Great news. I support any policy or action which goes toward reducing, and hopefully one day completely eliminating, the cold war era doctrine of "mutually assured destruction".

We must survive and progress as a species and "MAD" held our civilization in real jeopardy for far too long.

I for one see a need to have this deterrent, I hope we the US are not so naive to believe that Russia and China are not keeping a reserve of nukes.

I'm more afraid that they mention that the original builders are dead or old and its hard to find knowledgeable people to dismantle. WTF?

We still have a nuclear arsenal and will for the foreseeable future. However, it is becoming a cleaner (relatively speaking), lower megaton stockpile thankfully. There is NO reason for these huge "end of the world" 10 megaton scale weapons to exist anymore.

Of course the real powers in charge are not that naive. Notice they DONT ever give the number of nukes disassembled. These are obsolete, and there's enough of them to be stockpiled.It makes a good show. The material will be reused in new slimmed down modern versions. This way we can say no new material has been produced while only reporting a portion of this material being disposed of. No one actually knows how much was actually used so they can say what they want.

I agree with Tony from NJ

there are plenty of EOD troops that could contribute to this and am sure less $ than training a new engineer to do it. Besides being old is not a crime, but being dead is what we are born to do.

For cjsks --

The system worked didn't it? An old axiom says: "Might is right" and in this case it was right.

It is obvious from the above that some contributors know that the policy of mutually assured destruction saved the West. No wonder such opposition to it.

J. Howard - If might was right, how come the Russians didn't win the Cold War? They had a much bigger bomb, the Tsar Bomba (stupid name). While the B53 had a yield of 9MT, the Tsar Bomba was 100MT. According to your logic they were 10 times more right than we were. :-P

Trentgibs

You are exactly correct hehe.

cjsks

Great news. I support any policy or action which goes toward reducing, and hopefully one day completely eliminating, the cold war era doctrine of "mutually assured destruction".

We must survive and progress as a species and "MAD" held our civilization in real jeopardy for far too long.

MAD won the Cold War. It prevented a large scale conflict between the superpowers you dimwit.

Agree. The weapons are there to deter others from attaching us.

I wouldn't really worry that the US is w/o defense from its enemies. We spend more $$$$$ on weapons and the equipment to deploy them than we spend on everything else combined.

If that true. how did we get taken out on 9/11

Blake-2644321

Freaking scary!

^^^

It's not all that scary considering they have already dismantled all the others just like it over the past years.

This is the last one they are dismantling.

because mike they had people being told out right by the original bomber they would hijack planes and fly them into the towers if they had to and the threat was ignored just after the place had been bombed to begin with. more or less idiot people who though the us was invincible even after again the twin towers had just been bombed.

funny thing is, we still have enough neuclear warheads, on missles and bombs, to make all of the dirt of the earth (at least wherever we aim them) bounce and glow several times. However, since we no longer can do it 10 or 15 times, like we could at the hight of the cold war, supposedly we are weaker.

Spending as much money on the military as the next 20 countries COMBINED is just ridiculous. It is time we reign in our military spending. I would rather we spend $100 billion improving the highways, bridges and schools in the US, than spending it sending our young people to foreign lands to kill and be killed.

Two buildings destroyed and one damaged in the initial attack, a few more nearby the first two destroyed a bit later, and a hole in Pennsylvania, hardly "took out" the country.

Looks like Major Kong lost his ride.

@Paul - love that movie

So this is what he meant by Open and Transparent....my mistake, I thought he was talking about something else.

weapons that prevented the wars....

600 times more powerful than the 1st A-bomb, i wonder how big the glass parking lot after it went off would have been.

the reasons we dont need weapons this size anymore is due to more accurate ways of attacking. cruise missles and so on, have taken the place of a near random shot, to pinpoint accuarcy. they cut the amount of collateral damage with a more direct blast radius.

smart weapons, unlike the older versions, that would have wiped out an entire state with 1 hit leaving the place uninhabitable for who knows how many years are almost gone. not to mention the possible global damage. its what we have to look forward to in the future i think we need to be more concerned about.

Well, this is good news, just as long as we don't destroy ourselves with technology, we should be alright.

KiloByte1339,

MAD won the Cold War. It prevented a large scale conflict between the superpowers you dimwit.

First of all, there is no quicker way to display YOUR ignorance than resorting to name calling.

Secondly, you are taking my comments out of context. The context that I had mistakenly assumed everyone was aware of is that the we are and have been scaling down our stockpile hand-in-hand with the other nuclear powers for decades now! See: the "New Start" treaty, etc.

We can and we are maintaining a superior and modern thermonuclear stockpile and military without "MAD".

Third, you didn't read my entire post. I said there is no need for weapons of this 10+ megaton scale "anymore" (key word). The cold war is over, and to say that "mutually assured destruction" is what won the cold war in and of itself, doesn't even make sense?! Yes, it was necessary to match the Soviet Unions stockpile, but that is not how "we won". We could have just as easily ALL lost, and we almost did... No one wins WWIII.

The sooner that all nations scale down on nuclear weapons of this scale (and yes, maintain and modernize), then the sooner we ensure our survival as a species, and the better positioned we are to prevent proliferation.

J. HOWARD,

For cjsks -- The system worked didn't it? An old axiom says: "Might is right" and in this case it was right.

I don't disagree, please see my last post right above this one for clarification. Thanks.

What's really scary is 50 year old bombs! Would you fly in a 50 year old plane?
All these 60's ordinance should be removed simply because they're dinosaurs and unreliable, even if the world was crazy enough to get to a place where someone might even want to.

9 Megatons... eh... not bad.

The Russians, being ever insane built and TESTED a 50 MEGATON bomb. The blast so powerful it blew out windows over 500 miles away with the shock wave powerful enough to be measured even on the third time around the earth.

The russiance could never master the American accuracy so to compensate just went bigger to be sure their targets were hit. Thankfully, this stuff was never used in war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

The Russians originally planned on building a 100 megaton bomb but discovered the release plane would never make it far enough way to survive.

I bet if you drop it from a BUFF ..it'll go off. These things were maintained in a "ready" state at all times. Don't ask me how I know this.......

Freaking scary!

Actually, this is good news.

We don't need a world that lives in fear of nuclear annihalation.

Those saying that MAD "saved the West" are standing on shaky ground. One thing we do know is that the West still exists, but does it really exist only because of MAD? No.

Those saying that MAD "won the Cold War" are just flat out wrong. Mutual Assured Destruction meant that EITHER side could successfully annihalate the other at will. That condition does not lend itself to victory. It has only two possible outcomes: mutual defeat or no contest. As a matter of historical fact, there was no contest. Probably more because the none of the leaders on either side were maniacal idiots than because of MAD.

Nuclear bombs are NOT kept in a "ready" state. That would be foolish and dangerous.

Production bombs are designed for In Flight Insertion (IFI), where the uranium or plutonium "pits" are inserted when the go order is received. The pits are stored separately on board the plane. Safe arming and fusing devices also prevent premature detonation.

Several bombs have been accidentally dropped in the past and none have ever detonated.

Those of you bemoaning the "lack of deterrence" know that large nuclear weaponry was deemed obsolete back in the 1970s, right?

You can kill more people and cause more destruction with MIRVs carrying a cluster of small, independently targetable bombs than one big one.

Technology is the key here. A 350KT dial-a-yield bomb with a CEP of .25 miles is much better than a 20MT bomb with a CEP of 5 miles.

We no longer need megaton scale weapons. We can do much more precise damage with our more accurate smaller weapons.

We're not losing our nuclear edge or sacrificing our deterrence.

The picture looks like a bunch of rednecks preparing for a tractor pull.

Where are the armed guards? and we're worried about Pakistan's ability to secure their weapons?

Someone should have put those guys in hazmat suits so they at least looked like they know what they are doing.

Stan, I applaud your devotion to this. But

Production bombs are designed for In Flight Insertion (IFI), where the uranium or plutonium "pits" are inserted when the go order is received.

has not been true for decades. The pit was not inserted into the first atomic bomb because of the design. It was called a Mk 1, and was the first atomic bomb used at Hiroshima, Japan. The design was called "the original gun-type bomb, and was not "One Point Safe." That means it could blow up by accident. And that's why it was not put together till after the Enola Gay was airborne.

Later, the pit was joined by other parts - Triggers - for safety purposes. Later it became impractical for a variety of reasons. But, that was a very long time ago.

This one's a bonus. Again, I don't use Wikipedia when I talk nuclear weapons. I worked with them.

Yields can be varied in a number of ways: via the timing and the electricalcharge on the nutron-initiating "gun" , as discribed earlier; by controlling the amount (and relative proportions) of tritium and deuterium gases injected into the bomb pit center; and; in a multistage thermonuclear device, by controlling the yield of the primary (which directly affects the yields of the subsequent stages. {See "Nuclear Weapons Databook", among others on my book shelf}

They can have MY B53 when they pry it from my green glowing fingers! (Spits!)

Stan is correct... US during the cold war always pride themselves on the accuracy of their weapons... and the russians could never do that... they relied on the power of their weapons instead.

Hiroshima nuke killed 140,000 people, this one is 600 times more powerful, ergo 140,000 x 600 = 84,000,000 dead people and catastrophic world-wide fallout. Can someone tell me why we should trust that the current US gov'mint is any smarter today than it was back then, to think that we would ever need to use such a weapon of this size and exactly what the consequences would be if it were ever used?

i was in europe most the cold war Regan had time on his hands to be able too put the USSR in there place they were unfortunately getting there arses handed too them in afganistan an had gone broke history tends to repeat its self..just saying whos next..nuke or not money talks good time to get in on a roseta stone learn chineese program....

This is not news! This is being dismantled because it is an antique, a dinosaur... We have smaller, faster, more powerful and much much more accurate rocket based missiles that don't require a drop from a plane.

The best defense is a great offense and in this case I hope never to see this said offense.

Peace through superior firepower!

justin did you fall for the one where reagan took credit for the end of the Soviet empire just because he made some speech a year or so earlier?
Credit for that goes to Polish
Solidarity, Gorbachev's policies of Glasnost and reform, Yeltsin's dramatic speech and a tidal wave that the US had nothing to do with, All Reagan did was be sitting in the chair when it happened.

But you hate Obama so you just rant about him and would never say he had done anything positive, even if you fully supported the policy before

No comment should be collapsed, deleted or suspended, it is our right to see and accept or discard independently what everyone says. We have the option of ignoring the author. No one should have the option to prevent what anyone else has to say. If a person wants to make an idiot of himself/herself, that is their right and if he opinion is perverse or illogical, same thing. However there are many comments that have thoughtful meaning for the rest of us and I enjoy seeing opposing opinions and nuggets of truth fantasy or contrary opinion.

justoneguy,

Obama got Osama....

Obama got Khadafi....

Obama ended the Iraq war...

Obama wa responsable for ending the giant nuclear weapons race...

Not - not - not and not!! He's a charlatan that is taking credit for ANYTHING POSITIVE going on that he can because... his policies have failed and in the meantime cost the United States trillions of tax dollars.

For the record, I don't consider myself a Democrat or a Republican, but you have to give the president at least some credit for our recent success abroad, or else you just discredit yourself.

Reason being, you're saying that as commander-in-chief, he deserves ZERO credit for our recent foreign policy successes, while at the exact same time saying he deserves ALL of the blame for our problems... economy, etc.

How can he be a complete non-factor on one hand and the only factor on the other?

Got a good laugh when I read, "a step toward President Barak Obama"s mission to rid the world of nuclear weapons". So that's his mission. is it? Really? He's gonna rid the world of nuclear weapon, do you think? Yeah sure pal. And good luck with that one, Odumbo.

He "HAS TO FIND SOMETHING TO SAY". After all his books were ghost written and anything more intelligent would be difficult for him to utter.

GovHater, the effects of nuclear weapons don't scale that way. Heat and blast effects don't extend past the optical horizon. With a detonation height of 3,000 feet, that means a maximum kill radius of 30 miles for unprotected exposed populations, no matter how powerful the bomb. 1 MT or 9 MT or 100 MT, all have roughly the same kill radius as city busters. What more power gets you is the ability to dig deep and destroy hardened targets. It doesn't really increase the kill on soft targets like a city that much. That's what people in the know mean when they talk of overkill. Against soft targets, more power just churns the area where everyone is already dead a bit more. 1 MT is sufficient, bigger doesn't increase the kill zone significantly.

To kill 80,000,000 people in a country like the US or Russia, you'd need roughly 1,000 bombs optimally dispersed over population centers. Doesn't really matter whether they are 1 MT or 9 MT each. The former can be made smaller and lighter, so they are easier to deliver. That's the modern trend. We like the idea of using a little cruise missile instead of a big lumbering B52. Its cheaper, and more likely to make it through enemy air defenses to its target.

Obama lied about Osama. Or don't you remember it was stated at first it was a kill or capture mission. Later it was revealed it was a strictly kill mission why? Osama was the head of a multi nation terrorist organization. There was a treasure trove of information in his mind and in his family's minds and he ordered bin Laden killed and his family left behind. Completely ridiculous?
And then with a 5% doubt that it was bin Laden, AND WHO SAID THERE WAS ANY DOUBT? Obama, the body is dropped in the ocean. Can you imagine the stink if it was proven it was not Osama? Yes that is Obama's great victory. Not capture him alive and get information from him!
You are ridiculous Obama didn't get Daffy? The jets were British, French, Italian, German and from Qatar. The U.S. flew intelligence missions. Any of the other countries could have replaced us and should!
The Iraq war was scheduled to end without his knowledge or permission. I am afraid we are going to have another Carter-Iran mess. Obama didn't set up schools and hospitals demonstrating that western ways were better and there is an option to the muslim way of doing things. Just like Carter who pulled the rug out from under the shah.
Obama the credit for ending the nuclear arms race??????? You smoking the good stuff? That was Reagan! You are about 30 years too late on that one.
Were are the successes???????????????
What is going to happen in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
One man died. An eye for an eye. Period and very badly handled
Iraq wants us out and making nice with Iran where is the success with that?
Nuclear bombs the mutual reduction treaties have been going on for 30 years. I honestly believe Obama can't spell nuclear. If you read his books, you have to shake your head at the gross mistakes and how his books parallel the books of other black writers.
Now answer me this. Obama never wrote one article that was published, not even in a legal digest. Not one short story, not one essay and he defaulted on a $125,000 prepayment for a book as he could not present an outline, a synopsis or a plot. Then miraculously a full blown excellently written full length book! And he refuses to admit that there was a ghostwriter. His name is known.
Now you take the plagiarizer, lying Joe Biden and put him with Obama. You mean to tell me with 335 million intelligent American citizens we can't find a brilliant honest man for president who has the best interest of the country in his mind? And we continue to elect crooks who get rich on their positions, i.e. Obama, Clinton and Bush?
COME ON NOW!

JohnCarter-428979 You forget about the fallout, the radioactive material that travels with the wind, the polluted water that flows downstream continually carrying the radioactive soil and runoff for the next 30 years, the crop land and grazing than that can't be used and the enormous healthcare facilities that will have to be built and staffed to care for the wounded and future sick.
You haven't read about bikini island that is still too "HOT" to live on? And all the islands that were affected by the winds and the tides? The fish that can't still be eaten? There is a lot you missed.

Hiroshima nuke killed 140,000 people, this one is 600 times more powerful, ergo 140,000 x 600 = 84,000,000 dead people and catastrophic world-wide fallout.

It doesn't work out that way.

Is this to notify Iran's Ahdinemajad and the Iranian Government that now they can attack us with their Nuclear Warfare, and wipe us out?

This kind of bragging is unusual. Usually, our Government doesn't want the enemy to know this kind of information.

It is very strange to me--it would be considered High Level Top Secret Information.

Hopefully, we are safe---this is actually shocking for the Media to be touting this kind of information.

Who is behind this release; it is very irresponsible.

What ended the "cold war" were the submarine launched ballistic missiles. The Russians could never find us. 41 for freedom, started in the '60s and lasted into the eighties, and some still today. Each boat carried between 12 to 16 missiles and later 24. Each missile had 3 to 10 mirvs, with a range of about 2000 miles. 41 SSBMS times say 16 missiles and again say 4 mirvs, that's a little over 2600 independently targetable re-entry vehicles, at maybe 1.5 megatons each, that's 3900 megatons!! We could go from cruising to launching every missile in less than 20 minutes. Granted some boats would be in refit, and some would be transiting to their patrol areas. But still, there would be enough missiles for the " a back to the stone-age" scenario. For a long time after I separated from the Navy I always wondered if the time I spent underwater was worth it. But now I understand that, whatever it was worth, we were the assured part "Mutually Assured Destruction".

To all the fearful and frightened corn-servatudes that have posted, please go get professional help. Mental health is important, so quit wasting what brains ya'll have left. Not much I'm sure! Just saying. You know who you are.

jacksonal, I am quite familiar with fallout. Go to downtown Hiroshima or downtown Nagasaki today and talk to the oldest residents. Or perhaps you'd prefer to read about Tsutomu Yamaguchi, who was the only man to be atomic bombed twice, and recently died at age 92. Fallout is a nuisance, and can be deadly if you are excessively exposed to it in the first two weeks after a blast. Fortunately, there are some relatively simple steps you can take to protect yourself from it for those two weeks. Civil Defense used to provide pamphlets describing what to do, based on first hand experience in Japan and Nevada. Or you can look carefully at Chernobyl, where the radioactive release was thousands of times what an old B53 would produce. Lots of panic on a global scale, 114 documented deaths from radiation, the majority of those were workers on site fighting the fires without any protective equipment.

Now I'm not telling you that you can just ignore fallout. You can't. But don't go into a crazy panic about it either. It can be dealt with in a rather straightforward way.

EVERY President has been on the path of eliminating old nuclear weapons per several arms reductions treaties we have signed. The cost of maintaining these devices is too high, and their need is negligible.

Besides, the actual use of a nuclear weapon on anyone would subject the user to an enormous amount of international scorn and pressure.

Rick, take off the tin foil hat.

I am not a Republican nor a Democrat. I am an American who loves his country and history. I think your comment is, plainly put, ridiculous.

An_American, Brian and Speedweenie: can you google Sarcasm, i know you can if you try.

Rick>... LOL :D

Oh please give the Obama socialist cr@p a break. The damn bomb was 50 years old. OBSOLETE. UNDERSTAND. OBSOLETE. Should our military still be using M1 rifles? You want to talk about socialism/communism? The GOP wants to turn every city in the US into Beijing without any environmental protection!

Rick is an ignorant. He doesn't know the meaning of the word Socialist. And you are off the topic, anyway.

I assume Rick was joking. If he was, it was pretty funny. The weird thing is that there are actually people who are serious when they say things like that. It makes you wonder (and worry) at times about our educational system and the degree to which our students are learning critical thinking skills.

You're an idiot...there it was said.

I bet a big Coward like you will hide under table at the slightest loud noise. Empty cans sound off a lot.

140.000 people were killed by a single bomb made by our own people, we are nothing but disaster to ourselves!

we should not be fighting ourselves, once you do! know that you are becoming a devil himself, know that you are fighting a war you gona lose at the end!

Everything on Earth will return to God the creater! we dont own earth because we were meant to die no matter what!

Scientists have now determined that the detonation of even one of these modern nuclear weapons could very possibly end all life on earth.

These weapons are just plain suicide no matter who uses them.

.

Seriously? You're still on the Obama/Socialist/Muslim train? Wow. Just wow.

I am on the Obama is a Socialist Cruise Ship....We have a big party on the Lido Deck tonight. We are going to light some TEaReps and shoot them off the bow.

Then we re going to have a party to celebrate the Birth of Karl Marx (I am bringing the Ambrosia Salad)

There will be a screening of Reds in the Cinema at 11

In the Kids Camp we will be having a Sing Along to "The Internationale" Wear your Mao Caps!

THough we do ask you don't steal the towels from the staterooms, we do agree Property is Theft but this time we are talking about OUR towels and we need them for the cruise next week which is another Theme Cruise "TeaRep Gay Cruise" Many rooms are left, contact your travel agent to book, Actually we don't have any rooms booked except the one with Michelle Bachmans husband in it and the one with Rick Perry (Adjoining rooms of course)

US 1776, that's simply not true. Why do people spout such nonsense? What scientists actually determined was that if the US and USSR had actually gotten into a nuclear war, even a limited one, the result would have been a much greater catastrophe than expected, but NOT the end of all life on earth. It would have been the end of civilized life as we know it, but some percentage of the human race would have survived, unless it was an all out nuclear war. Even then, I suspect there would have been a few survivors. Thank God that never happened!!

A single nuke would have had an effect similar to what happened in Japan with the nuclear plant meltdown. If what you were saying was true, then why didn't life on earth end when the Russians set off that 50 Megaton bomb?

Sally,

Why don't you do us a favor and stop restoring garbage like Rick-546746. Do your damn job properly!

Alan is right, of course. One bit of perspective worth remembering is that one medium size hurricane releases as much energy every hour as would be released by every nuclear weapon in the world being detonated. Of course the nuclear weapon delivers its effects into microseconds instead of hours, so it concentrates its effects more locally, but on a global scale, nuclear weapons are really small potatoes compared to natural forces.

Oh, and Devil's Son, the M1 is still a better main battle rifle than the Mattel Toy. It is the finest main battle rifle we've ever deployed. It has more range and striking power than what our troops have today, as well as being much more robust in the field. It also enforced a one shot one kill fire discipline which gave our troops a logistical edge. Just ask the Germans and Japanese how well it worked.

Rick, just for the sake of clarity, the B53 was "retired" in 1997.

hey rickie tikie

you teabaggers are WAY closer to being fascists than the left will ever be to socialism

look it up

there. it was said.

It's sad that nobody realized that Rick was being sarcastic. That says a lot about where this country stands when it comes to political discourse: every idiotic idea has a real live proponent somewhere!!

Jack - if Rick being sarcastic was his only shortcoming then I guess I could laugh, instead pity is the only proper emotion I can afford to have for him.

But wait!...I thought Obama was a Muslim!

The government did what it felt was necessary to deter war, not begin one. Using atomic weapons on Japan was to end what was possibly just getting moving. What could have resulted in millions more dead and a war with every major country in the world involved was abruptly stopped. Unfortunately they didn't know the long standing effects on a nuclear weapon but now are a little smarter.

The elimination of another stockpile of antiquated nukes is a good thing. But rest assured that the government is not leaving us out in the open on anything to deter or protect us. There is new technology that is able to produce results without nuclear fallout and mass killing. It's naive to believe that a stockpile of nukes was not needed at one time to prevent war just as it is to believe that this leaves us any less capable at this time.

Agreed. If we made THAT 60 years ago ... imagine what we have the capabilities to do now. Assuming we haven't already done it and they're just not telling us. How many of us knew these B53's existed before they started dismantling them?

And thank goodness we are making better and better weapons. Are flintlock muskets your preferred battlefield weapon? Perhaps a trebuchet is more to your liking? I'll take what we have today, which is more accurate and more lethal for its intended targets, and which has fewer unintended casualties, then anything from anytime in the past.

we will never be without bigger and better weapons kept secret from the liberals. the life time politicians know they would be the first to go if we were taken over.

Bigger does not equal better.

Yep, weapons should be designed to destroy 'things', not EVERYTHING.

cjsks.

"Bigger does not equal better."

hmmmm.... Why does that sound familiar????

lol then I feel sorry for you cgtrav lol

You guys do realize he's being sarcastic right?

*facepalm*

Sarcasm - the last refuge of the dimwits.

Sarcasm may be a last refuge, but it is often out of sheer frustration from dealing with "dimwits".

I know exactly how you feel. Those corn-servatude dimwits are extremely exasperating and totally annoying. You know who I mean, don't you. Just saying.

Oh , but he did. Aren't we the lucky ones?

The materials in these things degrade over time due to radioactive decay and secondary effects on the components. This gadget though was the epitome of H bomb technology and compactness for all time even to this day, but outlived its usefulness instead giving way to "many" and "accuracy" instead of size.

WTF, how did this gratuitous screed about Obama crawl in here? The long-term partial and gradual dismantling program for excess warheads is of long-standing through many administrations. Are you opposed? Even after all the dismantling, we and 5 or more other countries will still have more than enough to fry us all with heat and radioactivity over and over. Not enough for you, a*hole? The program is part of an international accord, so it is in our interest to participate. Do you never read anything but Fox news crawls, you mental cockroach?

Wally, what a jerky comment!!! Liberals are supposed to be the "warmongers" are they not??? The capitalists and invaders who take over territories for some sort of gain, right?? Well, tell me, bud--if you think our current President is a liberal "of the worst type," then who in hell went to Iraq for no authentic reason, huh?? Liberals?? Who cost this country $20billion a day because of what he started in Iraq over 10 years ago--or more than SEVENTY-THREE TRILLION DOLLARS, huh? Liberals?? And who started the behemoth Homeland Security that failed completely when they merged FEMA into it making it powerless so that next to nothing was done after Katrina? Liberals?? And if you think Obama caused the gargantuan hole in our economy, you best remove your head from that dark place you obviously put it years ago and start seeing the light of day and smell some coffee instead of the scent you've become accustomed to. If anything, this President should grow a bigger set and stop being so gutless & compromising with the so-called conservatives. That's perhaps the biggest fault he has developed!!!

Hi Tess,

Funny stuff. Most of it wildly untrue. Too bad. Look, Iraq, for what it is worth, has many authentic reasons, but none of them cost $20bn a day, and in no way, ever, does the number $73tn make sense. Wally might've been wrong to take a jab at Obama, who I do think is an epic failure, given that this thread is about this "crowd pleaser", but why do you feel the need to up the insanity ante by so much?

(Totally OT, but can't let this one slide...)

The Iraq war had "many authentic reasons"?? Name two... I'll even give you "disposing of Saddam". Name one that justified all that is has cost.

cjsks...well for the Caviar dummy!
And we need new persian rugs

Tess wants to sit with the top LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC SENATORS...............you know of the 10 richest senators in the senate 8 OF THEM ARE DEMOCRATS!' Please you liberals out there explain that to me!

Aren't the democrats down there with you poor liberals baying at the moon crying at the rich because you didn't get your fair share?????

Hey you have to ask your leaders how they got thousands of times more money than you! And you have to ask them as they know how to get so much money, they didn't share it with you or pass laws to help them distribute their wealth with you.

Cjsks supposedly it was to keep Iraq from becoming a Muslim state and show the countries in the region that democracy can work in a Muslim country. Time will tell but I am not holding my breath. As it stands now Turkey is the only true independent democratic Muslim country.

Also Saddam was tweaking the noses of all the western countries and responsible for funneling arms to quite a few. Besides the fact he was as bad as Daffy and the people of Iraq deserve to be free and live a decent life. All of which time will tell. I am afraid, all that will cost more than the war.

And you and I are facing a serious challenge with the overpopulation of Muslims whose population is growing twice as fast as any other religion and has too many dangerous elements in it. Just how do you expect to handle both those problems?

If you can bring economic growth and individual responsibility and sexual equality, along with education for men and women, you would have economic forces that would affect the population growth and provide for a stable non hostile population. This is way off and a job that has to be worked at. Religion is one of the hardest things to change and the machismo flavor in the Muslims is going to be very hard to change.

Its obvious radioactive decay isn't the only type of decay on display on this thread.

We would not need deterrent-size strategic nukes as badly if our govt. officials would get their heads out of the sand about developing an ABM program.

Some people have argued against this in the past, claiming that developing an ABM system would encourage other nations to attack us......that's like saying having cops wear body armor encourages criminals to shoot at them.

We last worked on nuke defensive systems back in the 1980's; no one tried to attack us. It's weakness that always encourages your enemies to attack..not the development of strength!

But I think that presently, the real reason why we aren't working on it is because the euphoria has set in.

We spend MORE in these areas... The only reason we have lasted so long has been because of our policy and hunger to be ahead in arms. You can go spout off about another country that is doing fine with less but chances are they have an aliance with us and dont need to spend the money on defence being that we protect them.

The world would be in chaos, and the US would no longer exist. Can't change human nature.

I can imagine what would happen if we didn't have the war machine. Our technology would be about two hundred years behind where it is today. War-driven research has created all the great advances you enjoy today, like GPS systems, advanced aircraft, support systems (radar, sonar), nuclear energy (almost 20% of our energy economy), computers, etc.

You might not like it, but nothing moves technology faster along than devising a "better way" to kill eachother.

Veteran? Are you sure? .... when people are taught from birth that the great satan wants to kill them and that you'll get 72 virgins for martyring yourself ... only ignorance would think that there is no need for defense or the largest bomb in your arsenal.

First envision a world without hate or evil.

I can vision it all day long, but there are many people in this world who want to kill us for all kinds of reasons, and we need to be prepared for them.

All veterans deserve our respect for their sacrifice of time, but some were in combat and others ran bowling alleys and never got the word. Being a veteran doesn't necessarily make you an expert on foreign policy or the making of war.

... we'd be Neanderthals ... eventually supplanted by some other species.

War is the reason we have so many of the great things we have today. No war=little technological advancement

Heaven

This the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE.. So many Men and Women in todays military are Volinteers. NOT Like Vietnam where they were drafted into service. Stop and think about the freedom we have.... How many of you have stopped and shaken the hand of a service member and thanked them forThis there service.. True we have the right to complain about every and anything. This Is AMERICA!! This is a country of free choice. and OUR SERVICE MEMBERS JOIN OF THERE OWN FREE WILL.. Or do the some of you want to become a Communist UNITED STATES.

Wish the world wasn't the way it is either but we'd be stupid not to be prepared. And you cannot deny the fact that technology wouldn't be nearly as far advanced as it is today.

I agree whole heartedly Veteran. I have said to myself many a time, imagine what we could have done with all that money we put into exotic defense products from 1950 to 2011, just a small fraction of this money put to other programs. I understand we need a modern military, What has been spent on these projects boggles my mind. Oh well it has been done, can not change the past. However good start putting these things on the shelf of doom.

Eisenhower was right. The following is a quote from Eisenhower, 3 days before he step down from the Presidency. He foretold of coming events in the military-industrial complex. Pretty good fortune telling for an old guy.

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

• and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."

.

There is always someone that thinks the world can be perfect. It would be nice, but you are only going to realize this "utopia" in a movie or a book.

Fact is, we must keep our war machine as advanced as possible so that we can protect our people from the many possible threats out there.

For some reason, people have very short memories. I understand it is some form of internal defense mechanism. But, you need to use your brain and put common sense first and simply look at history.

Just over 70 years ago, we entered WW2. Our allies were already fighting the most advanced military on the planet, the German war machine. We stayed out, only providing supplies and training. Then, we got hit by Japan, bringing us into the war. It has often been pondered that if we entered the war later or not at all that Hitler would have developed 100's of jet fighters, 1000's of missiles and rockets and the nuclear bomb. Another year without the US in the war and he may have achieved all of this. He would have essentially had what we have today, and that was in the 1940's. Hitler was literally a couple years from having the means to deliver nuclear weapons anywhere on the planet. He could have easily delivered a couple nukes on the east coast and he would have had the ability to do with us as he pleased. We likely would have surrendered without even being in the war. I guess you can give the Japanese credit for bringing us in when they did.

Bottom line...people are people and we are not a species conducive to forming a utopia. We have good days and bad days and that is not going to change. So all you need to do is ask yourself, "Do I want to be prepared for the worst case scenario?"

I would like to live in a world without the possibility of humans destroying everything. But that is not the world we live in. We are a destructive species and we will always find a reason to go to war with each other. You had better just hope your country has the best technology available to protect you and your people from any possible threat.

Hi jkm,

Had we not spent what we did to blunt the USSR we'd likely not be talking today about how much better we'd be. My bet is we'd be talking, if we were allowed to talk about such things at all, about how we made such a bad and unwise decision.

No, liberty is the greatest concept that humans can achieve, and to achieve it you must have a military capable of defending it from all enemies. The natural order of the world is towards despotism, not liberty, but I don't think we should take your advice and surrender to the natural order. Without the vast military spending we've seen for the past several decades we'd be less free, less wealthy, and less powerful.

It's true, sadly, that we are headed towards less freedom, less wealth, and less power, but it isn't the fault of large military budgets.

Prospect Survival,

There is always someone that thinks the world can be perfect. It would be nice, but you are only going to realize this "utopia" in a movie or a book....I would like to live in a world without the possibility of humans destroying everything. But that is not the world we live in...

I don't believe in the concept of "utopia", but I don't believe that being able to nuke the planet several times over is necessary either. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other, there is a happy medium...

And as recent history absolutely proves, nuclear arms reduction around the world is attainable. Both the Russian and American inventories are currently at a mere fraction of what they were in the 60's and 70's.

We can maintain the most advanced military in the world without "MAD" and without spending nearly $1 trillion annually (more than all other militaries in the world combined!) Even McCain has stated there is a ton of pork in the military budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START_treaty#Status_of_the_strategic_forces_of_Russia_and_the_U.S.

War-driven research has created all the great advances you enjoy today

Really Matt... All of it?

None of the great advances we enjoy today are/were civilian?

Who knew?

Okay, OKAY!!! I was just saying...What if, I didn't mean to bring down a tirade of negative comments folks, Believe me no one wants a peaceful world more than a combat vet, and no one knows better than a combat vet that we must be strong. With some of the vitriol out of some of you I can very easily see why there can't be any peace, a couple of you are ready to tear me up. And in particular tom 343 if you would like to send me a personal e-mail I will compare service records with you any day any time my friend. Read www.riflewarrior.com/vietnam.html I wrote that back in 1967. And being in the military doesn't necessarily mean you go into combat, hey tom 343 how would you like to spend a Winter-Over at the South Pole with me like I did in 1970, 6 months of darkness and minus 126 degrees F. it's guys like you who really piss me off. To everybody else, Peace, it CAN happen.

peace will never happen with the muslims, NEVER. muslims want nothing more then to get rid of AMERICA and Israel, that is their gold and we have a muslim in office that wants nothing more then to destroy this country, for he is one of them........................ they say obuma knows not what he does, but he knows exactly what he is doing, and he's doing from with-in.

Pure ignorance. Have you ever met a muslim? I'm guessing no. Most are not radical, and most "want nothing more" than to live under democracy.

Perhaps you should imagine what the world would be like if we didn't have to spend time devising ways to kill people who would harm us.

We would be dead or enslaved.

It's called Heaven...behave yourself and you'll get there.

Really, so nukes are alright. Just pop a few here and there and it's cool. Hope and change means nuclear war, you suck.

The US is not the only nation in the world with nukes. Please go lecture Russia and China.

Kind of a twisted sentiment. A couple dozen of these things lobbed across the Atlantic in both directions and life as we know it on Earth is done. Decades, if not centuries long nuclear holocaust.

Veryglad to see them go(ing). They are pure evil.

p.s. If you want to see what nuclear holocaust would look like, the BBC made a stunningly accurate potrayal in the 80's, it was a film called "Threads". Its available in full length on youtube.

"A few here and there" have already been popped. The U.S. alone has detonated 331 nuclear and thermonuclear devices in the atmosphere between 1945 and 1963, not including the two that were detonated on Japan during World War II. Speaking as one who lived downwind from the New Mexico and Nevada test sites from 1949 to 1956, and who to date has developed zero cancers, I can testify that nuclear weapons can be survived, and even thrived after. That is the problem. The world's governments are currently run by people who survived them, and who can therefore dismiss their potential for destruction.

If you want to get rid of all nuclear weapons, you will want to vote only for people younger even than Barack Obama, for starters. It might take another three decades for that to happen, especially in Congress, where the members tend to be older even than the President.

Having the biggest guns is a sure way for peace... unfortunatley. As long as you have aggressive countries like N. Korea and Iran nuclear weapons will always be necessary to have.

cjsks,

NO inanimate object is "good" or "evil", the person that uses the object uses it for good or evil. You use a gun to stop a wild animal from killing your children, or to kill your nieghbor and wrongfully take his property. The "tool" has no morals, the person that uses it does.

Oh, BTW. a "Holocaust" is: 1. a great or complete devastation or destruction, especially by fire. 2. a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; as a burnt offering. 3. A great burning--the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II.

So a Nuclear "Holocaust" caused by large scale use of nuclear weapons would be over in a matter of minutes/hours. The resulting desruction and fallout would last for years, not decades or centuries.

Your BBC program is pure Propaganda. I would recommend, "The Day After", except that in a "Full Exchange" senario most of those "survivors" would have been dead or vaporized. There wouldn't be anything left of England. Remember these are all produced by leftist, liberals of Hollywood and thus are full of Micheal Moore type political bias.

I'm for keeping the biggest weapons. Makes others think twice about screwing with us. Unless you're a muslim far out in the left field! They'll try to blow us up using their own children.

htdjpf,

You say the destruction from a full-out global thermonuclear assault would last less than a decade?! I'm sorry that is flat out rediculous.

All major cities and infrastructure would be leveled. The skies would be clouded from debris and nuclear fallout, killing off crops and livestock for years, leading to further population collapse. The remaining population would be dropping like flies from cancer, dysentery, various infection and illness, etc. Preganancies would be fail at an alarmingly high rate.

So who is going to rebuild the modern infrastructure and society as we know it in 10 years or less?? You think there will be any sense of democracy or any sort of stability in people's lives? It will be a police state, if there is any state at all. You think its going to be rebuilt in just a matter of years... GET REAL. We're talking about going back to the stone ages buddy!

Also, not sure how you can dismiss "Threads" as a propoganda piece if you haven't even seen it? I'd be interested to hear your take on any specific point of the film that you think was not accurately depicted. I've always been struck by it's realism especially considering it was made in the 80's.

I will check out The Day After, thanks.

...and while I agree with you that no inanimate object is "good" or "evil", it is completely and utterly beside the point.

I don't really mind what your opinion is chadseattle, as you are certainly welcome to it. But I am fed up with the way you express it. If you can't debate in a civilized, adult manner, you don't deserve to be heard.

Chad from Seattle; It is comments such as yours that will convince a majority of American citizens that you can only show hate and will drive them to vote Democratic. "Dumbama"? What kind of ignorance is that? "That Nimrod" You are telling us how much moonshine you imbibed today. Take 2 aspirin and wake up with a smile tomorrow and a better attitude. You may finally wake up and decide PRESIDENT OBAMA is doing remarkably well considering the fierce opposition he faces in the party of no since the day he took office and the proclaimed mission of the Republican party to make him a one term president. I am a Democrat and have enough common sense to know not to call people names and enough compassion to care in my heart for all who walk this earth. That my friend is what the Democratic party is all about.

I do know. The latest iteration of M.I.R.V. is called the Griffin, and is huge.

It's a pretty cool weapon in Fallout 3 and New Vegas

ME,

We aren't dismantling one bomb, we have dismantled hundreds, even thousands. We don't have enough to destroy the planet, let alone all the people on it, but that doesn't mean we should use them--their use should be reserved for what you might call an existential war where failing to use them would mean our destruction.

I think your zero-sum view of life, or of war, is more of a problem than nuclear weapons.

We don't have enough to destroy the planet, let alone all the people on it

Wrong. Russia and the United States still have roughly 5,000 megatons combined and seveal thousand warheads each in ready status. You better believe that would be enough to cook the planet a couple times over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START#Status_of_the_strategic_forces_of_Russia_and_the_U.S.

Or you could just read the end of the article and you'd know exactly what happens to it.

moreon

Wow, you are a goobe.

Tim, your comment is idiotic. You think you're funny, but you're not.

Of course everyone here know that countries around the world have 100's of kilos of plutonium and weapons grade uranium missing? It might be an accounting error, it might not be!

Just google missing plutonium or missing uranium.

I appreciate the sarcasm, but you are completely wrong. Nuclear material is one of the few areas we have had great foresight and protection of. When the Soviet Union fell the US spent hundreds of millions of dollars to keep Russian missiles and material safe. The US works very hard at tracking this stuff and for good reason-- we are the main target!

actually we're going to make suppositories for the terrorists

This isn't being stored in a warehouse guarded by a bumpkin.

and that is for sure!

Jesse - Is your paranoia contagious or just inherited?

Regular people? As opposed to what irregular people. And if you had read the article you would have noted that the bomb was delivered last Feb. 14th which is when the picture was taken. So it would be kinda hard to have a picture of the dismantled bomb from last Feb. when it was only dismantled this week.

The picture is at the factory where they were made,and now dismantled, did you expect they would all be inuniform. That is only the dress in factories in other places, that the bomb was made to keep us from.

You mean DOT?

No he doesnt mean DOT. DOD is correct. Department of Defense.

BM - Your eye exam is overdue and ex-lax might help also!

Oh yea? So do you really believe we're ever going to drop another nuclear weapon on a city full of innocent civilians? Because that's what this weapon is designed to do.

I don't know about that. But I do know that we need the capability to do so just in case. Russia and China simply aren't concerned about eliminating their arsenals, and they're not exactly friendly. Retaining the capability to eliminate their population centers, and high value command and control facilities prevents them from striking us. It's called deterrence and it works. We shouldn't disarm until Russia and China commit to a reduction of their forces. Just that simple.

JJ2996

I guess when they signed the treaty with the soviet unin it was before you could read. Both side are reducing weapons, and open to inspection to assure it is being done.

Russia is currently designing a new SLBM which is called Bulava. In addition they have increased numbers of newer TOPOL-M ICBM for their land forces. China is designing a whole new generation of ICBM for their 2nd artillery Corps and continues to increase numbers of both SRBM's and IRBM's. I don't see either Russia or China committed to a reduction of their forces at all. A piece of paper signed by Soviet Bureaucrats from over 25 years ago is worthless. And I don't trust Putin and company as they sign START agreements on the one hand, and at the same time deploy newer generations of missiles and warheads on the other. Wake up man.

Ed,

Your're one trusting fool.

Yes, Tim. Unfortunately, there are many uninformed people out there who vote pie in the sky ideas about "peace" "love", and rainbows. As a result, we get politicians who can't wait to cut our arsenal to appease the feel good lefties in our nation, even in the face of our potential enemies building up their capabilities.

We shouldn't disarm any weapons until Russia and China commit to the same.

There are a couple of points to consider. First, scientists don't trust that old weapons are reliable. It may very well be that the military doesn't consider this class of bomb to be reliably functional. Secondly, the weapons that you mention that China and Russia are designing are missles, not plane-delivered bombs.

The point is, Russia and China are increasing their capabilities and numbers. And as a result, we shouldn't be concerned with reducing our arsenal in the face of it. If we're speaking reliability of this system, we should be replacing it with something else that adds to our potential.

As noted in the article this was a deep penetration bomb, there for it was made to take out other bombs in reinforced silos, not that it wouldn't take out a city but that was not the primary designed function, it was more defensive then offensive but with the technologies that have become common place since it was designed it would be very old school and is obsolete for those proposes.

What about the 3rd world countries that have or are developing nukes. Personally I'm more cancerned about where I stand with the good lord above, than some nut case from another country that wants to rule the world. Because if you really look at the big picture, Once a nuke is lauched at another country, that country is going to send up one in retalliation, and so on and so on untill every country/nation gets into the act. BOOM!!! Wherer do you want to be when the end comes???? HEAVEN or HELL. Stop and think about it for a minute

Russia is decreasing warheads along with us numb-nuts, jeez how do you people even know which side of the pants to put on in the morning. China has much fewer, and anyway, theirs are "made in China" so probably won't work right.

Realist, funniest post all day!

As noted in the article this was a deep penetration bomb....it was more defensive then offensive...

I'm sure anyone within a 100 mile radius of that thing going off would agree... "Oh we're ok, that was one of those defensive nukes."

;)

All the paranoids need to calm down. I'm sure we have enough biological weapons to eliminate "all life" on our planet. Now doesn't that make feel all rainbowy.

couldn't get my band gear in there

Yes the false Bible tells us all about our made up destiny. Hey, if you have a minute I have a bridge I'd like to sell you real cheap.

Sp3ktr3, I hope you change your thoughts about the Bible before its too late for you.

Remember, your bible says it's never too late. Love that "sin escape clause."

BM...those kind of scare tactic words don't work on adults, like they might on your kids.

Stoopid X-tians shut the heck up!

BM - So your a grown-up? Imagine that!

Obviously, you are clueless how much aviation fuel cost. China is no where close to the USA, unless you meant to say Canada?

Uh Dr, Tinling,

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those with swords. Of course there is another bit from the bible that you didn't mention"If you do not have a sword, sell your cloak to buy one."

Your ENTIRE post is ignorant. There isn't even a hint of intelligence. You did manage to discover how to post on a thread though, so kudos.

It worked on you.... to respond. And the word (KUDOS) is as old as the bomb get a life.

Flex I was thinking the same thing. Tony is just mad he has to live in NJ. I would be too.

Ok Does, so him saying that since 3 men are working on it then it can't be that powerful of a nuke is your idea of brilliance? Sorry, but ignorance bugs me.

I can't wait to see both of your Einstein-ish responses.

NJ seems to have made me smarter than both of you combined.

I was just poking fun at the post, see "TONY" I'm one of the guys in the photo don't believe EVERYTHING you read.

Yea Tony, get lost.

You added both race and politics to a supposed humorous post. I can't exactly say I was chuckling my ass off.

I can not only teach you guys a little science, but also how to deliver humorous lines without sounding stupid. Wit seems hard to come by.

No, flex is correct. The backwards hat was the giveaway. All powerful bombs demand the respect of forward facing head wear.

Now THAT was clearly a joke. It has the right touch of sarcasm, and good delivery. LOL

KUDOS

Stoopid! That was Great! Now that is funny.... I'm still LMAO.

Tony, you need to get over the race thing. It is openly used as "The Card" by many blacks. And all of us are to still blindly say there is absoulutly no difference. There are very large differences. That's just life. Get your head out of the NJ sand.

But all the ignorant comments in his post combined create one large, atomic, idiotic post.

It is not the most powerful bomb. That honor belongs to the Russians. They made one 10 times more powerful. Wonder if they dismantled theirs or just let them fall apart. I have seen a B53 up close. It looks like an industrial water heater.

NJ seems to have made me smarter than both of you combined.

ummm, no. It's just if you have half a brain in NJ, you are in the top 10%! Ba-Da Boom!

ummm, no. It's just if you have half a brain in NJ, you are in the top 10%! Ba-Da Boom!

What's wrong with that sentence Doctor? LMAO!!!!

It's like people who don't get Python, but think Jersey Shore is entertainment.

As much as I like to pick on New Jersey, there are at least a few decent and reasonably intelligent people in every state. Like Tony.

Lol, thanks. I might be the only one. But I keep looking.

Kidding, there are plenty of good, smart, down to earth people here. TV makes the state look bad. It's immediate association with Mafia, Jersey Shore, and pollution.

Yeah, it's like media making Texas look like it is all red-neck or rich oil tycoons or Bible thumpers. Yes, there are quite a few and they get the media attention. Just like your Mafia and Jersey Shore bunch and other things.

The materials in these things are highly unstable and prone to rapid decay. Without constant maintenance and periodic replacement of certain components, they soon render themselves useless. You're fantasy about keeping a couple around is pathetically juvenile.

There's no reason to keep these dinosaurs around. We have much more effective and destructive weapons now.

Why would we keep it around? Its a BOMBER delivered ordinance.

I hear the 3 nuclear scientist disarming it in the photo are turning it into a BBQ pit.

You are adding humor to compensate for the ignorant post above. Answer the question.

I'm one of the men in the photo you Moron now how funny is that. Tony! DON"T believe everything you read...

Again, your "joke" delivery is horrible. How was anyone supposed to know that and conclude you were telling a joke?

In your bed... where something that "big" will ever be found....

Now you are picturing something BIG that is in my bed? Lol I fear how well these bombs are being handled. From hammering nails into wood to disposing of nukes??

Maybe they can let Japan dispose of it since they pumping radioactive stuff into the ocean as we speak.

To answer the question: the explosive trigger is disarmed and removed, usually detonated at a later date. The electronics are shredded and recycled, along with the main copmonents. The fissible materials are removed and stored onsite at Pantex.

Thanks Detroit. The nuclear material is what I wondered about. Then it's put away, and not disposed of as the article says.

"Disposed" for nuclear materials means putting it in a container and keeping it safe (in theory) until its not longer a threat. Which means its stored onsite, at places like Pantex and nuclear plants across the country. Since we don't have a central repository, the stuff is stored 'in situ'.

Tony,

Detroit gave you one answer for "Disposed". Another is that the material is re-manufactured into new weapons grade material and used to build new warheads. Another is that it is re-manufactured into power generation grade fuel rods for nuclear reactors, military or civilian, with waste material buried. There is a US company that is working with the Russians to do just that with many of their old warheads, so they don't have the expense of having to secure them indefinitely.

Great stuff guys, thanks.

LOL, no one took notes apparently.

Probably has more to do with new safety concerns that weren't taken into account in the '80s. Our scientific knowledge has advanced by leaps and bounds since then. Remember, your are posting on a forum using technology that was barely a scientist's wet dream in 1980.

somebody got a very lucrative contract to dismantle these B53 bombs. I know the US EOD has the original RENDER SAFE PROCEDURES. Therefore the knowledge was not only dublicated but at unneeded cost.

Plus, remember this is not a reduction in deliverable mega tonnage but the removal of old weapons. such as leaking chemical and bioweapons. Or like old cars that are difficult to mantain.

Disassemble!?! No Disassemble!!

They ought to reprocess it for use in the power plants. There was a study done that said it was possible, It just involved some modifications to the fuel rods

the old tools are on loan to russia

Sounds like a big number. Like Brazillian, or Hecofalot

yield on a B53 is 9MT

In other words, comparable to 18,000,000,000 lbs of detonating TNT.

Let's see. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan were in the neighborhood of 10 kilo-tons of T.N. T.

10,000 X 600 = 60 million tons of T.N.T. Holy @!$%#!

Of course, Russia holds the record for the largest nuke detonated above ground during "tests". I believe that one was 50 mega tons.

10,000 X 600 = 60 million tons of T.N.T. Holy @!$%#!

10,000 X 600 = 6 megatons. The actual yield of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 15 kilotons. The yield of the B 53 warhead is about 9 megatons.

Because China is HUGE

Yup.

because back in the 50's, bombs were deliverd by aircraft. Bombing is somewhat inaccurate, and air defense cold bring down a plane short of the target (do a Google search on 'Nike Air Defense"). So they figured that they needed to boost the yield to compensate for lack of accuracy. One of thes could destroy a city even if it didn't hit the center, up to 8 km from the intended target.

Detroit is correct (if not complete - these weapons were designed to take out hardened, Soviet missile silos, so they had to be large just to get the desired effect, particularly in view of the lack of accuracy*). Meanwhile, Alex's apparent bafflement leaves me in dread - supposedly he actually votes, but has no clue about history or military matters. Shouldn't you be required to pass a test before you're given the franchise? The mere ability to do simple arithmetic, if required of the American electorate, would do a world of good for the quality of government.

(* In WWII, it was estimated that only 1 out of every 100 bombs dropped actually hit the intended target and the average radius of error was 5 miles - hence the "mass raids" and "1,000 plane raids" - it took that many bombers, dropping "dumb bombs" to ensure that a target was destroyed; I read an estimate that, using current smart bomb technology, the same effect as all of WWII's allied bombing efforts over 6 years of war could have been achieved by 100 planes flying a sortie a day for 60 days - a rather startling improvement in performance)

LOL @ Tony from NJ.

You're partially correct - aerial bombing is not inherently inaccurate, but older nukes were dumb bombs - they weren't GPS or laser guided - THAT'S what made them inaccurate. The distinction is important to realize because B52's and B2's today are still equipped with nuclear bombs, they're just not dumb-drop bombs, they're guided. Since the Vietnam/Korea-era military build literally millions of tons of ordinance that ended up in storage through the laser and GPS-guidance revolution of the 80's and 90's, the US Military actually found a way to retrofit a lot of those old bombs with GPS kits - modified arming triggers, GPS antennae, guidance control surfaces, etc. But nuclear ordnance tends to be unique from conventional air-to-ground, so most of today's flying nuclear armament was made originally as GPS guided munitions.

Things that make you go "booom".