Nukewatch - exposing a deadly cargo

Great article, i was reading something similar on another website that i was researching. I will be sure to look around more. thanks..

I would not call 2.4/1,000,000,000,000 a serious price to pay for keeping our deterrent functional. If the warheads were not maintained in this way, there would be a far greater risk of an incident. I also feel that the risk of a terrorist attack, although present, is overstated; most terrorist attacks so far have been carried out by single persons, and to take out a nuke truck would likely require weapons such as bazookas. Also, are the trucks routed through populated areas? If they were not, a costly and once-only attack on a truck would be pointless without the tools to carry the nukes off, and nuclear bombs are difficult to hide. Also, 'a serious vehicle collision...combined with multiple failures of the MoD's protective measures could result in the nuke remaining single-point safe' smacks of 'We could all be wiped out tomorrow if multiple failures in communication, combined with every single computer in the USA failing, could result in a nuclear holocaust and the total destruction of civilization.' It could happen, but its not likely. Besides, even if the nuke went off with full force, 100kt, unless exploded in a densely populated area, would likely cause deaths approximating, at worst, to somewhat less than 5x those in Nagasaki, ie about 350,000. In Nagasaki (I am using this example as in this case the device was not exploded in the optimal location, as would likely be the case with a terrorist attack), about 1/2 the casualties were caused by blast; however, British houses tend to be more solidly constructed than Japanese, this may lead to lower casualties on the extremes of the target area; although close to the detonation site more people may be killed by crushing, they would likely die however their dwellings were constructed. In practice, the actual death toll would likely be less, as likely casualties does not scale linearly with bomb size. (http://www.carloslabs.com/node/20). The other 1/2 of the casualties were caused by effects that were then not understood, such as fallout. Nowadays, although such effects are still difficult to treat, they are better understood, and evacuation is likely to severely reduce casualties, so total deaths are likely to stand at only 100-200,000, even assuming a total detonation in a relatively heavily populated area. Of course, what is more likely is a 'puff' with a small release of radioactivity. Prompt Governmental action, the only option in a democracy, would prevent many casualties from radioactivity, likely limiting the total deaths to the crew of the transporters, any terrorists and a few unfortunates close to the site, likely around 100 in all. I do not see how monitoring and recording the positions of the trucks is likely to prevent this, which is, if caused by an aircraft crash, likely to be only a minor addition to the damage and deaths caused by the aircraft itself. Unless it were maliciously guided, the odds are against an aircraft crash hitting the trucks. I think, as I have said above, the extremely faint possibility of an accident, especially as I am inclined to believe the MoD that critical components are removed from the nukes before transport, is a very small price to pay for the continued maintenance of our nuclear deterrent.

Thanks for your comment "nuke the world", but actually there are military experts on either side of the Atlantic who would disagree with you.

A New Scientist article published in 2006 referenced a recently declassified report from the Ministry of Defence, which stated that "Trident nuclear warheads damaged in a vehicle pile-up or a plane crash could partially detonate and deliver a lethal radiation dose."

According to the report extreme accidents could result in a nuclear explosion. A serious vehicle collision or an aircraft crash combined with multiple failures of the MoD's secret protective measures could mean that the weapon might not remain single-point safe (nukes are designed so that one impact at a single point should not trigger all the explosives around the core).

The report puts the overall yearly risk of an "inadvertent yield" in the UK at 2.4 in a billion, mainly due to the possibility of an aircraft crashing onto a convoy. Inadvertent yield suggests a partial nuclear explosion, also called fizzle yield, smaller than the full yield of up to 100 kilotons.

US experts also agree that the risk of an accidental explosion is real. "You can't rule it out," says Philip Coyle, from the Center for Defense Information think tank in Washington DC. "If we are going to have nuclear weapons, we have to live with the risks."

It's true that transporting nukes by truck is probably safer than moving them by train, though. Then again, both are relatively easy targets for a serious terrorist attack, the consequences of which "are likely to be considerable loss of life and severe disruption both to the British people's way of life and to the UK's ability to function effectively as a sovereign state." admitted   David Wray,  the MoD's director of information, in May 2006.