It's really a non-issue in terms of the effects of detonation, and it is really silly to suppose that Nuclear Disarmament is possible even if it were desirable.

The entirety of man-made radiation is still less significant than the radiation from the sun, and far below natural radiation from the ground, particularly places such as Cornwall (England).

If Nuclear Disarmament were seriously attempted, everyone would retain secret stockpiles of weapons; failure to do so is essentially geopolitical suicide.

Even if this weren't true, in the event of a large scale war, there would be a race to get a Nuke, and the only way that a Nuke is going to be used intentionally is when the enemy has yet to develop one.

I have to admit it came as a bit of a surprise to me when I first heard about it at uni. The last 12 years have been rather quiet though, so no significant number of explosions have been added (and those few that have gone off recently are tiny compared to the huge bombs tested in the cold way hayday)

I fear that TheGhostmaker is slightly understating the significance of radiation emitted from these events. Radiation from these detonations still exists in the atmosphere and contaminates almost all modern metal. Although fairly low level this radiation plays havoc with the sensitive equipment used in the satellite and medical science industry which is why the German Imperial Fleet (sunk at Scapa Flow at the end of WWI) is mined to provide clean metal for this use.

I broadly agree with Ghost on disarmament though. I fear it will only be achieved when a new weapon is developed that make nukes obsolete.

Disarmement is a pipe dream for even the most ardently naive.

And atomic weapons prevent wars so long as reasonable non suicidal nations possess them which is the danger of n. Korea or Iran possessing stockpiles.

Of course I'd prefer they had never been invented of course

The best strategy by far, of course, is to disarm completely and just pretend you have a nuclear stockpile. It wouldn't come as a huge surprise if the UK or France have already done this...

Ummmmmm naive. And it would surprise me

Would it surprise you that much? Unlike the other nuclear powers there is no feasible scenario in which the UK or France could ever use a nuke as a weapon. Their stockpiles exist solely as an expensive political tool. A nuclear deterrent that doesn't actually contain nukes would be a significantly cheaper tool with the same political benefit, and it is a secret that would only have to be kept by a handful of people.

@Ghost

"If Nuclear Disarmament were seriously attempted, everyone would retain secret stockpiles of weapons; failure to do so is essentially geopolitical suicide"

There already exists a country with a secret stockpile of weapons.

@ Darwyn Israel I know at least.

Considering it was well known during the cold war that a large number of nukes were tested by all powers concerned, I'm surprised that anyone is surprised at those numbers.

Kewl! The US won! Just kidding... :-)

Octavious And their nuclear weapon military department? All those people stay quiet? Very unlikeoy

Centurian All what people? Take the British trident nuclear subs. I very much doubt that anyone on board has seen enough of the missiles to know for sure whether they contain nuclear warheads or not. Indeed, the vast majority of the people who work with the British nuclear weapons only know they are nuclear weapons because someone senior says they are.

How many people does it take to assemble a weapon? Than there is the fuel issue, refining, and tracking and etc. Would not the numbers start showing inconsistancies?

It's easy for governments to lie because sadly, not many people care enough to pay attention.

"It's easy for governments to lie because sadly, not many people care enough to pay attention."

QFT

@ Warsprite
It takes quite a lot of people to build the missile and launch systems, none of whom have anything to do with the warhead. In the UK's case the missiles were built in the US, and the warheads were made in the UK and fitted over here.

In terms of warhead manufacturing in Britiain there has been none for some time, so there is nobody in the production process would need to be in on the secret. We have not attempted to design a new warhead for decades, so no one in R & D needs to be in on the secret. All that happens is a maintainance programmed in which the warheads are removed from the missiles and given to a highly specialised and heavily vetted team of scientists who then return them after checks.

Is it beyond the realms of possibility that the warheads were found to be deteriating faster than hoped and, instead of being replaced with expensive new warheads, were replaced by blanks? I don't think so. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that they have been replaced by blanks under the instructions of a government leadership who found them morally indefensible? Certainly not.

Who would need to know? Only the handful of scientists employed to maintain the warheads, a few senior military personel, and a few high ranking ministers. It would be an easy secret to keep in the UK (and probably France), although I admit impossible in the USA.

'reasonable non suicidal nations ... which is the danger of n. Korea or Iran possessing stockpiles.'

em, have Iran or North Korea actually demonstrated this unreasonable or suicidal tendancy which you claim?

The worst criticism i have heard is the Iran funds terrorist organisation which operate against the state of Israel (the US on the other hand sends militrary aid to the state of Israel which it uses to terrorize the locals into submission and prevent any invasion... totally different)

I don't see how this could be interpreted as suicidal nor unreasonable, from a geo-political stance they are further their goal of being a regional power. With Israel being their only serious competition (after Iraq was taken out of the picture but the loss of US support, invasion and economic sanctions)

The issue would be if nukes were to fall into the hands of a terrorist organisation. (like if old soviet nukes were bought by a small terrorist faction from underpayed militrary personnel who are looking after them.)

Iran and North Korea have shown themselves to be very tigthly controlled societies where the bosses have immense power. Unlike russia in the present where nobody fears Putin as much as the did in cold war times...

Now the chances of Iran giving nukes away are rather slim. I mean they want to have nukes, but they also want to control those nukes, they don't want anyone else to have them...

on the other hand the reason the rest of the world doesn't want Iran to have nukes is because it strengthens their hand diplomatically to a point which they see as unacceptable.

India developed nukes for self-defence, (because China, their biggest regional competitor had nukes) Pakistan developed nukes for self-defence, (because India, their biggest regional competitor had nukes)

Iran is not worried about a Nuclear Pakistan, they are more interested in a nuclear Israel, and the threat of war which Israel represents.

@ Orathaic

You have a lot more faith in the stability of states like North Korea and Iran than I do. When the Dear Leader dies I have very little confidence in North Korea's ability to select a new head of state in a calm and peaceful manner. The recent violoent street protests in Iran and their history of revolutions makes me highly nervous of their ability to be guardians of nuclear weapons aswell.

And as for nuclear Pakistan, I don't think there is a nation on earth not worried about it. Does anyone even know who's running that country these days? Isreal is an island of calm in comparison!

North Korea did mange to replace their last leader for life.

As for Iran, well they are going through some social upheaval, we'll see how it turns out, but i doubt the militrary that is plans to give up control of any nuclear weapons (which they don't yet have) particularily easily.

Pakistan on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. Far more worrisome than Iran or North Korea if you ask me but i don't think the Pakistani militrary want anyone getting their hands on their nukes. (least of all the civilian government)

Israel is calm only because they have cowed their opposition (the neighbouring countries) into submission - that is however an explosion of outrage and hatred waiting to happen i.e. another war.

Not that this means Israel is likely to use nukes (at least excluding the possibility that they would use a tactical nuclear strike against a heavily defended Iranian nuclear weapons development facility...) just another war in the middle east brewing, so kinda like the calm within the storm.

@ Octavious "It would be an easy secret to keep in the UK (and probably France), although I admit impossible in the USA."I find it interesting that the US is the exception, after all the conspiracy theories about the US goverment. ;)

i think it's just because most people recognize the US as being much to brutal to pretend to have nuclear weapons. Why pretend to have a weapon when you can really have it?

plus theres was that whole uh.. japan thing

@Sicarius Why not ask the Irish, Algerians, Tibetins, and E Europeans, who are more brutal, the English, French, Chinese, Russians, or the US. If you really want to see brutal go to Iran or N Korea.

1:53 first hydrogen bomb Tsar bomba!!!!

@ Prussian The US detonated the first fusion bomb in 52 in response to the Russian fission bomb. The first Russian fussion bomb was in 53. The Tsar bomb at 50 megatons and to heavy to be used as a weapon, was easly the largest every tested but not the first.

And Tsar was tested in 61.

A surprisingly clean bomb, if I remember correctly. Not like the muck that the Koreans are knocking together. They just have no sense of workmanship over there.

@ Octavious Yea 97% of it energy was hydrogen fusion. Very clean source of energy. To bad we don't have it a bottle yet. N korea can't even grow enoff food what do you expect.