5 ms·

Could they have been delivered to another nation in a clandestine way and reported missing to cover that loss? To me it seems viable and probably if my hypothe

Could they have been delivered to another nation in a clandestine way and reported missing to cover that loss? To me it seems viable and probably if my hypothesis is correct there's a country that became a nuclear power soon after we stopped losing them

ddulaney 4y ago
It seems unlikely. Most of them were either lost on US soil or lost along with military personnel who died. But the more convincing logic is: why would the US want to do that? The fewer other nations have nuclear weapons, the more power the US has over them, either because it can threaten to attack them or because it can provide nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Stationing US weapons in a foreign country and getting to set up a forward base? Heck yeah. Giving up control of those weapons and maybe having them turned against you decades down the line? Not a chance.
- causality0 4y ago
  why would the US want to do that? "The US" wouldn't. People in the US with great political power would.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    Why?
    - causality0 4y ago
      Maybe they were paid for it. Maybe they were threatened or blackmailed for it. Maybe they feel a political, religious, or ethnic loyalty to another country. Plenty of people in the US are more than happy to do things that run counter to the US' interests. The entire American military-industrial complex directly benefits from the US being more in danger because it means they get more money.
      - xwolfi 4y ago
        If a Russian colonel aboard a submarine refused direct order to launch a nuke at the height of the cold war, I think we can assume very few are the people ready to deal with nuclear bombs for a buck. Many things can cross moral boundaries, but I think I d rather deal in drugs and slaves, tanks and assault rifles than uranium, if only for money. And if not for money, only for national survival. We struggled in France to finish our fusion bomb design and a british double agent pointed us at the best model we had that was similar to the british one, we're not sure if he did it for France or because the British wanted us to have it too, but it wasn't for money, for instance, even if it was a terrible decision to make as a human for him Im sure.
        causality0 4y ago
        If I could push a button and give three or four nuclear weapons to Ukraine, I'd do it without hesitation.
        squarefoot 4y ago
        To transform them into the bad guys instantly? No thanks, I'd rather give them enough troops and conventional weapons so that whatever thing Russia throws at them is being intercepted, and Russian land troops essentially would hit a wall. That way Russia would be forced to either withdraw (= Putin political and possibly physical death), continue until all their conventional arsenal is depleted (= same as above, just later), or resort to nukes (= likely destruction by NATO).
        HyperSane 4y ago
        What would Ukraine do with them?
        causality0 4y ago
        Same thing everyone else does: point at them and say "you can never take our capitol without far more casualties than it is worth".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway742 4y ago
  There was that time that 200 pounds of highly enriched uranium went "missing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair
- fomine3 4y ago
  US wanted to bring nukes to bases in Japan, but Japan's nuclear policy denies bringing nukes (in officially. it wasn't denied under the hood).
twawaaay 4y ago
Everything is possible. But please, don't abuse the word "hypothesis". This is reserved for things that are not proven yet but there are some strongly supporting facts and there exists, at least hypothetically, a way to test it.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  Wrong, a hypothesis is literally an idea to be tested based on observation. 1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action 2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences 3 : the antecedent As the US has been observed doing similar things in the past, this is a perfectly valid hypothesis. How might one test this? Wait 50 years for the docs to declassify perhaps.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > As the US has been observed doing similar things in the past The US has not been observed doing similar things to your ridiculous narrative in the past. (Also, if others have speculated, you intend to refer to Israel, their arms were homegrown, not imported, their main technology partner was France, and while by the very end of the program they were on better terms with the US, through much of the time that you conjecture this conspiracy was happening US-Israel relations weren’t great – see, e.g., the Suez Crisis – so it really doesn’t make all that much sense.)
    - imwillofficial 4y ago
      I have literally been part of them doing similar things in the past. What are you talking about. Their nuclear tech was NOT home grown.
    - imwillofficial 4y ago
      You just built a straw man for you yourself to disassemble. Israel hadn’t even crossed my mind.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Could they have been delivered to another nation in a clandestine way and reported missing to cover that loss? If you assume an very slow conspiracy that started in 1950 when the US was denying nuclear technology to the UK despite them helping to develop it during WWII, lasted nearly twenty years to transfer 6 weapons, and involved staging a bunch of accidents and murdering US servicemembers to give it plausibility, sure. But, realistically, no, this is bad even as conspiracy theories go. > To me it seems viable and probably if my hypothesis is correct there's a country that became a nuclear power soon after we stopped losing them The nearest after that would be India, and its not particularly close.
throwmeaway1212 4y ago
are we just making things up now?
tyingq 4y ago
That's a plot element in "The Sum of All Fears"...how the US delivered weapons-grade plutonium to Israel in 1968.
- newZWhoDis 4y ago
  I hit reply to post this and you beat me to it.
duxup 4y ago
Poor inventory practices/ mistake seems most likely compared to a conspiracy that really doesn’t make much sense. Seems like it would be pretty easy to just claim it was damaged or otherwise remove it from inventory in a way that it doesn’t appear missing…. let alone all sorts of other questions.
- ttyprintk 4y ago
  This interview explains how nukes can be misplaced, and the nightmarish amount of paperwork afterward: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/warfare/id1526490428?i=1000598970332 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/warfare/id1526490428?i...
pugworthy 4y ago
If you want to give another nation nuclear capabilities, you give them plans and documents. You don't give them a live bomb and say, "You figure it out" PS I assume you are referring to Israel. Just come out and say it.
TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
Nuclear weapons have a shelf life, typically around 10 years, and will need to be remanufactured when they expire. So surreptitiously gifting them isn't a permanent solution.
khuey 4y ago
It's known that the United States provided secret aid to the French nuclear weapons program (seemingly) without actually delivering France a bomb. Seems unlikely that they would have gone further with another country.
- ianburrell 4y ago
  US helped France with design. It doesn't make sense to give fissionable material to help country develop nuclear weapons. It is giving them a single bomb. They would need to develop process to produce tons of material if they wanted lots of bombs. The design is the hard part.
  - defrost 4y ago
    There was a great deal of "off the books" quid pro quo in the post WWII Cold War landscape. The greatest source(s) of raw yellowcake for building the thousands of atomic weapons tested and stored for use during that period was former French | Belgian African territories from mines that were operated with no apparent direct US control. With US backing and former French administrators, intelligence services and military many coups were staged and puppet governments shored up to ensure the yellowcake must flow. The following articles barely scratch the surface of the story and region, covering just the early supply period in the better known source: https://theconversation.com/how-a-rich-uranium-mine-thrust-the-congo-into-the-centre-of-the-cold-war-64761 https://theconversation.com/how-a-rich-uranium-mine-thrust-t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkolobwe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkolobwe

ddulaney 4y ago

It seems unlikely. Most of them were either lost on US soil or lost along with military personnel who died. But the more convincing logic is: why would the US want to do that? The fewer other nations have nuclear weapons, the more power the US has over them, either because it can threaten to attack them or because it can provide nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Stationing US weapons in a foreign country and getting to set up a forward base? Heck yeah. Giving up control of those weapons and maybe having them turned against you decades down the line? Not a chance.

causality0 4y ago
why would the US want to do that? "The US" wouldn't. People in the US with great political power would.
- HyperSane 4y ago
  Why?
  - causality0 4y ago
    Maybe they were paid for it. Maybe they were threatened or blackmailed for it. Maybe they feel a political, religious, or ethnic loyalty to another country. Plenty of people in the US are more than happy to do things that run counter to the US' interests. The entire American military-industrial complex directly benefits from the US being more in danger because it means they get more money.
    - xwolfi 4y ago
      If a Russian colonel aboard a submarine refused direct order to launch a nuke at the height of the cold war, I think we can assume very few are the people ready to deal with nuclear bombs for a buck. Many things can cross moral boundaries, but I think I d rather deal in drugs and slaves, tanks and assault rifles than uranium, if only for money. And if not for money, only for national survival. We struggled in France to finish our fusion bomb design and a british double agent pointed us at the best model we had that was similar to the british one, we're not sure if he did it for France or because the British wanted us to have it too, but it wasn't for money, for instance, even if it was a terrible decision to make as a human for him Im sure.
      - causality0 4y ago
        If I could push a button and give three or four nuclear weapons to Ukraine, I'd do it without hesitation.
        squarefoot 4y ago
        To transform them into the bad guys instantly? No thanks, I'd rather give them enough troops and conventional weapons so that whatever thing Russia throws at them is being intercepted, and Russian land troops essentially would hit a wall. That way Russia would be forced to either withdraw (= Putin political and possibly physical death), continue until all their conventional arsenal is depleted (= same as above, just later), or resort to nukes (= likely destruction by NATO).
        HyperSane 4y ago
        What would Ukraine do with them?
        causality0 4y ago
        Same thing everyone else does: point at them and say "you can never take our capitol without far more casualties than it is worth".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwaway742 4y ago
There was that time that 200 pounds of highly enriched uranium went "missing". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair
fomine3 4y ago
US wanted to bring nukes to bases in Japan, but Japan's nuclear policy denies bringing nukes (in officially. it wasn't denied under the hood).

twawaaay 4y ago

Everything is possible. But please, don't abuse the word "hypothesis". This is reserved for things that are not proven yet but there are some strongly supporting facts and there exists, at least hypothetically, a way to test it.

imwillofficial 4y ago
Wrong, a hypothesis is literally an idea to be tested based on observation. 1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action 2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences 3 : the antecedent As the US has been observed doing similar things in the past, this is a perfectly valid hypothesis. How might one test this? Wait 50 years for the docs to declassify perhaps.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > As the US has been observed doing similar things in the past The US has not been observed doing similar things to your ridiculous narrative in the past. (Also, if others have speculated, you intend to refer to Israel, their arms were homegrown, not imported, their main technology partner was France, and while by the very end of the program they were on better terms with the US, through much of the time that you conjecture this conspiracy was happening US-Israel relations weren’t great – see, e.g., the Suez Crisis – so it really doesn’t make all that much sense.)
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    I have literally been part of them doing similar things in the past. What are you talking about. Their nuclear tech was NOT home grown.
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    You just built a straw man for you yourself to disassemble. Israel hadn’t even crossed my mind.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Could they have been delivered to another nation in a clandestine way and reported missing to cover that loss? If you assume an very slow conspiracy that started in 1950 when the US was denying nuclear technology to the UK despite them helping to develop it during WWII, lasted nearly twenty years to transfer 6 weapons, and involved staging a bunch of accidents and murdering US servicemembers to give it plausibility, sure. But, realistically, no, this is bad even as conspiracy theories go. > To me it seems viable and probably if my hypothesis is correct there's a country that became a nuclear power soon after we stopped losing them The nearest after that would be India, and its not particularly close.

throwmeaway1212 4y ago

are we just making things up now?

tyingq 4y ago

That's a plot element in "The Sum of All Fears"...how the US delivered weapons-grade plutonium to Israel in 1968.

newZWhoDis 4y ago
I hit reply to post this and you beat me to it.

duxup 4y ago

Poor inventory practices/ mistake seems most likely compared to a conspiracy that really doesn’t make much sense. Seems like it would be pretty easy to just claim it was damaged or otherwise remove it from inventory in a way that it doesn’t appear missing…. let alone all sorts of other questions.

ttyprintk 4y ago
This interview explains how nukes can be misplaced, and the nightmarish amount of paperwork afterward: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/warfare/id1526490428?i=1000598970332 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/warfare/id1526490428?i...

pugworthy 4y ago

If you want to give another nation nuclear capabilities, you give them plans and documents. You don't give them a live bomb and say, "You figure it out" PS I assume you are referring to Israel. Just come out and say it.

TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago

Nuclear weapons have a shelf life, typically around 10 years, and will need to be remanufactured when they expire. So surreptitiously gifting them isn't a permanent solution.

khuey 4y ago

It's known that the United States provided secret aid to the French nuclear weapons program (seemingly) without actually delivering France a bomb. Seems unlikely that they would have gone further with another country.

ianburrell 4y ago
US helped France with design. It doesn't make sense to give fissionable material to help country develop nuclear weapons. It is giving them a single bomb. They would need to develop process to produce tons of material if they wanted lots of bombs. The design is the hard part.
- defrost 4y ago
  There was a great deal of "off the books" quid pro quo in the post WWII Cold War landscape. The greatest source(s) of raw yellowcake for building the thousands of atomic weapons tested and stored for use during that period was former French | Belgian African territories from mines that were operated with no apparent direct US control. With US backing and former French administrators, intelligence services and military many coups were staged and puppet governments shored up to ensure the yellowcake must flow. The following articles barely scratch the surface of the story and region, covering just the early supply period in the better known source: https://theconversation.com/how-a-rich-uranium-mine-thrust-the-congo-into-the-centre-of-the-cold-war-64761 https://theconversation.com/how-a-rich-uranium-mine-thrust-t... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkolobwe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkolobwe