Hawke tells world: Dump your nuclear waste in the Aussie outback (for cash)

[Rambuchan]

Well I wouldn't know about that sort of thing, sorry to disappoint.

 

[stormbind]

@ Storm: What real estate value? It's Abo land remember.

That waste is not going anywhere, ever - but the land might be desired by developers in the next hundred or thousand years.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

@ SN: That's interesting. BTW - I had always understood that the US nuclear capabilities were lacking far behind Russia's for quite some time. Hence the massive warhead buying binges the States went on.

The consensus is that the "missile gap" and "bomber gap" is the result of Soviet propaganda confusing US intelligence during the 1950's.

At May Day parades, which were a big source of US intel about the Soviet military, they would often fly bombers over the parade and include nuclear missiles as floats. Often times, they would fly the same bomber over several times, or march the same missile again. American agents counted this as a separate missile or bomber each time, and this led to great overestimation of the Soviet bomber and missile forces. The United States was probably consistently ahead of the USSR in numbers of missiles and bombers. The United States was virtually always ahead in quality as well.

Today, if you look at a list of nuclear nations, you'll see that Russia has far more nuclear weapons than the United States, tens of thousands more. This is extremely misleading. The Russians today have over 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons. That's way more than we have and it inflates their numbers.

I don't consider tactical nukes to be true nuclear weapons. They do not have the mass destruction capability of nuclear weapons, and I do not believe that they should be treated the same way as nuclear weapons are in calculating deterrence, coercion, and the such. Therefore, I don't think they should be counted as nucler weapons.

 

[Rambuchan]

The consensus is that the "missile gap" and "bomber gap" is the result of Soviet propaganda confusing US intelligence during the 1950's.

At May Day parades, which were a big source of US intel about the Soviet military, they would often fly bombers over the parade and include nuclear missiles as floats. Often times, they would fly the same bomber over several times, or march the same missile again. American agents counted this as a separate missile or bomber each time, and this led to great overestimation of the Soviet bomber and missile forces. The United States was probably consistently ahead of the USSR in numbers of missiles and bombers. The United States was virtually always ahead in quality as well.

I must admit this sounds a bit preposterpous. Did they scoot these missiles round behind the stage to come out of the other wing? It sounds absurd because these things are big! And also, I am sure there were other ways the US had of monitoring weapons inventories other than just pitching up to each parade with a clipboard and counter. I mean we knew they were crap but not that crap!

Today, if you look at a list of nuclear nations, you'll see that Russia has far more nuclear weapons than the United States, tens of thousands more. This is extremely misleading. The Russians today have over 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons. That's way more than we have and it inflates their numbers.

I don't consider tactical nukes to be true nuclear weapons. They do not have the mass destruction capability of nuclear weapons, and I do not believe that they should be treated the same way as nuclear weapons are in calculating deterrence, coercion, and the such. Therefore, I don't think they should be counted as nucler weapons.

Agreed there is some argument over definitions. However I think you in turn have been misled by some propaganda yourself. I have some pretty clear and well sourced accounts of the massive spending sprees the US went on to 'catch up'. They are at home and I am not, so I can't dig them out readily. Maybe I will remember the books and lay out the figures tmrw or day after.

@ Storm: 100-200 years time? But politicians terms never last that long . Why bother about 100-200 years?

 

[nonconformist]

Shooting waste into space isn't viable.
Simply because there is only a certain amount of matter, which we are effectively getting rid of, and, worse, energy.

 

[Speedo]

@ SN: There's a friend of mine who argues vehemently that there are already all kinds of nuclear devices in space. He gets laughed down everytime. Recently he sent me these links in defence. I must say I haven't bothered reading them too much.

Um, nuclear-based power sources are quite common in satellites and things like NASA probes. I'd say it's just about the preferred power source.

 

[Speedo]

I don't consider tactical nukes to be true nuclear weapons. They do not have the mass destruction capability of nuclear weapons, and I do not believe that they should be treated the same way as nuclear weapons are in calculating deterrence, coercion, and the such. Therefore, I don't think they should be counted as nucler weapons.

Spoken like someone who truly has no comprehension of the power of nuclear weapons. The only device on earth more powerful that a tactical nuclear weapon is a strategic nuclear weapon.

 

[nonconformist]

There's no such thing as a "tactical" nuclear weapon.

 

[Fifty]

It's perfectly fine to dump waste everywhere. Within 100yrs computers will be so advanced that stuff like that won't matter.

 

[Speedo]

There's no such thing as a "tactical" nuclear weapon.

You don't have to like it; it's a simple rating of the weapons power.

Yield <= 5kt, tactical.
Yield > 5kt, strategic.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I was reading the British defense projects and they include warrior-like satellites that destroy enemy satellites.

The Russians were testing such satellites in the '70s. They also mounted cannon on some of their Almaz space stations.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

However I think you in turn have been misled by some propaganda yourself.

Most of the propaganda out there, actually, is from the left and says that the American government intentionally lied about having fewer missiles and bombers so as to justify larger defense contracts (i.e., profits for defense contractors) than what were truly necessary.

Whatever the case, it clearly doesn't matter now, and if I had been alive during the Cold War I probably would have been quite outspoken about how the United States should get its act together and build more missiles. I'm not one to reject a chance to expand the military, after all.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Spoken like someone who truly has no comprehension of the power of nuclear weapons. The only device on earth more powerful that a tactical nuclear weapon is a strategic nuclear weapon.

In terms of the calculation of coercion and deterrence, there is a huge difference between an ICBM with a 5 megaton warhead and a tactical nuke fired by artillery or short-ranged missiles.

The enemy having short-range tactical nuclear missiles at his border with you and the enemy having 90 city-destroyers on a submarine somewhere in the middle of the ocean has a completely different impact on your decision making. You can't compare the two.

 

[farting bob]

Its gotta go somewhere, and that somewhere should be unpopulated (by animals or humans). I would say if russia wanted some extra money, theres parts of siberia that would hardly ever see significant life on it.
Dumping all the uranium in the country that used it would be impractical, as many smaller countries (european) have no large amounts of wasteland. You cant just drop this stuff in the sewers.

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

I'm all for having ready access to Uranium

But I think that we shouldn't have to clean up after other countruies waste.

Btw, where did you get a Herald Sun article from?

*edit* Didn't see the Hyperlink. I Just got up.

 

[h4ppy]

If it fits economically I don't see why they aren't doing it, there are plenty of unused parts of Australia anyway.

 

[FriendlyFire]

If it fits economically I don't see why they aren't doing it, there are plenty of unused parts of Australia anyway.

Large underground pure water reserves
Sercurity issues. (Especially transportation)

 

[Alpine Trooper]

The U.S. seems to like taking Canada's garbage - contact them.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Really, the outrage over nuclear waste seems a bit unfounded. I'm not sure why environmentalists make such a big deal over it...

Indeed, space vehicles tend to powered by nuclear means, including plutonium, uranium, etc.

Ideally, the nuclear waste would be "recycled," that is, re-enriched, to be used again. A spent uranium rod still has plenty of fissile material, it just isn't as efficient in a reactor to use a spent one.

And finally, tactical nukes are just as much nukes as strategic ones. Maybe they wouldn't deter everyone, but any warhead capable of a fission (or fusion!) reaction would make me think twice. This isn't Civ: the consequences aren't just "pollution" or "global warming!"

And as a last note (not that this was an organized post or anything), I'm sure there are plenty of good places to keep nuclear waste. I'm thinking Antarctica. Although Australia would be much more convenient.

 

[Meleager]

The idea of having trucks filled with nuclear waste driving through brisbane (from the port of brisbane to the middle of nowhere would be a likely route - otherwise sydney) is a bit unnerving.