I’ve been a little lazy about this whole Divine Strake business. Fortunately, several of my colleagues—John Pike, Andy Lichterman, Hans Kristensen,, John Fleck and Bill Arkin—have been all over the story.
Long story, short (via Hans): DOE is making a gi-normous (about 0.6 kt) conventional explosion that is probably a simulation of a B 61 Mod 11 Earth Penetrating Warhead:
DTRA confirmed that Divine Strake is the same event that is described in DTRA budget documents as being a low-yield nuclear weapons shock simulation designed to allow the warfighters to fine-tune the yield of nuclear weapons in strikes against underground facilities. The Divine Strake event will detonate 700 tons of chemical explosives corresponding to a yield of 593 tons of TNT (~0.6 kt). The nuclear weapon with the lowest yield is the B61 bomb, which has four selective yields down to 0.3 kt.
Blog Posts
Get E-mail Updates
And though I’m sympathetic in a way to those who don’t like to see the U.S. doing continued weapons-related testing and/or work, I find it hard to believe that setting off a few hundred tons of explosives in a hole in Nevada is going to be more diplomatically provocative than, say, everything else the Bush administration has been up to since 2002. I think it’s pretty low on the offense-o-meter, personally.
— fastfission · Apr 4, 02:42 PM ·
“Mr. Secretary, it seems to me that if your agency could do this, it would seem that you could do the reverse, couldn’t you? Couldn’t you, or say the North Koreans or the Iranians cover up a low-yield nuclear explosion by making it look like a big regular bomb?”
“Mr. Senator, I’m afraid I’d have to have my people look into that.”
“But it’s possible, isn’t it Mr. Secretary?”
— Michael Roston · Apr 4, 05:41 PM ·
I agree with you that it’s a minor offense. Even a positive development, in the same way that subcritical tests are a relief valve that help to convince states to back the Comprehensive Test Ban.
I guess I have a technical question about the test, though: can a chemical explosion really mimic the effect of a nuclear weapon? The nuclear “explosion,” as I understand it, comes from the radiation superheating the surrounding mass. It happens much more quickly than a chemical explosion and I guess I would have thought that it would create a shock wave with a different pattern.
— James W · Apr 4, 07:07 PM ·
http://www.princeton.edu/~rnelson/papers/agent_defeat.pdf
which describes in quite a bit of gory detail what an underground nuclear detonation looks like (en route to making some sobering observations about nuclear bunker busters). While the details are obviously different, especially close to the epicenter, a shock wave is a shock wave once you get past the short-range effects, and I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible to learn quite a bit about the nuclear blast from a conventional simulation.
— Haninah · Apr 5, 03:42 AM ·
If one uses the Bush administration’s actions, to date, as a measure for what is or is not offensive, how do you scale your own personal ethics? Are they so malleable? This administration is offensive in a big way, and if we use their own massive destructive force as a measure for what we can let slide I’m afraid we might as well just give them carte blanche.
The planned “divine strake” explosion will occur on Western Shoshone land. This is in direct violation of law which protects Shoshone sovereignty, as far as I understand it. The Shoshone do not approve of having this bomb tested on their land, whether or not the Nevada government has approved.
So, this isn’t simply about whether or not detonating a 700 ton bomb in some random hole in the desert is acceptable or not. This is about going against laws set in place to protect land of a nation, a nation which finds this to be very offensive. There are ramifications bigger than us and further stretching than the next generation or two.
Of course this isn’t only about the Shoshone either. I believe it’s important to hold the government responsible for everything whether it’s the bomb, the land, the people. etc. Those boys have some big money and they like to play hard.
That’s my $ 0.02.
— Grace · Apr 8, 04:43 AM ·
— tom foster · Apr 8, 11:36 AM ·
There are plenty of holes at the NTS..what’s another?
The U.S. is NOT going to use nuclear weapons against Iran..it just isn’t necessary.There are many,many options short of using nukes to prevent deployment of an Iranian atomic bomb.
All of this rhetoric is getting a little ridiculous.
Even if Iran were to destroy NYC by proxy (with their fingerprints all over it), the US would not resort to destroying a country of nearly 70 million people with nuclear bombs.
Precision conventional strikes on the centers of power would work just fine.
We’re along way from 1945, folks.
— j house · Apr 12, 09:27 AM ·
— Bob · Apr 13, 10:25 AM ·
— JB Zimmerman · Apr 13, 10:10 PM ·
Divine Strake?
Strake is a nautical term:
A single continuous line of planking or metal plating extending on a vessel’s hull from stem to stern. Your idea though is right on. THX
— sassi · Apr 18, 02:29 PM ·
Bush has stated “No other president have had the strength to use nuke. And I have the strength” That is the closest I can remeber…
As an engineer and as a scientist, I find this test to be depolorable, unnecessary and will destablize the world.
There is nothing cool or wow about this insanity.
It does not show our strength to the world but rather our insanity.
— Shawn · Apr 21, 12:32 PM ·
— Lorena · Apr 25, 12:24 PM ·
— Carol · May 10, 01:23 AM ·