6 ms·

The nuke detectives – New ways to detect covert nuclear weapons

64 points by svepuri 11y ago

tallerholler 11y ago
paywall :/
- mrep 11y ago
  open in incognito
  - svepuri 11y ago
    Thanks for that suggestion :)
bane 11y ago
> And on top of that, the United States Air Force runs a detection network that includes satellites that can spot nuclear-weapons tests. Always curious about this, but how do satellites detect the tests? Especially underground/water ones?
- svepuri 11y ago
  This article explains how satellites can detect "underground" nuclear explosions http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/satellites-can-detect-underground-nuclear-explosions http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/satellites-can-detect-u...
  - bane 11y ago
    Thanks, that's very helpful. I've heard that the GPS system has a second function to detect nuke tests, now I see how. It can be considered a lightweight global surveillance system that gives a useful benefit when things aren't blowing up.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rdl 11y ago
The thing that scares me is anything which eliminates the fissile isotope production as a step. Everything else is essentially trivial and could probably be done covertly or brazenly by a state or even a well resourced non-state actor. Fission-free fusion is probably not realistic at this point (but, if it were developed, would be terrifying), but I think the technology curve for some form of laser isotope separation is disconnected from "special nuclear stuff" and much more "advances in mainstream science. I'm completely amazed there hasn't been an openly documented theft of either nuclear materials or weapons and subsequent nuclear declaration by a new state or non-state. It seemed self-evident that would happen post-USSR collapse. I suspect some combination of luck and extremely good work by the IC in both Russia and non-Russia had a lot to do with that. Plus, the states most likely to want the weapons already had other pathways, although it's always possible something like the Pakistani or NK or Iranian program "launders" stolen material through some other more overt pipeline, using a "completely working, honest" enrichment process to cover for it. But the isotopic mixes are identifiable, so we'd know once they detonated where material came from.
- mjklin 11y ago
  The book The Nuclear Bazaar made the point that the ex-Soviet guards of nuclear material are unusually devoted to their missions, even without pay. Also, the roads in those areas suck so transporting any material covertly would be a challenge to say the least.
- gizmo686 11y ago
  How difficult would it be to obscure the isotopic mix, either through running it through a purification process that is not effective enough to get weapons grade from raw ore in a reasonable timeframe, or by mixing in small amounts of un or underpurrified ore.
- derefr 11y ago
  > I'm completely amazed there hasn't been an openly documented theft of either nuclear materials or weapons and subsequent nuclear declaration by a new state or non-state. I have a feeling that, given the way that both suicides and bank heists increase when they get talked about in the news, no government wants thefts of fissile material talked about, lest the news that one state was successful once embolden other states to try for themselves.
cnvogel 11y ago
I find it quite shocking how openly this article boasts about violation of everyones' privacy regarding "network analysis" (in the section about intelligence gathering, "The latest kit"). Quotes: "thanks to advances in “network analysis” software", "fed with people’s e-mails, schooling, web surfing, phone calls, banking transactions and purchases, the programs try to work out who might be a terrorist." ... And while US americans might claim that this is of course only allowed to be used on foreigners (ignoring evidence to the contrary that just abut every countries intelligence services seems to spy on everyone including their own citizens), they explicitly mention someone who traveled abroad, comes back, and then gets his phone records screened.
- visarga 11y ago
  It is kind of similar to the Chinese "credit" rating that is also talked about in today's news.
jilebedev 11y ago
> Once a country has a nuclear bomb or two, there is not much other governments can do to stop it from making more, says Ilan Goldenberg, a former head of the Iran team at the Pentagon. Plenty of states want such capabilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue The unstated implication is that weapons and military power are for the US, and its allies. Others can't have any. The brazen arrogance of that idea is probably among the chief reasons the US is so vehemently and passionately disliked throughout the world. What precisely is wrong with other states acquiring nuclear weapons, beyond the fact that it threatens US power?
- sanxiyn 11y ago
  What is wrong with acquiring nuclear weapons is that it increases the threat of nuclear war which nobody wants. This applies to both US and non-US states. Non-US states acquiring nuclear weapons is as bad as US acquiring new nuclear weapons.
- lsd5you 11y ago
  You may not agree with it, but I don't think the disbelief is warranted. There may be other less pure motivations but there is a pretty simple moral case - proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war - because more states have them. Increasing risk proportionately (?). - because more unstable/nefarious states have them, which are more likely to use them. This is of course somewhat debateable, but nevertheless plenty of people believe this and they're not flatearthists. Taking an entitlement point of view just seems to be missing the point. It does however explain why these other states want them and resent the US/the West.
  - jilebedev 11y ago
    > proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war Again, the unstated implication is that the US has a moral right to shepherd the rest of the world to the correct moral conclusion to this situation. The rest of the world is just too damn ignorant to figure out how to not murder everyone with nukes, so the US has to have the hard job of controlling the nuclear stockpiles of the world. It's tough having that moral high ground, but someone's got to do it. The US has committed crimes of war with nuclear weapons against civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a... The fact of the matter is that knowledge cannot be suppressed. The ability to create and operate nuclear weapons is not something that is going to be a controlled secrete for very long - if it is at all. The current policy of the US asserting its power over the rest of the world is only going to ensure that when this knowledge is common, it will most certainly be used to ensure the end of the US power.
jakeogh 11y ago
Most of the damage from a future 'rogue' nuke may be done by our reaction to it. Like the modern Pearl Harbor's fallout around us. Edit: spelling
- mangamadaiyan 11y ago
  s/rouge/rogue/g
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Or like the 9/11 attacks.

64 points by svepuri 11y ago

tallerholler 11y ago

paywall :/

mrep 11y ago
open in incognito
- svepuri 11y ago
  Thanks for that suggestion :)

bane 11y ago

> And on top of that, the United States Air Force runs a detection network that includes satellites that can spot nuclear-weapons tests. Always curious about this, but how do satellites detect the tests? Especially underground/water ones?

svepuri 11y ago
This article explains how satellites can detect "underground" nuclear explosions http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/satellites-can-detect-underground-nuclear-explosions http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/satellites-can-detect-u...
- bane 11y ago
  Thanks, that's very helpful. I've heard that the GPS system has a second function to detect nuke tests, now I see how. It can be considered a lightweight global surveillance system that gives a useful benefit when things aren't blowing up.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rdl 11y ago

The thing that scares me is anything which eliminates the fissile isotope production as a step. Everything else is essentially trivial and could probably be done covertly or brazenly by a state or even a well resourced non-state actor. Fission-free fusion is probably not realistic at this point (but, if it were developed, would be terrifying), but I think the technology curve for some form of laser isotope separation is disconnected from "special nuclear stuff" and much more "advances in mainstream science. I'm completely amazed there hasn't been an openly documented theft of either nuclear materials or weapons and subsequent nuclear declaration by a new state or non-state. It seemed self-evident that would happen post-USSR collapse. I suspect some combination of luck and extremely good work by the IC in both Russia and non-Russia had a lot to do with that. Plus, the states most likely to want the weapons already had other pathways, although it's always possible something like the Pakistani or NK or Iranian program "launders" stolen material through some other more overt pipeline, using a "completely working, honest" enrichment process to cover for it. But the isotopic mixes are identifiable, so we'd know once they detonated where material came from.

mjklin 11y ago
The book The Nuclear Bazaar made the point that the ex-Soviet guards of nuclear material are unusually devoted to their missions, even without pay. Also, the roads in those areas suck so transporting any material covertly would be a challenge to say the least.
gizmo686 11y ago
How difficult would it be to obscure the isotopic mix, either through running it through a purification process that is not effective enough to get weapons grade from raw ore in a reasonable timeframe, or by mixing in small amounts of un or underpurrified ore.
derefr 11y ago
> I'm completely amazed there hasn't been an openly documented theft of either nuclear materials or weapons and subsequent nuclear declaration by a new state or non-state. I have a feeling that, given the way that both suicides and bank heists increase when they get talked about in the news, no government wants thefts of fissile material talked about, lest the news that one state was successful once embolden other states to try for themselves.

cnvogel 11y ago

I find it quite shocking how openly this article boasts about violation of everyones' privacy regarding "network analysis" (in the section about intelligence gathering, "The latest kit"). Quotes: "thanks to advances in “network analysis” software", "fed with people’s e-mails, schooling, web surfing, phone calls, banking transactions and purchases, the programs try to work out who might be a terrorist." ... And while US americans might claim that this is of course only allowed to be used on foreigners (ignoring evidence to the contrary that just abut every countries intelligence services seems to spy on everyone including their own citizens), they explicitly mention someone who traveled abroad, comes back, and then gets his phone records screened.

visarga 11y ago
It is kind of similar to the Chinese "credit" rating that is also talked about in today's news.

jilebedev 11y ago

> Once a country has a nuclear bomb or two, there is not much other governments can do to stop it from making more, says Ilan Goldenberg, a former head of the Iran team at the Pentagon. Plenty of states want such capabilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue The unstated implication is that weapons and military power are for the US, and its allies. Others can't have any. The brazen arrogance of that idea is probably among the chief reasons the US is so vehemently and passionately disliked throughout the world. What precisely is wrong with other states acquiring nuclear weapons, beyond the fact that it threatens US power?

sanxiyn 11y ago
What is wrong with acquiring nuclear weapons is that it increases the threat of nuclear war which nobody wants. This applies to both US and non-US states. Non-US states acquiring nuclear weapons is as bad as US acquiring new nuclear weapons.
lsd5you 11y ago
You may not agree with it, but I don't think the disbelief is warranted. There may be other less pure motivations but there is a pretty simple moral case - proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war - because more states have them. Increasing risk proportionately (?). - because more unstable/nefarious states have them, which are more likely to use them. This is of course somewhat debateable, but nevertheless plenty of people believe this and they're not flatearthists. Taking an entitlement point of view just seems to be missing the point. It does however explain why these other states want them and resent the US/the West.
- jilebedev 11y ago
  > proliferation will all lead to an increased likelihood of nuclear war Again, the unstated implication is that the US has a moral right to shepherd the rest of the world to the correct moral conclusion to this situation. The rest of the world is just too damn ignorant to figure out how to not murder everyone with nukes, so the US has to have the hard job of controlling the nuclear stockpiles of the world. It's tough having that moral high ground, but someone's got to do it. The US has committed crimes of war with nuclear weapons against civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a... The fact of the matter is that knowledge cannot be suppressed. The ability to create and operate nuclear weapons is not something that is going to be a controlled secrete for very long - if it is at all. The current policy of the US asserting its power over the rest of the world is only going to ensure that when this knowledge is common, it will most certainly be used to ensure the end of the US power.

jakeogh 11y ago

Most of the damage from a future 'rogue' nuke may be done by our reaction to it. Like the modern Pearl Harbor's fallout around us. Edit: spelling

mangamadaiyan 11y ago
s/rouge/rogue/g
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Or like the 9/11 attacks.