• Nuclear weapons lost at sea in 1950 may have been found.
    15 replies, posted
[quote]A commercial diver may have discovered a lost nuclear bomb off the coast of British Columbia near the Haida Gwaii archipelago. Sean Smyrichinsky was diving for sea cucumbers when he discovered a large metal device that looked a bit like a flying saucer. The Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) believes it could be the "lost nuke" from an American B-36 bomber that crashed in the area in 1950. The government does not believe the bomb contains nuclear material. It is sending naval ships out to the site to verify the find. [/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875697[/url]
hope he wasn't wearing a drysuit cuz i'd have pissed myself
does he get to keep it?
well i hope he also found some sea cucumbers
b-36, two turning, four burning, its really both a marvel of a plane and a great example of horribly unreliable expensive equipment
[QUOTE=Sableye;51322533]b-36, two turning, four burning, its really both a marvel of a plane and a great example of horribly unreliable expensive equipment[/QUOTE] Well, at the time jet engines were new. It was a good way to get ground crewed used to jet engines without worrying that a maintenance mistake (or some other mistake) would leave an aircraft without power.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51322533]b-36, two turning, four burning, its really both a marvel of a plane and a great example of horribly unreliable expensive equipment[/QUOTE] And was the only airframe in the world to be tested for use with a nuclear power plant.
It bothers me that the headline is "Nuclear weapon missing since 1950 'may have been found'" when the article clearly explains that the bomb in question had no fissile material and consequently was never a nuke. It's no more dangerous than any of the ordnance dropped into the ocean during the world wars.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51322623]It bothers me that the headline is "Nuclear weapon missing since 1950 'may have been found'" when the article clearly explains that the bomb in question had no fissile material and consequently was never a nuke. It's no more dangerous than any of the ordnance dropped into the ocean during the world wars.[/QUOTE] That statement assumes the US were true to their word when they said that the weapon had a dummy core in it. Weapons in this era were designed with removable cores to change yields so no at some point it was a real nuke. The aircrew jettisoned the weapon because they were worried about the TNT in the weapon detonating during a crash.
[QUOTE=download;51322655]That statement assumes the US were true to their word when they said that the weapon had a dummy core in it. [/QUOTE] Well, the article says: [quote] It was "bigger than a king-size bed", perfectly flat on top with a rounded bottom and had a [B]hole in the centre just "like a bagel,"[/B] he told the BBC. [/quote] So if it is the bomb, sounds like it has no core at all.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51322673]Well, the article says: So if it is the bomb, sounds like it has no core at all.[/QUOTE] That just means the front of the weapon is missing. If the weapon was fitted with a dummy core it would still have had the core hatch fitted.
Even without nuclear payload its still a very very potent bomb.
[QUOTE=download;51322692]That just means the front of the weapon is missing. If the weapon was fitted with a dummy core it would still have had the core hatch fitted.[/QUOTE] Or godzilla
[QUOTE=Sableye;51322533]b-36, two turning, four burning, its really both a marvel of a plane and a great example of horribly unreliable expensive equipment[/QUOTE] It's Six turning, four burning though :v:
So why is the news picking up on this now? I've heard about this on the local radio since last week.
[QUOTE=download;51322549]Well, at the time jet engines were new. It was a good way to get ground crewed used to jet engines without worrying that a maintenance mistake (or some other mistake) would leave an aircraft without power.[/QUOTE] the radial engines installed backwards didn't properly cool and tended to catch on fire by accident, the jet pods were probably more reliable since they were at least facing the right way
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.