 warhead to use on our SLBMs and replace the W88s.

The only sure way to know it will work is to test it.

It also sends a message to Russia given Putin's sabre rattling with his nuclear powered/armed cruise missile and torpedo.

---

I understand that early in the nuclear age, we had to detonate to find out what would happen. Now, we've got supercomputers at Los Alamos dedicated to nuclear simulations. Are our models not accurate enough to predict what will happen, or at least are inaccurate enough to justify going back to detonating them (even if underground)?

---

There's a reason we test - it's to discover holes in the analysis.

My mother lived in [edited:] Richland, WA in the 50s and she, her sister, and mother experienced lifelong side effects from the nuclear testing. There was evidence it was in the milk from the cows that ate the grass and such. She has hypothyroidism that only got fully under control in the last 20 or so years when thyroid pharmaceuticals got better.

I am an only child mainly due to her illness from this exposure. I would like to see strategic development without "testing" please.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

I couldn't disagree more. The risks associated with detonating nuclear devices are not solely radiation related. If you can't see that, then you're willingly not looking at the situation comprehensively. Frankly, irradiating a small area in the middle of nowhere is towards the bottom of my list of concerns.



As for the magnesium hydride situation. The weapon has less blast capacity than a traditional explosive, yes. However, that is not the only useful metric when discussing a weapons efficacy.


I've noticed that you have a tendency to latch on to a small portion of any given topic and become very myopic in your argument, pounding your proverbial fist on the table harder and harder while ignoring the broader context of the contested subject. You try to drive home a very specific point that has very little to do with the overarching discussion at hand. Examples in this case being radiation contamination in an underground nuclear test and the comparison between the explosive output on new thermobaric weapons tech (that is designed to destroy hardened infrastructure, not cause nuclear-level destruction).

Testing nuclear weapons is bad. It's so bad, that as a member of humanity you shouldn't need why explained to you.

---

Everyone agrees using nuclear weapons is bad. There are legitimate arguments supporting the notion that testing still has some advantages.

Instead of just screaming NEW CLEAR BAD without making an actual argument, why don't you, you know, making an actual argument.

Its been clearly demonstrated that testing can be done safely. Its also been clearly demonstrated that we can still derive meaningful data from those tests. Furthermore, there is geopolitical value in reminding everyone who still has the most destructive force on the planet.

Formulate a cogent argument and stop screaming at the board like a child.

Quote:

---

Testing nuclear weapons is bad. It's so bad, that as a member of humanity you shouldn't need why explained to you

---

This is an emotional driven response devoid of any logical argument. Tell me why underground nuclear tests would be bad.

Emotional Support Cobra said:

---

My mother lived in Hanford, WA in the 50s and she, her sister, and mother experienced lifelong side effects from the nuclear testing. There was evidence it was in the milk from the cows that ate the grass and such. She has hypothyroidism that only got fully under control in the last 20 or so years when thyroid pharmaceuticals got better.

I am an only child mainly due to her illness from this exposure. I would like to see strategic development without "testing" please.

---

There were no nuclear tests at Hanford. Hanford was a plutonium enrichment facility. There exposure was from poor handling of radioactive waste from early reactor designs and poor safety practices.

They have very little to do with subterranean nuclear tests.

I also don't know how your mom "lived in Hanford in the 50's" when the town was condemned and abandoned in the 40's.

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.

---

Couple of things.

1) I hope you meant "ionizing radiation". We'd all be dead w/out radiation.

2) As stated above, we don't just blow up stuff willynilly w/ no regard for consequence, this isn'1 1952.

wtmartinaggie said:

---

magnesium hydroxide is a fire suppressant, fyi. magnesium hydride is the explosive compound.

The Chinese did the first test of the technology in April of this year. I find it hard to process that you write it off considering it's been post-proof of concept for 6 months.

Detonating nuclear explosions on our planet is bad on so many levels for so many reasons. The fact that we're even debating that fact or splitting hairs on whether radiation is "worse" or "better" to justify it is wild to me. I'm flummoxed by the lack of context, much less the concept, of how dangerous this is. To preempt your response that the dictators of the world are doing it so we should too, absolutely no we f'ing shouldn't.

Read Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobson.

---

Annie Jacobson also wrote in her Area 51 book that the Roswell crash was a Russian craft with surgically modified pilots altered to look like aliens as part of some grand Russian psyop. She writes a great book, but I wouldn't consider everything she writes to be unimpeachable.

Teslag said:

---

Emotional Support Cobra said:

---

My mother lived in Hanford, WA in the 50s and she, her sister, and mother experienced lifelong side effects from the nuclear testing. There was evidence it was in the milk from the cows that ate the grass and such. She has hypothyroidism that only got fully under control in the last 20 or so years when thyroid pharmaceuticals got better.

I am an only child mainly due to her illness from this exposure. I would like to see strategic development without "testing" please.

---

There were no nuclear tests at Hanford. Hanford was a plutonium enrichment facility. There exposure was from poor handling of radioactive waste from early reactor designs and poor safety practices.

They have very little to do with subterranean nuclear tests.

I also don't know how your mom "lived in Hanford in the 50's" when the town was condemned and abandoned in the 40's.

---

I am sorry, she lived in Richland, Washington. Sorry about that.

All I have is oral history and the fact of her life having been impacted. We received mailings during my childhood regarding these matters. I would be reassured if underground nuclear tests do not leach chemicals in the soil.

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.

---

Relax CDUB and treat yourself to a gin atomic.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Testing nuclear weapons is bad. It's so bad, that as a member of humanity you shouldn't need why explained to you

---

This is an emotional driven response devoid of any logical argument. Tell me why underground nuclear tests would be bad.

---

He's clearly some sort of nuclear pacifist. Fact is, if other countries are still testing and developing new nuke technologies, we have to as well. Sure, we can be smart about it. But to even hint that we wouldn't do it as safe as possible just shows how much of an anti-nuclear bias he has.

Emotional Support Cobra said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Emotional Support Cobra said:

---

My mother lived in Hanford, WA in the 50s and she, her sister, and mother experienced lifelong side effects from the nuclear testing. There was evidence it was in the milk from the cows that ate the grass and such. She has hypothyroidism that only got fully under control in the last 20 or so years when thyroid pharmaceuticals got better.

I am an only child mainly due to her illness from this exposure. I would like to see strategic development without "testing" please.

---

There were no nuclear tests at Hanford. Hanford was a plutonium enrichment facility. There exposure was from poor handling of radioactive waste from early reactor designs and poor safety practices.

They have very little to do with subterranean nuclear tests.

I also don't know how your mom "lived in Hanford in the 50's" when the town was condemned and abandoned in the 40's.

---

I am sorry, she lived in Richland, Washington. Sorry about that.

All I have is oral history and the fact of her life having been impacted. We received mailings during my childhood regarding these matters. I would be reassured if underground nuclear tests do not leach chemicals in the soil.

---

Underground nuclear testing is done at depths of 300 feet per kiloton yield. At those depths and pressures their effects are contained and gravity does the rest. No surface soil is harmed in the process. But you are right, Hanford had major issues and is largely considered the country's largest super fund sites. I once toured the place in a job interview to design some of the drainage containment structures and processes for the cleanup.

Move along here, nothing to see here except POTUS getting trolled by Putin like usual.

I am completely against Nuclear proliferation and Nuclear weapons testing anywhere on Earth.

So I do not like this decision.

I would like to see us and other nuclear states wind down nuclear weapons stockpiles.

This does not make me a bleeding heart liberal. This is just sane.

Yes - we need to have a stockpile as long as other nations do - but we should be winding the stockpile down in compliance and treaty with China, Russia, NK, GB, FR, IS, PK, IN and other potential nuclear states.

Iran's program is setback, but Saudis, Egypt, and Turkey are set to build their own arsenals in the next decade or so. Proliferation in the Islamic states is particularly troublesome.