Re: What is the purpose of underground nuclear testing?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

I just bought a number of volumes of the Word of Cecil, and have diligently been studying the Scriptures. Alas, I have found an error.

In his column What is the purpose of underground nuclear testing? (which can also be found in Return of the Straight Dope), Cecil states that “The U.S. is thought to have conducted more than 900 nuclear tests since 1945, all but 10 of them at the Nevada Test Site, a vast federal reserve about 100 miles north of Las Vegas”. United States Nuclear Tests July 1945 through September 1992, a PDF document from the Federation of American Scientists, indicates that the United States has conducted a total of 1,030 nuclear tests, of which 904 took place at the NTS, 106 in various parts of the Pacific (including, of course, Bikini Atoll, which had a total of 23), 3 in the South Atlantic, and 17 in various other spots, including seven in other parts of Nevada, one in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, of all places, and of course one at Alamogordo, NM.

The correspondant who objected to that column also seems to have made at least one factual error; he states “there is no known case of a nuclear bomb being tested and not going ‘boom.’” In fact, test Able of Operation Buster in 1951 appears to have been a complete failure. Able was intended to be a very low yield, with a predicted yield of 0.2 kilotons, but wounded up being

It was “the first actual failure of any U.S. nuclear device (the 18th exploded by the U.S.), and the first known failure of any nuclear device.” A number of other tests produced much lower than expected yields, as Cecil alluded to: the 1953 tests Ruth and Ray from Operation Upshot-Knothole were supposed to yield 1.5 to 3 kilotons and 0.5 to 1 kiloton, respectively, but neither achieved more than 0.2 kilotons. Ruth didn’t even completely vaporize the tower it was sitting on top of. Franklin in 1957 from Operation Plumbbob was intended to be a 2-kiloton device, but wound up yielding only 0.14 kt. Conversely, there were also cases where bombs had much higher yields than were predicted; the Bravo test from Operation Castle was supposed to yield 4-8 megatons, and wound up being 15 megatons. There were also cases where nuclear tests failed because missiles malfunctioned and had to be blown up, but those weren’t bomb failures per se.

2

This deserves some explanation. There were actually two tests in the Tatum Salt Dome, about 21 miles southwest of Hattiesburg.

The tests were in 1964 (Salmon, 5.3 kilotons) and 1966 (Sterling, 0.38 kilotons). This is from this list of all known nuclear explosions 1945-1996

3

In looking at the original column, it doesn’t appear to me that Cecil really addressed the specific question regarding underground testing. He just sort of skips right to the reasoning behind nuclear testing and ignores the underground part, without even berating the questioner or using any witty sarcasm about the virtues of above ground testing. Anyone else think this is odd??

Radiation is our friend.

4

Rocket has a point. Do you think Ed Zotti is using Cecil’s name on the sly?

As far as doing the tests underground, it’s for the relative safety of the public (how safe can you REALLY be when you’re doing the ‘big boom’). After a number of above-ground tests wafted radioactive clouds over increasingly large population areas the tests were moved below ground to keep the radiation as confined as possible. How far can radiation travel after a nuclear incident? Ask the swaths of Europe that received large doses of radiation from the Chernobyl meltdown. Imagine how bad it would be if the radiation came from an explosion blowing it all into the atmosphere.
Here is a general map showing how much of Europe was affected by Chernobyl:
http://www.time.com/time/daily/chernobyl/maps.html

This map shows the more immediate area around Chernobyl:

5

I think it’s all a coverup for a secret war with some underground civilization, maybe quasihumans like Lemurians or highly evolved dinosaurs like Vampires.

6

Hey Badtz!

Ixnay on alkingtay about the emurlays!

7

Rocket, when seeing the main question used as the title, I was expecting something similar. But looking at the actual question asked by Dave Hines, there is actually the explanatory material afterwards that indicates he’s more concerned with “why nuclear bomb testing?” than “why test bombs under ground?”

So I don’t think Cecil missed the point. Although it would have been worth a witty comment.

8

Ok, so maybe the questioner wasn’t too detailed about what info they wanted. But what can they learn from underground testing other than that the bomb works? They can’t see the the blast, how do they measure the power of the blast, potential area of destruction…

9

Although it presents certain technical difficulties, you can tell quite a lot from underground weapons testing. You can certainly tell if the bomb works, and how powerful it was. See Nuclear Weapon Testing from the Federation of American Scientists. Of course, it’s certainly more straightforward to test nuclear weapons by setting them off in more or less the manner in which they would actually be employed in combat. If you want to find out what happens if you nuke a battleship, the best way to do so is to nuke a battleship, which is the sort of thing we did a lot of back in the '50’s and '60’s. Underground testing isn’t going to give you as much real-world data, and will definitely require you to be more technically clever in interpreting the results, but it has the advantage of not spewing radioactive fallout all over the place (unless the borehole ruptures, which happened sometimes). Computer simulations are even further from real-world data, and require a higher level of sophistication to even attempt, but on the other hand they don’t produce any radioactive debris at all.

It naturally helps in interpreting the data from underground tests if you have more real-world atmospheric tests to provide a baseline. (“This bomb design yielded so-and-so many kilotons, and we know from setting off bombs back in the '60’s how big a fireball that would produce if we detonated a bomb of that size at such-and-such altitude.”) And you use the data from real aboveground and underground tests you carried out to program the supercomputers to run simulations for future “tests”.

10

The real purpose of underground weapons testing is explained in a great documentary called TREMORS. It can be found in most video stores, usually misfiled under “Comedy” or “Action-Adventure.”

11

It occurs to me that another purpose of underground testing might be secrecy. If you detonate any sort of nuclear weapon anywhere on the surface of the Earth, the whole world is going to know it (or at least, anyone who’s interested). This is great if you want to intimidate that annoying little third-world country next door, but sometimes, you’re trying for a bit more subtlety.

12

Secrecy is a possible secondary reason, but the blast would show on many of the world’s seismographic instruments. That or CNN (or the Enquirer :wink: ) would report it.

13

In fact the powers that be have very sophisticated systems to detect underground nuclear explosions anywhere on the planet. It’s useful to know who’s got the capability. But really, is this something that can be conducted in secrecy?

Irishman;
I can read that part of the question either way;
Do governments actually learn something from these (underground) explosions?
as opposed to above-ground. This seems a much more interesting question.

I was just trying to point out that Cecil (if he actually exists) missed a prime opportunity to jab a witty barb at the guy, and he totally passed on it. How uncharacteristic of him.

14

Someone I worked for used to work on these underground tests. He commented one time that one of the most difficult tasks the scientists and engineers had was deciding when the test instruments in the blast chamber had stopped sending real data and had started sending garbage. IOW, they had to figure out how quickly and how far the blast ran up the wire that led up to the recording equipment. Obviously, they wanted as much real data as they could get.