Warbird Information Exchange

Randy

From the news reports the bomb is located roughly a mile from the coast. In 12 ft. of water presumably burried another 20 ft. in the sea bed. My point is that a terrorist organization doesn't need to recover it. With 400 lbs. of explosives and enough uranium to yeild a blast of 1.6-3.9 Mt they can just detonate it where it lies. If a Uhaul truck can be pack with enough ammonium nitrate to level a multi story building. Then I'm sure enough explosive can be dumped overboard ontop of the bombs location to set off the 400 lbs. of conventional explosives and spread the uranium. If they're willing to try and blow up an airplane with shoe bombs. With their extreme financial backing they might well consider it worth trying. Best thing to do is locate, salvage and dispose of the bomb. Eliminating the possibility entirely.

Shay

This just made the CBC radio news. Interesting. The report mentioned that the stray bomb could be the result of higher than normal radiation levels in the area. Hmmmm... do ya think!?!?

We have heard stories about aircraft recoveries being prevented because of the concern of leaking oil or fuel. Here is an example where something should be done because of the prolonged contamination risk.

Mike

_________________
Mike R. Henniger
Aviation Enthusiast & Photographer
http://www.AerialVisuals.ca
http://www.facebook.com/AerialVisuals

Do you want to find locations of displayed, stored or active aircraft? Then start with the The Locator.
Do you want to find or contribute to the documented history of an aircraft? If so then start with the Airframes Database.

Look Daddy my fish is warm to the touch, glows and has ten eyes. Should I throw it back?


Sorry I could not resist

_________________
www.tailhookstudio.com

No problem. I was thinking it. It reminds me of a Simpsons episode.

Mike

_________________
Mike R. Henniger
Aviation Enthusiast & Photographer
http://www.AerialVisuals.ca
http://www.facebook.com/AerialVisuals

Do you want to find locations of displayed, stored or active aircraft? Then start with the The Locator.
Do you want to find or contribute to the documented history of an aircraft? If so then start with the Airframes Database.

Uhhhh.... It doesn't have the critical mass required for an atomic reaction.

BDK


I'm aware that the Mk. 15 bomb was not armed and thus did not carry any plutonium 235 onboard to generate an atomic reaction. I was referring to the 400 lbs. of explosive onboard that if detonated would spread the Uranium material (however much Uranium it takes to generate a yeild of 1.6-3.9 MT.) far and wide.
In the first half of the '60s a B-52 flying over Spain was in a mid air refueling accident. This aircraft broke away and jettisoned the 4 unarmed nuclear devices it had aboard before crashing. Of the first 3 bombs to be dropped, the impact set off the conventional explosives contained within. Throwing the atomic material into the atmosphere contaminating a large area of Spain. The 4th bomb I believe was recovered from the Mediterrian Sea. I apologize if i was not clear in what I was saying.

Shay

First off, I agree that if the USAF knows exactly where this thing is and has the means to recover it, they should. Having worked with most of the groups that are likely involved in the re-opening of this search, I am convinced that they will.

But, regarding the idea of blowing up the bomb where it sits, I don't think that it would be a realistic scenario to set off the high explosive and disperse the uranium to create a radiological attack.

There are several factors to consider;

In order to set off the high explosive in this buried weapon, I am guessing that you would have to be darn near right on top of the thing to get it to go off. A 10-week search in 1958 with sonar and magnetic equipment couldn't find it. Today a retired Lt Col thinks he knows where it is, but even he probably doesn't know the precise location, much less a terrorist group. I don't think that even being just "close" would be enough to set off the explosive. Two, would that high explosive even work after 46 years under water?

Last -- even if it did go off -- by the fact that it is under an unknown amount of sand (and perhaps water), very little uranium would be actually dispersed. There would naturally be a localized area of severe radiological contamination, but it's not like the sea water would cause massive contamination all over the east coast.

Every bit of antiterrorist training I've ever had says that "they" like to go after easy targets. If you make something a tough target to hit, chances are they'll go on to something easier. Setting off this bomb is a tough enough target -- and a low enough probability of success -- that they'd be better served looking elsewhere.

The report I have says "1,400 tons of slightly contaminated soil and vegetation were removed."

Yes, that's a lot...but hardly a large area of Spain.

Randy

I agree I imagine it's not likely that and devious organization would attempt to set it off of do anything with it. Thank goodness for lazy cowardly terrorists. As far as locating the bomb and recovering it. Alot of technology exists today that is better than it was in '58 or didn't exist at all. I think finding it won't be as difficult now as it was back then, but I've been wrong before. If i were a bett'n man I would say they will recover it as a matter of public opinion and safety. The American public I can imagine doesn't like the idea of a "Nuke" on the loose. No matter how harmless it might be. The fact that the detection of radiation readings 7 to 10 times normal might be and indication of a breach in the casing from either the impact or the ravages of time and enviroment. So they might removed it from harming people unlucky enough to swimming, boating or diving in the area. Let alone the ecosystem. As for the Spain incident. I was going off of memory from who knows how long ago i read that story. Well anyways, all of this conjecture and only time and gov't will tell what will happen. Thanks

Shay

Agreed...but this is small potatoes comapred to the 300 or so nukes that the ex-Soviet Union states used to have, but simply can't account for anymore. That's the type of thing that keeps me thinking....

Radiation may be slowly leaking, and I'm not sure that 7-10 times normal is even considered dangerous, but how much risk of more serious contamination to the local waters would there be if this radioactive material was spilled during the recovery process? The report linked earlier in this post indicates that there would be major damage to the local ecosystem just from the silt disturbed during a recovery attempt. Maybe in this instance there is far less risk to leave it undisturbed?

If it is determined to be relatively safe to do so, I would like to see it be recovered as well though.

Hey:

Have any of you considered that this whole situation could be a ploy used by Homeland Security to catch a few terrorists. It kind of smells that way to me. Usually I can smell a rat.

Chris

A couple of points...

1. The material in the weapon, is a piece of metal, not dust, not uranium rocks, just a chunk of metal.

2. The only contamination coming from the weapon, if any, would be something like silt, sitting up against the weapon for a long period of time.

O.K. screw the points, I'm a couple three beers into the evening......The weapon is in salt water, the best place it could be. Time, distance, shielding, thats what the Nav used to drill into us. Anybody screwing around close to the weapon, for any decent amount of time, one hour or more, is gonna get zapped. That cat will be in the emergency room barfing his guts out that afternoon. If he was messin with it close, thats what will happen. To do a recovery, you'll have to have a very large, dive trained crew. They will have to work in very short shifts, to keep their stay times down. You need professional salvage divers, and a lot of them, 10-20, and then train them about the importance of "Stay Times" and how to work in very short relays. I realize the terrorists aren't going to do this, so... take it the other way...Achmed Von Talibanista, rents scuba gear, goes down there, picks up the material, brings it up to the surface, puts it on a boat. He's as good as dead, not a couple of days later, not cancer workin on him for a few years, he's dead right now. The boat driver, and anyone who spent almost any time within ten feet of that chunk of metal is dead too. It'd be like trying to do anything, with a .45 caliber gunshot wound to the stomach, and you'd have about that much time to get it done. I haven't talked about recovering the weapon, only the piece of metal in it. The weapon itself weighs too much. Easier to go at the deteriorated casing with a crowbar, and retrieve the metal, than hiring and using extra equipment, people, and time to get the whole thing.

The most dangerous thing about this object, is the ordinance with it. I don't know how HE reacts to being in seawater for decades, but if I'm a terrorist, I don't care.( My personal thing with this, is, I know it sounds stupid, is the bad fishing cast, skipping rocks, dumb stuff like that, detonating a big chunk 'O' HE). It's probably unfounded, buttt.....I also don't want to see any Navy bro's wasted retrieving this. If I was retrieving the weapon, I would detonate a smaller explosion on the weapon, just to clear any ordinance and whats left of the total weapon, off of the chunk of uranium. Which get's us to....

Piling a bunch of explosives on the weapon and exploding it. Uranium is some of the densest stuff on the planet. Especially processed uranium. The rounds we fire from tanks and aircraft are depleted uranium. That stuff does not deform, it "Self Forges", in other words, gets sharper. This chunk O metal is the same stuff, only...pleated, impleted...whatever. Exploding something on top of it will only change the entire, read "Entire" mass of the piece of metal's location. Either 30 feet deeper in the mud, or across the bay somewhere. It's not going to vaporize, atomize, particalize, or any other ize,,,, leaving,,, the environmental disaster, human distaster, distaster distaster, within ten feet of itself. Speaking of...

Environmental concerns. The case, it is totally irradiated. Any silt within one foot of it is totally irradiated. It's under salt water,one of the best radiation shields on earth. Any free material leaving the area is swallowed up in about a couple of zillion cubic feet of salt water.

I do think the weapon should be removed. I do not think it is any kind of a threat to anything, or anyone who stays 50 feet away from it. Right now it is maybe a lump in silt under salt water, away from everyone, and everything. The only people who would even think of going out of their way to go near it are, the stupidest sob's in ten counties, or the U.S. Navy. In either case, more power to em. The sugar die, or the Navy removes it, cool.

I'm not ranting here, I swear. I thought I would try to allay any bad thoughts, or even fears about this thing by my WIX buds. I know a teeny weeny miniscule tiny bit about nuclear weapons. If your thermonuclear device is on fire, call me. Need it moved, call me. Storage, me. Does it need to be in a torpedo tube, I'm your guy. It's been awhile, but I'm careful, and very, very, patient.

I timed out, a three beer response, didn't think I had it in me.

BTW, the saying..

"The sugar die"

aint sugar, it's

S followed by hitheads

_________________
DEEP THOUGHTS BY KIDS:
"If we could just get everyone to close their eyes and visualize world peace for an hour, imagine how serene and quiet it would be until the looting started. Age 15 "


Deep Thoughts,
Jack Handy