NYT,pg1: A Fierce Debate on Cold War Atom Bombs (replace W-76?)

[DeepModem Mom]

A Fierce Debate on Atom Bombs From Cold War
By WILLIAM J. BROAD

Published: April 3, 2005


For over two decades, a compact, powerful warhead called the W-76 has been the centerpiece of the nation's nuclear arsenal, carried aboard the fleet of nuclear submarines that prowl the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

But in recent months it has become the subject of a fierce debate among experts inside and outside the government over its reliability and its place in the nuclear arsenal.

The government is readying a plan to spend more than $2 billion on a routine 10-year overhaul to extend the life of the aging warheads. At the same time, some weapons scientists say the warheads have a fundamental design flaw that could cause them to explode with far less force than intended.

Although the government has denied that assertion, officials have disclosed that Washington is nevertheless considering replacing the W-76 altogether....

***

Some arms-control advocates oppose the 10-year overhaul program, saying it could produce not only refurbishments but also deadly new innovations. They like the replacement option even less, saying it could prompt the government to conduct underground detonations that would undo the global ban on nuclear testing and start a new arms race. Moreover, some argue that nuclear weapons are dinosaurs that have little use in American military strategy and that it makes no real difference if the W-76 is ineffective....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/science/03nuke.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all&position=

[oneighty]

1. I thought

The W76 had already been replaced by the W88 on the Boomers. Oh the Tridents can carry W76 and/or W88. W76 is lower yield. Physical size appears to be different also.

180

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Kicking to see if anyone else has knowledge about this issue --

which seems to have popped out of the past. Thanks for posting, oneeighty.

[oneighty]

3. Search

list of all nuclear weapons, American Federation of Scientists, W88 warhead, Fission/fusion/fission weapons. There is a good info on the subject complete with pictures and diagrams also weight, size, yields,delivery systems and so on.

I did not read the article you listed because I did not wish to register.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Thanks -- I wouldn't have known what to Google! nt

[daleo]

4. Seems like a nuclear smokescreen to me

This would give cover for work on new bomb technology, including the beloved of the neo-cons "bunker busters". Probably space based nuclear weaponry too. Lots of exotic and dangerous research could go on under this budget. And they will spend enormously more than $2 billion.

[oneighty]

6. Yes

Darn that test ban treaty anyhow.

180

[punpirate]

7. The odd thing about this...

... is that both the W-76 and the W-88 were tested at the Nevada Test Site prior to the initiation of the threshold test ban treaty in 1976 (both are radiation bottle designs). I can't imagine that LANL would have allowed production to begin unless the weapon met their requirements during testing. In fact, according to...:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/W76.html

... there were problems discovered in developmental testing--including the low-yield problem. I would guess, since there was a 5-year gap between the beginning of developmental engineering and the first production units that the problem was resolved, and took some time to accomplish.

Even the threshold test ban treaty (TTBT) agreed to in 1976 (but not ratified until 1990) would not have prevented further testing of the W-76. That treaty limited signatory countries to only underground testing, and nothing beyond 150 Kt, and the proposed maximum yield of the W-76 was 100Kt.

So, sounds like there might be another agenda at work in this disagreement. If I had to guess what that might be, it would be the desire on the part of some people to rework W-76s to W-88s, which have nearly five times the power of the W-76. This, combined with a refurbishing program for W-88s, would drastically increase the available inventory of kilotonnage without increasing the number of strategic warheads limited by mutual agreement under the START II treaty. It would also have the perceived (by some) benefit of requiring the funding of new nuclear weapons production facilities and a missile program to replace Trident I missiles with Trident II missiles (which do not suffer from the range/payload problems associated with W-88s on Trident Is).

Since there's been money budgeted already to upgrade facilities at Pantex and LANL, I suspect that this is, in part, a preliminary to a much larger production/refurbishing/reliability program.

[Moderator]

8. kick to combine

[seemslikeadream]

9. West's submarine nuclear warheads flawed, say scientists

By 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.

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."
MORE
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/04/wsub04.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/04/04/ixportal.html

[benburch]

10. Interesting...

It has been known for a while that the Polaris missiles originally deployed by the US Navy had warheads that we already knew could not detonate. It was felt at the time that as long as the Russians believed that they might work, the deterrent effect of the submarines was intact.

[ret5hd]

11. could it be that...

all we are seeing is a ramp-up to restarting of live nuclear testing?

[emad]

12. West's submarine nuclear warheads flawed, say scientists

Telegraph
By 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."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/04/wsub04.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/04/ixworld.html

SOUNDS like another Torygraph counter-intelligence story....

[oneighty]

13. So much wrong here.

For years our vaunted first line of offense was flawed? Sure it was.

British Trident based on W76? It is a W76 with British markings.

Soon Bush* will be saying we must resume actual test firing of fission/fusion weapons because computer simulations do not work and while we are at it we will test fire some-a-them-there-mini nuclear bunker busters.

180

[htuttle]

14. If I owned a company that manufactured nuclear warheads...

...I would think it might be in my interest (not to mention my children's interest) to ensure they didn't work.

Think about it.

[Ian David]

16. Good point. I never thought of that.

Still, how convenient that we may have to buy a whole new generation of nuclear warheads to replace the "defective" ones.

How disruptive would it be to have an un-detonated nuclear missile fall on your city?

I imagine it wouldn't be a pleasant experience.

[Festivito]

15. I'm reading SETUP. To return testing and building nukes for Repuke profit.

Little "news" items help make dropping the test ban more palatable. Then BushCON companies can make huge profits rebuilding the entire nuclear arsenal which would require test detonation.

More "economic miricle" on a credit card. Effected by people rich enough to leave this country when this country falls.