Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

otis52 · Dec 12, 2001, 12:50 AM

So I just found out about the US withdrawing from a treaty that bans the test of nuclear wepons. Here's the link if your interested http://www.msnbc.com/news/671082.asp At the end of the article they talk about reducing the amount of nuclear wepons that the US has from 6,000 to 2,200. So my question is this what do they do with all those warheads and doesn't this seem to up the chances that one could fall into "the wrong hands"?

[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: otis52 ]

grand illusion · Dec 12, 2001, 12:55 AM

that'll give them 3800 warheads to "test"
.
.

.
BOOM BOOM out go the lights!!!

.

[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: grand illusion ]

Fyre4ce · Dec 12, 2001, 02:18 AM

Atmospheric nuclear tests are prohibited (thank goodness) due to one of the many nuclear treaties past during the cold war (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?). During the height of atmospheric nuclear testing, the concentration of radioactive isotopes in the atmosphere increased significantly and posed a health hazard.

Cipher13 · Dec 12, 2001, 06:23 AM

I still think the mushroom cloud of a nuclear detonation is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen...

m a d r a · Dec 12, 2001, 09:59 AM

i hope this doesn't leave the US military at a disadvantage when they find the next third world country to wage war on. [it's somalia next week, isn't it?]. some of those natives' spears are really sharp!

Father OCN · Dec 12, 2001, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by m a d r a:
<STRONG>i hope this doesn't leave the US military at a disadvantage when they find the next third world country to wage war on. [it's somalia next week, isn't it?]. some of those natives' spears are really sharp!</STRONG>

Well, if people didn't run around acting like the IRA, then we wouldn't have to set them straight.

cdhostage · Dec 12, 2001, 04:49 PM

Arg!

I wish that we could get rid of radioactives. Then again, they are useful for things besides blowing stuff up. Hmm.
Nuclear power IS useful, just incredibly dangerous. nd it produces nuclear waste, the woirts proison anwher.

What are so many radioactives doing in the crust anway? Whouldn't they have suck to the coreof the earth while it was molten?[/LIST]

Cipher13 · Dec 12, 2001, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by cdhostage:
<STRONG>Arg!

I wish that we could get rid of radioactives. Then again, they are useful for things besides blowing stuff up. Hmm.
Nuclear power IS useful, just incredibly dangerous. nd it produces nuclear waste, the woirts proison anwher.

What are so many radioactives doing in the crust anway? Whouldn't they have suck to the coreof the earth while it was molten?[/LIST]</STRONG>

When the Earth was in such flux (more than the core would have to be liquid), most of the radioactive isotopes hadn't been placed... for example, a large amount of Iridium present in the earth was placed by the meteor which caused the Permian extinction event.

But the way that all works (the convection currents and whatnot; heavy elements being pulled towards the core, lighter ones released towards the crust) doesn't apply way up here, because of the solidity/composition of the crust and upper mantle.