The Guardian reports US nearly nuked North Carolina in 1961

[Darias]

Read the full story about how the geographical area I live in nearly got H'd here.

I'd like to know why bombers carrying that payload were flying around in the first place! Had an electrical short occurred, history would have played out very differently. I suspect since it has taken this long for the state to admit this, I doubt very seriously that the government at the time would have owned this mistake. It might have provided a pretense for war with the USSR; lord knows the panic it would have caused here in the south.

I guess the occasional H bomb accident is just the price you pay for the state's valiant effort at "keeping you safe."


What do you think would have happened?

Does the US nuclear program do more to protect lives or to endanger them?

[scourge99]

I'd like to know why bombers carrying that payload were flying around in the first place!

The cold war was during this time. ICBMs and nuclear armed subs were new. The conventional way to drop nukes was by plane. But if your nuclear armed planes were all on the ground then a preemptive strike by Russia would prevent a US response (i. E., second strike capability) . So normally, we'd have planes in the air flying around at all times, just in case. But even that was unreliable because the planes could be shot down before they reached their target.

Had an electrical short occurred, history would have played out very differently. I suspect since it has taken this long for the state to admit this, I doubt very seriously that the government at the time would have owned this mistake. It might have provided a pretense for war with the USSR; lord knows the panic it would have caused here in the south.

It seems unlikely we would have blamed Russia as that would cause all out war and even more destruction than one accidental detonation.

I guess the occasional H bomb accident is just the price you pay for the state's valiant effort at "keeping you safe."

Life is full of risks. Driving your car, owning a gun, eating sushi, all have risks.

Considering that no nation has used a nuclear weapon since WW2, despite the very real advantages they could have yielded, for example, in korea or Vietnam, i think we are doing pretty good.

What do you think would have happened?

Panic, terror, followed by finger pointing, resignations, and a very tough review of military handling of nuclear weapons for many many years.

Does the US nuclear program do more to protect lives or to endanger them?

A world without US nukes is too uncertain given the circumstances so I don't know.

[Philbert]

The following disgraced thread points to a film which will provide more such stories of near disasters and such.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=23723

It's an excellent film called Countdown To Zero, which can be viewed on YouTube here:



(Also available on Netflix)

Does the US nuclear program do more to protect lives or to endanger them?

The nuclear weapons programs of a number of countries probably make up the most serious threat to civilization at the moment. This is not to dismiss other challenges, but nothing else really poses such a dramatic and sudden change possibility.

Consider this scenario. Terrorists come up with a half dozen nukes. They set one off to prove their ability. Then they say that they will set one off in some major city in Country XYZ every month.

All the big cities start emptying out, panic ramps up, the economy goes straight in to the toilet, and who knows what else after that.

A pickup truck full of nukes, that's all it takes.

[Choir Loft]

The following disgraced thread points to a film which will provide more such stories of near disasters and such.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=23723

It's an excellent film called Countdown To Zero, which can be viewed on YouTube here:



(Also available on Netflix)

Does the US nuclear program do more to protect lives or to endanger them?

The nuclear weapons programs of a number of countries probably make up the most serious threat to civilization at the moment. This is not to dismiss other challenges, but nothing else really poses such a dramatic and sudden change possibility.

Consider this scenario. Terrorists come up with a half dozen nukes. They set one off to prove their ability. Then they say that they will set one off in some major city in Country XYZ every month.

All the big cities start emptying out, panic ramps up, the economy goes straight in to the toilet, and who knows what else after that.

A pickup truck full of nukes, that's all it takes.

While the pickup truck scenario might make a good Hollywood movie, it's entirely implausible.

You can't exactly pick up an atomic weapon at the sporting goods section of Wal-Mart, you know. Such devices are extremely complicated to produce and difficult to transport and arm.

On the other hand, a great deal of devastation and sabotage can be initiated by conventional methods. A single match in a dry forest, a rail on a train line loosened or a high voltage electrical tower felled by explosive - can all create a great deal of havoc and possible loss of life without the drama of an atomic detonation. And all of these have the advantage of hiding the perpetuators from justice.

Do you have a license to buy and use a pressure cooker? One of these can hurt more people in one event than a semi-automatic hand gun. Despite the drama inherent in the bullet, it can only strike one person at a time. A pressure cooker can do much more.

A single telephoned bomb threat can cause terror - no explosive involved. See what I mean? (5 year minimum prison if caught, though)

While the atomic scenario might look good in a James Bond movie, there are much more effective methods available to create terror.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Philbert]

While the pickup truck scenario might make a good Hollywood movie, it's entirely implausible.

For how long? Forever? That's how long is needed.

You can't exactly pick up an atomic weapon at the sporting goods section of Wal-Mart, you know. Such devices are extremely complicated to produce and difficult to transport and arm.

If you should watch the movie, you'll see this isn't exactly true. The limiting factor, the only real difficulty, is obtaining sufficient quantities of nuclear material.

A panel of high level experts was testifying before Congress. They said they sometimes give the challenge of designing a nuke to their grad students, most of whom could come up with credible design. Vice President Biden was shocked and said prove it. So the experts brought a bomb in to Congress to show him, minus the nuclear material.

You and I couldn't make a bomb in our garage. Any well financed team of terrorists probably could, except for the nuclear material.

Should you watch the movie, you'll see stories about very low level people (truck drivers) who have stolen significant amounts of nuclear material in Russia.

On the other hand, a great deal of devastation and sabotage can be initiated by conventional methods.

Bio war appears to be the only thing really in the same league.

A single telephoned bomb threat can cause terror - no explosive involved. See what I mean?

I see what you mean, and I see that you don't get this. You are not alone.

While the atomic scenario might look good in a James Bond movie, there are much more effective methods available to create terror.

Hundreds of the top cities around the world could vanish by this time tomorrow, with the rest reduced to chaos via panic. I'm sorry, this is very real, and you're enjoying a pleasant delusion, as are most of us.

[BeckyF]

And let's never forget the only nation to ever nuke an enemy in war . . . .twice!!

Who really can't be trusted with WMDs?
Who's people are the most ignorant about the outside world?
Who believes might is right?
Who are educated and yet still belive in creation?

It would be funny if it wasn't so scary to share this planet with such people.

[keithprosser3]

I don't suggest we can be totally complacent, but terrorists aren't likely to use nukes.

Nuclear weapons are - one would imagine complicated bits of kit, requiring teams of highly trained technicians to get and keep working and for most terrorists their idea of a sophisticated weapon is to tie a grenade to their chest and set it off.

A typical modern terrorist attack is the murder of Lee Rigby. "Two men ran him down with a car, then used knives and a cleaver to stab and hack him to death"

If nukes are involved, I would expect it could only happen with the backing of a rogue state such North Korea.

[scourge99]

And let's never forget the only nation to ever nuke an enemy in war . . . .twice!!

And its a good thing we did. It forced Japan to surrender.

If they didn't then we were planning on a mainland invasion that was expected to costs hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions of Japanese lives.

Who really can't be trusted with WMDs?

Any type of organization or group which is not the head of a state. This requirment create culpability for their use.

Who's people are the most ignorant about the outside world?

The people aren't who we need to be concerned about. They don't make the decisions. Its the leaders.

\
Who believes might is right?

I don't know. Who?

Who are educated and yet still belive in creation?

I don't see what that has to do with nuclear weapons.

It would be funny if it wasn't so scary to share this planet with such people.

What other world world 2 super power would would you have preferred to be in charge? Russia? Japan? Fascist Italy? The Nazis?

It seems to me that the US was the best pick of the litter.

[keithprosser3]

If they didn't then we were planning on a mainland invasion that was expected to costs hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions of Japanese lives.

One can argue that using the A-bomb shortened the war against Japan, but was it necessary to drop two, the second only 3 days later, hardly a long time for the Japanese to assimilate what had happened at Hiroshima.

Maybe even one wasn't needed. A non-fatal demonstration of the power of the A-bomb may not have cowed the Japanese leadership, but it wasn't even tried.

[scourge99]

If they didn't then we were planning on a mainland invasion that was expected to costs hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions of Japanese lives.

One can argue that using the A-bomb shortened the war against Japan, but was it necessary to drop two, the second only 3 days later, hardly a long time for the Japanese to assimilate what had happened at Hiroshima.

How much time is enough? 1 week a month? a year? Should we give them more time to adjust strategies and move threatened military and industrial assets to avoid a-bomb destruction?

Are you advocating some kind of conspiracy theory where the US wanted to kill just for fun? That their goal wasn't to win the war?

Maybe even one wasn't needed. A non-fatal demonstration of the power of the A-bomb may not have cowed the Japanese leadership, but it wasn't even tried.

Japan had no intention of unconditional surrender which is what the US demanded. A-bombs were new and precious. Plans were already in motion to several every month and use them across the Japanese country during a land invasion.

There was no guarantee or expectation that Japan would surrender. In fact, some in the Japanese hierarchy tried a coup to prevent the emperor from capitulating and fight to the death rather than face the dishonor of surrender. Some even argue that the atomic bombs aren't what caused surrender, but the entrance of the Soviet Union into the war.

You seem to be afflicted by hind-sight bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias

Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along effect or creeping determinism, is the inclination to see events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were before they took place.[1][2] It is a multifaceted phenomenon that can affect different stages of designs, processes, contexts, and situations.[3] Hindsight bias may cause memory distortion, where the recollection and reconstruction of content can lead to false theoretical outcomes. It has been suggested that the effect can cause extreme methodological problems while trying to analyze, understand, and interpret results in experimental studies. A basic example of the hindsight bias is when, after viewing the outcome of a potentially unforeseeable event, a person believes he or she "knew it all along". Such examples are present in the writings of historians describing outcomes of battles, physicians recalling clinical trials, and in judicial systems trying to attribute responsibility and predictability of accidents.[4]