[Tanny (OP)]

As I'm sure members know, the Manhattan Project was a huge effort by the U.S. government to develop nuclear weapons during WWII.  The project brought together huge resources, the most brilliant minds, and army discipline to keep the ball rolling forward as quickly as possible.   And of course, the project succeeded in accomplishing something unprecedented.

So the question of this thread is....

Should we have another Manhattan Project?  The new project would be just like the last one, but this time in reverse.   Should we apply huge resources, the most brilliant minds, and rigorous impatient breakneck speed discipline to the goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons?

How is the situation now really any different than what was faced in the 1940s, except that the threat today is even more pressing and urgent?

Suggested Rules For Discussion:  It's perfectly legit to challenge this proposal if the goal is to make it better.  It's also perfectly legit to seek to defeat this proposal if a member can replace it with something better.  Saying what's wrong and then walking away, not as interesting.

[Bored chemist]

Being the only country that has nukes was a tremendous advantage.
Being the only country that does not have nukes is not.

If you mean we should set up a system for the control and reduction of nuclear weapons internationally than that's a fine idea.
So good we did it ages ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

[Tanny (OP)]

Thanks, but not at all what I'm referring to. 

I'm referring to what we did in creating the bomb, an all out, no holds barred, every available resource brought to the table, all the brightest minds scooped up and put some place out in the desert where there's nothing to do but focus on the challenge until they overcome it.  A crisis, an emergency, highest priority etc, just like the original Manhattan Project. 

[guest39538]

Thanks, but not at all what I'm referring to. 

I'm referring to what we did in creating the bomb, an all out, no holds barred, every available resource brought to the table, all the brightest minds scooped up and put some place out in the desert where there's nothing to do but focus on the challenge until they overcome it.  A crisis, an emergency, highest priority etc, just like the original Manhattan Project. 

You are saying make a new sort of bomb that isn't nuclear?   Why not just use chemical warfare and be done .

[guest39538]

Anyway the best attack is really the best defence.  Anything using electronics can not fly through an E.M.P


Thank me later.

[Tanny (OP)]

You are saying make a new sort of bomb that isn't nuclear?   

Read the thread before slamming down on the reply button please.  Thank you!

[Bored chemist]

... getting rid of nuclear weapons

Do you understand that getting rid of nuclear weapons isn't a scientific problem?
(Or, at least, it's a much easier problem than getting rid of nuclear waste).

[Tanny (OP)]

Do you understand that getting rid of nuclear weapons isn't a scientific problem?

Do you understand that I'm going to stop reading your posts if you decline to put more meat on the bone?  This isn't Facebook, I'm not that interested in one liner gotchas.

If you can thoughtfully explain in some detail why scientists, some of the smartest people available, can not be put to work on this problem, please do so and I will listen.  I suggest thoughtfully so as to avoid any embarrassment to you, as I can already think of quite a few ways scientists might be productively put to use.  If you post them first, then you'll be out in front.

[Bored chemist]

" can not be put to work on this problem"
Because they are busy doing science.
The problem isn't a scientific one.
Your suggestion makes as much sense as putting all the musicians to work on the idea of writing a tune that will stop nuclear weapons.

Do you understand that the issue of nuclear weapons is a political one?
If you suggested putting all the politicians in a room until they worked out how to disarm, that would be reasonable.
Trying to get the scientists to do it is daft.

I don't feel I'm at risk of embarrassment here.

[Tanny (OP)]

I don't feel I'm at risk of embarrassment here.

Last chance to avoid that fate.  Trying to be civil and cooperative here.  Perhaps this will help....

Pretend that I made the case that scientists could NEVER!! help us get rid of nuclear weapons because they are too stupid etc, and I made that case in a loud boorish arrogant Trump-like voice.  You come along and read such a boastful ego saturated post from me, and get the itch to rip it to shreds.  How would you go about that?

[evan_au]

Should we apply huge resources, the most brilliant minds, and rigorous impatient breakneck speed discipline to the goal of getting rid of nuclear weapons?

The problem is not breakneck speed.

We could solve the problem tomorrow if we just had the guy with the suitcase and the proverbial Big Red Button not following the president around everywhere he goes. But that's not going to happen unless the US president is sure that the Russian president has fired his equivalent guy with the Big Red Button.

It would take a week to shut down the command and control centers,
- a month to bring back bring the back the people from the remote radar installations, recall the submarines and the remotely-sited nuclear bombers.
- Maybe a year to safely remove the warheads ready for recycling into fuel for nuclear reactors. And recycle some of the missile launchers into civilian launchers (or blow them up).

We know how to do all that. But it won't happen until you know that everyone else has already done it.

The problem is verification: How do you know that the other side has done it, if they won't let inspection teams from your side into their most sensitive and secret military installations - or even tell you where these installations are located?

That's why arms reduction must be done slowly, slowly - and why the most recent few rounds of nuclear arms reduction talks totally stalled - because of the lack of verification.

One news report I saw said that Trump feels that the existing nuclear weapons reduction treaty gives Russia an unfair advantage - possibly because it allowed Russia more tactical nuclear warheads - not a new argument.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_START#U.S._public_debate

[Bored chemist]

"Pretend that I made the case that scientists could NEVER!! help us get rid of nuclear weapons because they are too stupid etc, and I made that case in a loud boorish arrogant Trump-like voice.  You come along and read such a boastful ego saturated post from me, and get the itch to rip it to shreds.  How would you go about that?"

OK
I will pretend that's what you did.
You say"scientists could NEVER!! help us get rid of nuclear weapons because they are too stupid etc,"
Well, no Scientists won't do that because it's a political problem.
Once the people and the leaders decide to get rid of them  it's a  fairly straightforward process from a scientific point of  view.
first you separate the explosives from the nuclear material.
You might be able to re-purpose the explosives for demolition- otherwise it's just a matter of burning them.
The nuclear material can be used as fuel in a suitable built power station.

But, until the politicians get their act together , there's not a lot the scientists can do.

[Petrochemicals]

The manhatten project was proven technology taken up by the us government on behalf of the allies to win the war, others had nuke knowhow too, they just lacked the recources. Hitler had vast ammounts of recources doing wacky things and not such pleasant things, whilst his troops froze in russia, but this is besides the point. It has to be a proven technology.

What technology do you propose ?

There is the space propulsion, but its not going to get us anywhere (boboom tish!)

Green energy im sure much could be thought of and its quite pressing, fossil fules are already half gone i think, and were only speeding up.

Diseases and medicine if this where done militarily i bet it would speed up

It is true though if you implement it through government it will get the job done and it will happen!  As for nukes, stop worrying and love the bomb !

[Tanny (OP)]

The problem is verification: How do you know that the other side has done it, if they won't let inspection teams from your side into their most sensitive and secret military installations - or even tell you where these installations are located?

There you go, you've done it.  You've outlined the first challenge the New Manhattan Project should aim at.  There just might be a purely technical solution the brightest minds could apply themselves to, how to detect all nuclear material from space. 

I remind all of us that the first Manhattan Project also faced many large obstacles, and a very real risk of failure.  They didn't let that slow them down.  They didn't content themselves with listing all the many reasons it might not work.  They rolled up their sleeves, tackled the problem, and conquered it.  We could probably do the same, but first we need to get off our ass and recapture some of that "can do" spirit.

We spent at least a couple trillion dollars invading Iraq and Afghanistan.  The proposed Republican tax cut is projected to cost at least a trillion and a half.  The money is there, the expertise is there, it's only will and focus that we lack.   

[Tanny (OP)]

But, until the politicians get their act together , there's not a lot the scientists can do.

Keep reading and learn.

[evan_au]

how to detect all nuclear material from space

We do have satellites that can detect nuclear explosions from space - from gamma rays, the burst of light, or by photographing areas that have had suspicious seismic activity, looking for the telltale crater.

However, a passive nuclear warhead sitting in an underground silo, warehouse or underwater submarine emits very little radiation, and this is effectively shielded by the warhead packaging and thick layers of steel/rock/concrete/water. 150km of atmosphere adds considerably more shielding.

I agree that this is a worthy challenge - and one which all nations are spending a lot of money on, as we write.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_technical_means_of_verification

the first challenge

Now lets talk about the even bigger challenges.

Arms Race
If A increases (or improves) its arsenal, then B will increase (or improve) its arsenal.
If B increases (or improves) its arsenal, then A will increase (or improve) its arsenal.
This results in a ratcheting-up of nuclear weapons stockpiles.

This positive feedback loop produced the cold war, and today's excessive stockpile of nuclear weapons.
We have seen similar arms races in previous centuries, and they usually ended in tears.

Perhaps the only thing that has held it back in this case is:

I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones

Deadlock
A won't eliminate it's nuclear weapons until B has eliminated it's nuclear weapons.
B won't eliminate it's nuclear weapons until A has eliminated it's nuclear weapons.
This creates a "stickiness" that discourages any party from reducing its nuclear weapons.

Military Secrecy
A won't agree to any treaty where it can't verify B's actions (by means which it has publicly announced).
B won't agree to any treaty where it can't verify A's actions (by means which it has publicly announced).

A won't publicly announce it's verification capabilities in case B works out how to do it too (or, worse, block it).
B won't publicly announce it's verification capabilities in case A works out how to do it too (or, worse, block it).

B won't publicly announce that it knows about A's verification capabilities X, Y & Z (and is ready to block them), as A will cease relying on X, Y and Z, and will invent new methods (plus it will uncover B's spy assets).
A won't publicly announce that it knows about B's verification capabilities X, Y & Z (and is ready to block them), as B will cease relying on X, Y and Z, and will invent new methods (plus it will uncover A's spy assets).

So even when you do invent improved methods of verification, noone will admit to them, or write treaties invoking them, or actually use them to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles.

You actually need an international body (eg the UN CTBTO) which has responsibility for monitoring nuclear weapons tests - but be aware that it will never have support from any of the major powers, as anything their citizens invent will be immediately classified, withheld and used secretly. And the major powers will not approve deployment of any method which will reveal anything about their own capabilities.

Trust
It all comes back to the element of trust.
Intelligence agencies inherently don't trust anyone, because they expect that the other side is doing exactly what they are doing (and they probably are).

It is not helped if their politicians are xenophobic chauvinists who fear that everyone else is out to get them.

It really takes someone who is very trusting to make a unilateral offer of arms reduction (in a verifiable way), which will increase mutual trust, and allow for further nuclear reductions. And that won't happen under the current US presidency.

Organisations like the UN and EU are an opportunity for nations to cooperate and build trust, reducing the tensions that lead to an arms race.

Human Nature
This all brings it back to human nature.
While humans are aggressive to outsiders and sometimes over-tolerant to insiders, gross inequities will remain.
Would you like to bring the clerics in on this?

[Tanny (OP)]

Thanks for your ongoing engagement evan_au.  A few responses....

1) A New Manhattan Project must have the same mindset as the first one, there must be that same relentless determination to get the job done.  As example, listing obstacles is good if the purpose of that process is to identify the problems which must be solved, and then set about solving them.  If the purpose of listing obstacles is to convince ourselves that nothing can be done, then we are not honoring the winning spirit of the first Manhattan Project.

2) None of the great powers benefit from nuclear stockpiles.  As example, nobody is going to launch a land invasion of the U.S., Russia or China.  The U.S. is too strong conventionally and too far away from any potential invaders, and the other countries are simply too large.  But what could happen to each of those countries is that they be bombed in to dust within a few minutes.

3) We've already reduced stockpiles considerably, so apparently the great powers are satisfied with verification to some degree.  There's no good reason why that process shouldn't continue.  There's no meaningful difference between dropping 500 nukes on a country vs. 1500.

4) Even if a New Manhattan Project failed miserably for all the reasons you list and more, it would still be a useful exercise.  Such an effort would further illustrate that it's a lot easier to create things than un-create them, which should give rational people a great deal of pause about rushing forward in an unrestrained manner based on the outdated "more knowledge is better" paradigm.

To me, that's the heart of it.  The simplistic "more is better" relationship with knowledge which served us well for so long has been made obsolete by the success of the knowledge explosion.  A new environment has been created and we need to adapt to it, like it or not, do or die.   

If the accelerating nature of the knowledge explosion is allowed to continue unedited we're going to have to keep on adapting, faster and faster and faster.  The Trump election serves as a pretty good example of what's likely to happen as more and more people fail to keep up with the accelerating pace of change.

[Tanny (OP)]

Would you like to bring the clerics in on this?

Sure, especially if you're willing to discuss the "science clergy" too. We used to have a kind of blind faith relationship with the religious clergy, and now many of us have shifted that over to the scientific community.  The target of our authority worship may be different, but the process is essentially the same.  We don't want to think things through ourselves, so we outsource the job to somebody else who claims to have The Answer.

This might be ok, if the authority we chose to follow had the right answer.  Sadly, this appears not to be the case with the science clergy.  Most of the science clergy have devoted themselves to the "more is better" relationship with knowledge paradigm, a form of racing blindly towards a cliff.   

If we are to discuss clergy, it might be most productive to aim the lens at those parts of ourselves which create clergies, whether religious or scientific. 

[Bored chemist]

But, until the politicians get their act together , there's not a lot the scientists can do.

Keep reading and learn.

OK, I learned.
Specifically, I learned that you don't recognise what is easy, and has already been technically "solved".

There you go, you've done it.  You've outlined the first challenge the New Manhattan Project should aim at.  There just might be a purely technical solution the brightest minds could apply themselves to, how to detect all nuclear material from space. 

That's a trivial problem. The solution is to just allow anyone who wants to, to go and have a look.

The issue is that some politicians are not going to accept it.

Also, any technology that could be used for nuclear verification could be used for other things- like industrial espionage, or even just traditional espionage.


Even allowing for the political "awkwardness" of this approach; it is already done to a degree.
There are people working on it
http://www.nti.org/about/projects/international-partnership-nuclear-disarmament-verification/

And yet- even though the "technology" is simple- the mark 1 eyeball- we are unable to do  it properly because of politics.

So, once again. until the politicians get their act together , there's not a lot the scientists can do.

(Incidentally science tells me that nuclear radiation will not penetrate the atmosphere well enough for me "to detect all nuclear material from space.  " and it would be a forlorn target anyway. Uranium and thorium are widely distributed in nature. Any sensible country could simply move their stock to somewhere that is naturally radioactive.

The only way to truly verify is to get close.
That's technically very easy- get a helicopter.
However it's politically impossible- the Russians won't allow the Americans to fly round Russia in choppers and vice versa.

So, once again. until the politicians get their act together , there's not a lot the scientists can do.

[Tanny (OP)]

So, once again. until the politicians get their act together , there's not a lot the scientists can do.

Scientists are powerless, useless, unable to contribute much of anything to the most important issue facing humanity today.  We should just forget about the scientists being any help, there's no point in even talking about them, or to them either.  What can they do?  Nothing.  Nothing at all.  They can get us in to lots of trouble, but they can't get us out. 

It's all the politicians fault that Einstein and others learned about the atom.  It's all the politicians fault that scientists keep selling the "more is better" relationship with knowledge, and look down their snooty noses at anyone who dares challenge that status quo.  It's all the politicians fault that scientists keep opening more and more sections of Pandora's box, with little idea what might pop out, or what dangers that might entail.

It's all the politicians fault.  No, wait, not all politicians, just Trump.  Yes, that's right, just Trump.  Wait, not all of Trump, just his butt, which he has confused with his brain.  Yes, we've got it now, it's all Trump's butt fault.  Here's photographic proof!