# The First British Hydrogen Bomb



## syscom3 (Jun 7, 2008)

Not much is known about the British nuclear program.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLFRIiflSgU_


----------



## Graeme (Jun 8, 2008)

Very interesting sys, thanks.





Mr Venning's comments on safety precautions were interesting. The "safe area" being regarded as "behind coconut palms" with instructions to "turn up your collar and cover your eyes". Odd that no one was warned of a latter "blast".

Even covering your eyes and wearing sunglasses had little effect...

Britain's Nuclear Weapons - British Nuclear Testing



> _
> "At the end of the countdown, there was a blinding electric blue light, of such an intensity I had not seen before or ever since. I pressed my hands hard to my eyes, then, realised my hands were covering my eyes. This terrific light power, or rays, were actually passing through the tarpaulin, through the towel, and through my head and body, for what seemed ten to twelve seconds, it may have been longer. After that, the pressure wave, which gave a feeling such as when one is deep underwater. This was then followed by a sort of vacuum suction wave, to give a feeling of one's whole body billowing out like a balloon."_



It all smacks of Maralinga. I see that the British Nuclear Veterans have similar problems...

BNTVA: Home Page

Crazy cold war days...


----------



## Kruska (Jun 8, 2008)

Hello Syscom3,

Very interesting, I wasn’t actually aware about indigenous British nuclear development. I always had in mind that Britain relied on imported US knowhow and Hardware. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2008)

I beleive that even today the warheads on British Nuclear Missiles are designed in the UK.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 8, 2008)

Glider said:


> I beleive that even today the warheads on British Nuclear Missiles are designed in the UK.



Hello Glider,

But the only nuclear warhead missiles that England has are Polaris, right?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2008)

No we have Trident IID5 missiles in our Ballistic Subs. Work has started on the plans to replace these submarines and Missiles, it will take time, but we will get there.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 8, 2008)

Dont you guys use the W-88 nuke warhead?


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2008)

I don't think so. The British nuclear warheads have variable yeilds which I don't think the US ones have. They were designed at Aldermaston and are an improvement on the US W-76 warheads.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 8, 2008)

Hello Glider,

Off course Trident, silly me must have had a blackout, sorry. But it is based on the Polaris ( Lockheed Martin Space Systems) where GB has agreed to contributed with 5%? So it would only be the warhead that is a British development right?

So is Britain able to develop/build these warheads and the missile system by themselfs or are they just involved as purchasers with some British amendments through a 5% investment? similar to the F-35 program. 

As for the bombs the entire development was British, using the 175 WE, 177 A and B bombs which I think have been removed from service. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Glider (Jun 8, 2008)

The missiles are American but the Warheads are designed and built in the UK.

Trident is very different to Polaris


----------



## buzzard (Jun 9, 2008)

On the subject of nuclear warheads; the neo-con nuts in the US have joined with their defence contracter bedmates to promote the idea that many of their existing warheads cannot be relied upon and hence it is 'vital to national security'* that the idle weapons developers be given billions to replace these largely redundant weapons. Scientific American recently had an article on the subject. 

According to the promoters of this program, all mankind shall derive great benefit from these new thermonuclear bombs. They're promising to make them 'greener'...

Yup, environmentally-friendly 'Green' nukes

* i.e., the rich folks need to replace those shabby little 10,000 sq.ft. summer 'cottages' with something a little less cramped ...

JL


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 9, 2008)

buzzard said:


> On the subject of nuclear warheads; the neo-con nuts in the US have joined with their defence contracter bedmates to promote the idea that many of their existing warheads cannot be relied upon and hence it is 'vital to national security'* that the idle weapons developers be given billions to replace these largely redundant weapons. Scientific American recently had an article on the subject.
> 
> According to the promoters of this program, all mankind shall derive great benefit from these new thermonuclear bombs. They're promising to make them 'greener'...
> 
> ...



And your point is what?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 9, 2008)

buzzard said:


> On the subject of nuclear warheads; the neo-con nuts in the US have joined with their defence contracter bedmates to promote the idea that many of their existing warheads cannot be relied upon and hence it is 'vital to national security'* that the idle weapons developers be given billions to replace these largely redundant weapons. Scientific American recently had an article on the subject.
> 
> According to the promoters of this program, all mankind shall derive great benefit from these new thermonuclear bombs. They're promising to make them 'greener'...
> 
> ...



First off I'd like to see a reference of this because it sound like something between a poor 9-11 conspiracy theory and the "X" files. Second with regards to your "the neo-con nuts in the US have joined with their defence contracter bedmates," well I work as a defence contractor and could tell you first hand that your implication of contractor/ government collusion is as whacked out as your post. In the future I would recommend a reference to a post like that, it will make you look less silly......


----------



## buzzard (Jun 10, 2008)

Here's your reference from the left-wing liberal rag...

: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=new-nukes-are-good-nukes

...and as for 'contracter/government collusion' , being the paranoid fantasy of whacked conspiracy theorists, all I can say is that anyone who has not noticed the shenanigans of the defence industry lobbyists and the politicians over the years is either naive, blind, or both...

That you feel tarred by the admittedly broad stroke of my brush is unfortunate, and for that I apologize, but the fact remains that corruption inevitably follows money, and the billions of dollars at stake in the arms industry ensures that shady business is not a rarity, the 'fair and balanced' swill of the Fox News crowd, notwithstanding. 

But hey...What do I care? You're the ones who are gonna have to pay for it, not me 

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2008)

buzzard said:


> Here's your reference from the left-wing liberal rag...
> 
> : Special Report: New Nukes Are Good Nukes?: Scientific American
> 
> ...



No one cannot deny that there has been corruption and collusion in the US defence industry, (probably a lot less than seen in other parts of the world) but even as we hear reports of corruption today, those situations are so far and few because of all the crap US contractors now have to go through to get a government contract (I guess, or I should say I know the system in Canada is a lot different, I lived there for 5 years and worked in *your *defense industry - but then again your DoD is a fraction of the size of ours so all the nasty stuff is easy to keep in check) but in essence very well said for someone who doesn't live in the US and probably never worked on a major US defense contract - but then again after hearing these comments and your initial post, are you a possible NDP member? 

Even as you post information of this "green" nuclear weapon, to try to portray the US defence industry being run by some crazed "neo-cons" sounds like a line from an 1980s anti-nuke protester. I thought by some of your previous posts you were a lot more intelligent than that!

But going back to the beginning of all this - what did your little snippet have to do with the purpose of this thread - are you *trying* to get into a pissing contest with some of us "south of the border"????


----------



## Graeme (Jun 10, 2008)

I take it that Mr Goodwin is serious?

Special Report: New Nukes Are Good Nukes?: Scientific American

_Livermore's Goodwin says. "We will be able to eliminate an entire process that produces 96 percent radiological toxic waste that has to be buried and replace it with nontoxic waste that is 100 percent recyclable."
*
"You replace it with something that quite honestly you could eat and be healthy."*_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 10, 2008)

Graeme said:


> I take it that Mr Goodwin is serious?
> 
> Special Report: New Nukes Are Good Nukes?: Scientific American
> 
> ...


He's from Northern California - nothing is serious there!


----------



## drgondog (Jun 10, 2008)

buzzard said:


> Here's your reference from the left-wing liberal rag...
> 
> : Special Report: New Nukes Are Good Nukes?: Scientific American
> 
> ...



Bonehead


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2008)

I think that sums it up Bill.....


----------



## drgondog (Jun 11, 2008)

buzzard said:


> On the subject of nuclear warheads; the neo-con nuts in the US have joined with their defence contracter bedmates to promote the idea that many of their existing warheads cannot be relied upon and hence it is 'vital to national security'* that the idle weapons developers be given billions to replace these largely redundant weapons. Scientific American recently had an article on the subject.
> 
> According to the promoters of this program, all mankind shall derive great benefit from these new thermonuclear bombs. They're promising to make them 'greener'...
> 
> ...



Jez curious - what is your definition of
fascist
communist
neo con

you are pretty good at labels without context - I really am curious about your notion of 'objective reporting'.. Guardian? Kos? Fox News?

Maybe contrast your favorite 'fair and balanced' with say Hannity and Combs or the Economist?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Jez curious - what is your definition of
> fascist
> communist
> neo con
> ...


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2008)

I suppose that if you looked at it in a perverted manner, the Neutron Bomb might be considered a green bomb.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 11, 2008)

Glider said:


> I suppose that if you looked at it in a perverted manner, the Neutron Bomb might be considered a green bomb.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2008)

buzzard said:


> On the subject of nuclear warheads; the neo-con nuts in the US have joined with their defence contracter bedmates to promote the idea that many of their existing warheads cannot be relied upon and hence it is 'vital to national security'* that the idle weapons developers be given billions to replace these largely redundant weapons. Scientific American recently had an article on the subject.
> 
> According to the promoters of this program, all mankind shall derive great benefit from these new thermonuclear bombs. They're promising to make them 'greener'...
> 
> ...



How about this:

KEEP ON TOPIC! WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD?

NOTHING! 

STAY ON TOPIC!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2008)

drgondog said:


> you are pretty good at labels without context - I really am curious about your notion of 'objective reporting'.. Guardian? Kos? Fox News?



He probably get his info from the *C*ommunist *N*ews *N*etwork.


----------



## buzzard (Jun 12, 2008)

"KEEP ON TOPIC! WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD?"

And then in keeping in the spirit of your chastising demand, your next post is an ad hominem attack...Is this the role of the moderaters here, to make sure everyone toes the party line?

Anyway, since my sardonic little post has resulted in nine ad hominem attacks against myself, I think I'm justified in responding (with apologies to the originater of the thread).

First, I'd like to state for the record that I am not now, nor ever have been, a member of the Communist Party. Or the the NDP, for that matter...

Having said that, I make no bones about my contempt for the present US administration. If that makes me anti-American, or a communist, then so are millions of your fellow compatriots. But then again, those who who avidly swallow the Gospel According to Saints Dubya, Cheney, Coulter, O'Reilly, Colmes, Hannity, Limbaugh, ad nauseum, probably believe exactly that...

Dr Bill's diagnosis of cranial hyper-ossification as cause for my preposterous socialistic delusions, while admirably concise, begs the question of from what authority he makes such conclusions. Are you a board-certified neurologist, as well as the authority on all things aerodynamic? Credentials, work experience, etc., if you please...And while your at it, I suggest that you yourself google the meanings of 'communism', 'fascism', if you wish to know what they mean. Nothing in either of my posts implied any reference to those subjects. You're projecting...Also check out 'lame', 'ad hominem attack', 'mudslinger'...

Anyway, I was going to respond to some more of the specific remarks laid against me, but frankly I've got better things to do than play petty games with the humorless and hypersensitive commisars of the party dogma. I won't be responding to any further ad hominem attacks, so save your ire for the real commies...

Again, I apologize to the starter of this thread. It was not my intention to initiate this pitiful tea-pot (or is that 'tin-pot'?) tempest. 

JL


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 12, 2008)

Open your own thread if you cant stick with the origional subject.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 12, 2008)

Heres a compilation of British nuke tests.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5YAyglPQp4_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2008)

buzzard said:


> "KEEP ON TOPIC! WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD?"
> 
> And then in keeping in the spirit of your chastising demand, your next post is an ad hominem attack...Is this the role of the moderaters here, to make sure everyone toes the party line?
> 
> ...





Ya know I had a much longer response for this but after reading it a few times and considering you did apologize to the originator of this thread I'm not totally going to totally ban your silly @ss. The so called insults thrown at you were done so by your own doing. No one will dictate what kind of "party line" to tote here, there is a great majority of this membership who has great disdain towards the current US Presidential Administration, but their opinions are well thought and articulated - yours was transmitted in a manner that displayed contempt and stupidity.

If you wish to return and act civil, the floor is yours, if you wish to continue your rant, your stay here will be terminated. I do hope I've made myself abundantly clear.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 12, 2008)

Crystal...

I know the Brits are in the process of replacing the Trident D-5, where is the funding stand with this effort?


----------



## Glider (Jun 13, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Crystal...
> 
> I know the Brits are in the process of replacing the Trident D-5, where is the funding stand with this effort?



I don't know the position re total funding (I don't supose anyone does) but I do know that they are modernising and updating the facilities at Burghfield and Aldermaston. Presumably that would be the first step.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 13, 2008)

buzzard said:


> "KEEP ON TOPIC! WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD?"
> 
> Anyway, since my sardonic little post has resulted in nine ad hominem attacks against myself, I think I'm justified in responding (with apologies to the originater of the thread).
> 
> ...



As to being the authority on "all things aerodynamic"? Of course not, but certainly far better authority than you. You can cut and paste but you lack the subtlety of reasoning the 'physics' behind the quotes you pose to argue your point.. See definition of 'Bonehead" above for clarity.

I suggest you post a thread to further discuss qualifications on a.) bonehead, b.) Ad Hominem labelling, and c.) maintaining a high degree of 'knee jerk' emotional reactions to opinions or actions you don't either understand or like.

See definition of "maturity" for further clarification?

Regards,

Dr. Gon dog - former and future "Bonehead" 

No Degrees in it but lotsa experience - I know 'em when I spot 'em

Sorry for taking the thread off topic - will not make any more comments on 
Buszzard - ("an avaricious or unpleasant person" according to Webster's)


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 13, 2008)

I had seen facilities in Defense Technology magazine where they had inground tanks that were being used for the modernized missile testing to simulate undersea launches. I'll try to dig them up.

My question about the funding was related to the ongoing infighting in Parliament over defense spending. While some of the other high profile programs were seeing light of day with the press, I had not heard anything of recent related to the UK Trident updates.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 13, 2008)

I think if OSHA (and its British equivelant) had been around in the 40's ..... there would have been no atomic bomb.

Look at the complete lack of basic safety measures the troops dealt with on Christmas Island.

If the safety doctrine of 2008 was applied back then, nothing would have been attempted.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 13, 2008)

War expediency. It was not just the troops during testing. It was also US industry in its development. Just look at the various Manhattan Project cleanup sites that are ongoing today. A good example is just over the mountains from me at the Hanford nuclear reservation. They are still cleaning that place up.

Hanford Site - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------

