Talk:Tybee Bomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Georgia (U.S. state) Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Hot -or- Not

What's the radioactive material they're talking about? Tritium (which would be mostly gone by now anyway), or maybe a uranium jacket (which wouldn't be)? Granted, the answer to that question is probably classified... --24.147.149.53 02:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although the plutonium pit is alleged to have been removed, it is unclear to me whether the "spark plug" has been removed. This could be plutonium or enriched uranium, and thus a risk for proliferation. See Nuclear_weapon_design and Nuclear Weapon Archive from Carey Sublette. pstudier 02:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

According to this page, the Mk 15 (used in Castle Nectar), this particular design of bomb had a casing (tamper?) of enriched uranium (to what degree?) rather than depleted uranium and is a hybrid between a fusion and a boosted fission weapon and used both lithium and tritium as a fusion fuel (I know the tritium would be gone by now, don't know about the lithium). Anyway the concerns over using it to make a dirty bomb sound somewhat unfounded -- there are plenty easier and nastier ways to make a dirty bomb than using somewhat enriched uranium, but that's just my interpretation of things. --Fastfission 16:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Interesting! [1] says that the casing is HEU (highly enriched uranium), in which case it should be recovered or guarded forever. pstudier 17:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The bomb has highly enriched uranium according to http://www.charleston.net/stories/091604/sta_16bomb.shtml. pstudier 23:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the other 10?

It is said in the article that there are 11 missing north american nuclear weapons. Where are they now?

See List of nuclear accidents Ydorb 23:39, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

According to List of military nuclear accidents, there are four bombs that were never located. Any information to the contrary should be added there. Pjbflynn 04:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air Force Search & Recovery Assessment of the 1958 Savannah, GA B-47 Accident

This is a fascinating document. If you are interested in the subject I highly recommend reading it. [2]

Robartin 14:39, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes in the article

Does the list of quotes belong in WikiQuote? Ebeisher 04:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

there are way too many quotes on that list. most of them are pretty obscure.--Alhutch 06:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the quotes add to the article --giving a cross-section of the politics involved without editorializing or original research: you can't get a better description of such things than a person's words. (on a total side note: its somewhat amazing that this is the third comment in three years --I guess I'll check back in 2007...) --A Good Anon 03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the quotes bring much to the article, especially not such a long list. Pjbflynn 04:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Report

The Report was supposed to be released in mid april. It's now May, does anyone have a link, has it been released?

I track this story with a Yahoo news alert, and I haven't heard a thing. pstudier 20:25, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

[edit] Article Discrepancy

The "Potential Threat" section contains this sentence:

"The bomber pilot maintains that the weapon did have the nuclear capsule when he took off."

However, the quotations section attributes this quote to the pilot:

"Derek Duke just doesn't know what he's talking about. I keep telling him he's wrong. The paper says no [plutonium] capsule on board. I think I know what I signed for."

These contradict each other. Which is it? -Sarfa (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes removed

I removed the entire quotes section because:

  1. Very frankly, quotes without context like these are difficult to understand (When did they say it, and why? We don't know!), and
  2. They are more effective when worked into the article as prose that summarises the various parties' points of view, rather than a list.
  3. This is not a movie, in which quotes from characters would be more appropriate;
  4. Lastly, the section is totally unsourced.

Pegasus «C¦T» 07:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WTF??

Why in the world train with a workable bomb (loaded or not)? As we've seen, there will always be a measurable risk of accident, with the possibility of a source of design information landing in the wrong hands being not the least of the potential consequences.

Why not, for instance, simulate with a mass dummy?

--Philopedia (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea is to keep as many of the bombs airborne as possible because they will be safer in a nuclear surprise attack than on the ground. After the attack, the planes can land and refuel and take off for the USSR without having to load the bombs. Paul Studier (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)