Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

West's Submarine Nuclear Warheads Flawed, Say Scientists
The Telegraph (UK) ^ | 4-4-2005 | Francis Harris

Posted on 04/03/2005 7:49:57 PM PDT by blam

West's submarine nuclear warheads flawed, say scientists

Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 04/04/2005)

British and American nuclear warheads carried by submarines are so poorly designed that they may fail to detonate if fired, scientists have said.

The news emerged after interviews with a group of American scientists with ties to the Los Alamos nuclear research facility, where the first atomic weapon was manufactured.

HMS Vanguard carries Britain's nuclear deterrent, Trident

One of them, Richard Morse, of the University of Arizona and a former Los Alamos weapons designer, said the casing of the W76 nuclear warhead was so thin that it would probably fail if used. The British Trident warhead, the country's sole nuclear weapon, is based on the W76.

Mr Morse said: "What is out there on those boats is at best unreliable and probably much worse."

The claims have been vigorously denied by US officials, who say that the warhead "looks like a pretty good weapon". 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.

Everet Beckner, the head of the nuclear arsenal at Los Alamos, said there were no plans to redesign the W76 but admitted to the New York Times that that could change.

The story emerged after what was described as "acrimonious" exchanges between worried scientists and the leadership of America's nuclear weapons programme.

That led four scientists, three of them former Los Alamos employees and one still working there, to seek a secret meeting with weapons officials to discuss their fears.

They met in March last year. Dr Morse said: "It was a verbal mud-wrestling match. Officials from Los Alamos and the government would not be candid with us. We told them things they did not know."

The issue is of central importance despite the end of the Cold War. Countries such as North Korea and Iran are pursuing nuclear programmes that Washington believes have a military goal. Both have active and ambitious long-range missile programmes.

Britain's nuclear weaponry, thought to number about 190 warheads, is carried exclusively aboard the four Trident submarines, Vanguard, Vigilant, Vengeance and Victorious.

While America still has air-launched nuclear weaponry, it too has become more dependent on its submarine missiles. Dr Morse said the growing reliance on submarine weaponry had revived his long-standing worries about the casings of the W76.

During the 1970s there was pressure to make warheads as light as possible to allow more to be fitted on top of a relatively thin missile. Although the radiation casing was made of uranium, which is double the weight of lead, it was to be super-thin - in places only as thick as a beer tin.

The casing is critical because it has to hold together for nanoseconds as the nuclear chain reaction begins, releasing temperatures hotter than the surface of the Sun. If the case fails, the bomb can fail too or explode with less than its intended force.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: flawed; miltech; nuclear; nuclearweapons; scirntists; subamrine; warheads; wests
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

1 posted on 04/03/2005 7:49:59 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam
British and American nuclear warheads carried by submarines are so poorly designed that they may fail to detonate if fired, scientists have said.

Well, I say we find out for sure. China...DUCK!

2 posted on 04/03/2005 7:53:24 PM PDT by SIDENET (Yankee Air Pirate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
The W-76 was tested and it worked.
I think that trumps any theoretical failure.

So9

3 posted on 04/03/2005 7:56:19 PM PDT by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SIDENET

"The claims have been vigorously denied by US officials, who say that the warhead "looks like a pretty good weapon"."

-"looks like a pretty good weaon"-

Brits think that sounds vigorous? In US official-speak that means "the critics are right".


4 posted on 04/03/2005 7:56:28 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam

Isn't this stuff classified TOP SECRET?


5 posted on 04/03/2005 7:57:23 PM PDT by jungleboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
I don't care if the darn things are full of radioactive jello ... you don't take your highly classified sour grapes public.

Given Los Alamos' recent history I tend not to believe anything a disgruntled employee from there might say.
6 posted on 04/03/2005 7:58:29 PM PDT by Pan_Yan (The constitutional right to privacy is very dear to those with something to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Didn't W rescind the test ban treaty awhile back since the other signatory, the Soviet Union, was kaput?
7 posted on 04/03/2005 7:58:40 PM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (Every morning we awaken to a new dawn is reason enough to celebrate - have a drink, Teddy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam

Damn, we only 8.2 Megatons out of that one. It was supposed to deliver 12. I told them government folks we needed more money.


8 posted on 04/03/2005 7:59:47 PM PDT by TheHound (You would be paranoid too - if everyone was out to get you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

Yeah, that's just a wonderful quote. I wonder where they found the "official" to say it.


9 posted on 04/03/2005 8:01:21 PM PDT by SIDENET (Yankee Air Pirate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jungleboy

If you really know what you are talking about it is.

I think our warheads are in a long term refurbrishment and I would not count on any of them being fired not working.

I also think the people who really know did not release information like this, as you have determined, the actual readiness of any of our weapon systems would be TS.

Now I also know the labs that do the testing, and redesign are always looking for more R & D funding, so this could be a ploy at that.


10 posted on 04/03/2005 8:02:39 PM PDT by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

Yo! Mama! My thoughts exactly.. how many cretins from Los Alamos are in the Clinton files?
That spot is forever tainted now.
Wen Lee could very well have been "the Source" for this idiocy.


11 posted on 04/03/2005 8:02:59 PM PDT by acapesket (never had a vote count in all my years here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SIDENET
Well, I say we find out for sure. China...DUCK!

Might try Iran and Syria to double check. If they don't work, think how worried China will be since theirs are based on our designs.

12 posted on 04/03/2005 8:09:14 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam

Well, the bad news is they don't work.

The good news is, Wen Ho Lee pilfered the the design and now China has the same lousy unreliable warheads.


13 posted on 04/03/2005 8:09:33 PM PDT by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
Steely-Eyed Killers of the Deep Ping!

Do any of you guys with Hotel pins know if there is a QAST program for Trident? I would assume that there is.

Two editorial comments:

1. Bring back the tactical option, W-88 (TLAM-N)

2. Sounds like the Los Alamos guys are trying to divert attention away from themselves.

14 posted on 04/03/2005 8:10:07 PM PDT by Doohickey ("This is a hard and dirty war, but when it's over, nothing will ever be too difficult again.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: acapesket

Similar article in NYT today. Recollect that in the early 80's, the pro-Soviet and naive nuclear freeze nit-wits fought furiously against the MX missile land-based ICBM. Reagan deftly used this as a ploy and deployed the very first counterforce (ie hard-target (silo) accurate) nuclear weapons for the submarine force. Previously sub missiles were only capable of softer targets like cities or bases. The ability and deployment of silo-busting weapons, then mirv'ed on Trident subs was a "HUGE" win. The Union of Concerned Scientists et al. are 20 years later trying to whine us out of this awesome capability. Go pound salt.


15 posted on 04/03/2005 8:10:56 PM PDT by TexasGus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mylife

ping


16 posted on 04/03/2005 8:11:04 PM PDT by ozaukeemom (Nuke the ACLU and their snivel rights!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: judicial meanz; submarinerswife; PogySailor; chasio649; gobucks; Bottom_Gun; Dog Gone; HipShot; ...

Whoops! It would help if I actually threw the ping list in there...


17 posted on 04/03/2005 8:13:53 PM PDT by Doohickey ("This is a hard and dirty war, but when it's over, nothing will ever be too difficult again.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: blam

I guess we better test some of them then... there are certainly targets of opportunity.


18 posted on 04/03/2005 8:15:38 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGus

Dont sugar coat it TX ;)


19 posted on 04/03/2005 8:16:24 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Actually I read an article in one of the issues of American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The hardware used to detonate the nuclear warheads does degrade over time and needs to be maintained.

Something about the Tritium degrading over time, it was mostly over my head but it does make sense and the technical article passed peer review and didn't get 500000 engineers writing in to say it was BS.


20 posted on 04/03/2005 8:19:27 PM PDT by boofus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson