Surveillance network built to spot secret nuclear tests yields surprise scientific boon

[unhappycamper]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/surveillance-network-built-to-spot-secret-nuclear-tests-yields-surprise-scientific-boon/2014/01/01/ea9c126e-6f3a-11e3-b405-7e360f7e9fd2_story.html



Surveillance network built to spot secret nuclear tests yields surprise scientific boon
By Joby Warrick, Published: January 1 E-mail the writer

VIENNA — It records sounds that no human ear can hear, like the low roar of a meteor slicing through the upper atmosphere, or the hum an iceberg makes when smacked by an ocean wave.

It has picked up threats invisible to the human eye, such as the haze of radioactive particles that circled the planet after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011.

The engineers who designed the world’s first truly planetary surveillance network two decades ago envisioned it as a way to detect illegal nuclear weapons tests. Today, the nearly completed International Monitoring System is proving adept at tasks its inventors never imagined. The system’s scores of listening stations continuously eavesdrop on Earth itself, offering clues about man-made and natural disasters as well as a window into some of nature’s most mysterious processes.

The Obama administration hopes the network’s capabilities will persuade a reluctant Senate to approve a nuclear test-ban treaty that stalled in Congress more than a decade ago. Meanwhile, without the treaty and wholly without fanfare, new stations come on line almost every month.

[madrchsod]

1. the test ban treaty was never signed ?!

dam this country is still has`t grown up.

[PamW]

2. CTBT not in effect`

Last edited Thu Jan 2, 2014, 11:50 AM - Edit history (3)

President Clinton signed the CTBT Treaty in 1996; but when Clinton submitted the Treaty to the Senate in 1998, the Senate did not ratify it. There was concern at the time that the Dept. of Energy's "Science-based Stockpile Stewardship" program could not adequately assure the SAFETY of the USA's stockpile of nuclear weapons. One of the main reasons for nuclear testing was to assure that nuclear weapons would not go off accidentally in case of an accident. For example, the US Air Force mistakenly flew a half dozen nuclear warheads from North Dakota to Louisiana a few years ago. What if the B-52 had crashed? Nuclear testing made sure that even if the B-52 did crash, there would NOT be a nuclear explosion on US soil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weapons_incident

There is more confidence now in the Dept. of Energy's program now; it has been in effect since 1992. But in 1998, there were legitimate technical concerns in the US Senate about nuclear weapon safety. So the Senate did not ratify the CTBT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile_stewardship

So technically, the USA is NOT a signatory to the CTBT.

In addition, when the Clinton Administration wrote the CTBT Treaty, it specified 44 nations that either had nuclear weapons or were capable of developing them. Unless ALL those nations signed the Treaty; the Treaty would NOT go into effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty

That is where we are now. The USA and a handful of other of the 44 nations have not signed; so there is NO Treaty that prohibits the testing of nuclear weapons in effect.

The USA continues to observe the CTBT as if it were actually in effect; although legally it is not.

PamW

[kristopher]

3. Isn't that sweet. The Republican's were worried about safety

And those dumb old Democrats were their typical Greenie, anti science selves. Pam's recitation of events unsurprisingly overlooked a couple of points.

Vote to ratify CTBT 13 Oct. 1999

YEAs 48 (44D/4R)
NAYs 51 (51R)
Present 1 (1D - Byrd)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00325

1999: The Clinton Administration pushes for ratification
The South Asian nuclear tests led to intense efforts by the US Administration under President Bill Clinton to persuade India to join the CTBT now that it had successfully conducted nuclear weapon tests. In 1996, Pakistan announced it would sign the CTBT if India did, thus India’s signature would effectively bring both countries into the fold.

In the fall of 1997, President Clinton presented a ratification package to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Jesse Helms (Republican-North Carolina), Chairman of the Committee, opposed the Treaty and demanded that President Clinton send forth the Kyoto Protocol and amendments to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty to the Committee before agreeing to hold hearings on the CTBT. Aware that the Kyoto Protocol and the ABM Treaty amendments would likely face defeat if sent to the Committee, President Clinton delayed presenting the CTBT to the Committee until 1999.

Senate Democrats wanted to ensure that the deliberations on the Treaty allowed for proper consideration and adequate debate, and proposed scheduling a vote in March 2000. However, Senators Trent Lott (Republican-Tennessee) and Helms instead pressed for an earlier vote that would in effect constrain debate on the issue, predicting that a truncated period of deliberations would favour opponents of the Treaty.

1999: The US Senate rejects the Treaty

After attempts to negotiate more time for consideration of the Treaty failed, Senate Democrats finally agreed to Senator Lott’s “take it or leave it” offer to hold 14 hours of debate and vote as early as 12 October 1999. This decision was partially motivated by concerns that the Treaty would suffer defeat due to continued inaction.

Prior to the hearings, President Clinton assembled a team of advisors, cabinet members, nuclear weapons scientists, seismological experts and public interest organizations to rally support for the Treaty.

Treaty proponents sought to underscore the wide-ranging national security benefits to the United States by emphasizing the Treaty’s broad support amongst the military leadership and its top nuclear weapons scientists.

Opponents raised arguments against the Treaty pertaining to the possibility of monitoring a zero-yield test ban and the US ability to maintain its nuclear arsenal under the Stockpile Stewardship Program without testing. In the end, the limited deliberations precluded any opportunity to address these concerns sufficiently and it became clear that the Republicans would in fact vote against the Treaty. There were efforts to delay the vote, but Treaty proponents did not have the support needed to postpone it.

http://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/developments-after-1996/1999-2002-the-united-states-and-the-ctbt/

[PamW]

4. Glad SOMEBODY was concerned about SAFETY

As expected, the Senators of the then President's own party voted unanimously for ratification.

However, it is good that SOMEBODY was concerned about safety; after all these are nuclear weapons. I'm disappointed that some decided to make their decisions purely on political grounds.

As can be seen from the following, the first "Annual Certification" of nuclear weapons using the Stockpile Stewardship methodologies was done in February 1997:

https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug01/Tyler.html

The nuclear weapons laboratories only had one or two years worth of experience in certification of the safety of nuclear warheads using the new tools.

When the Lab Directors of the nuclear weapons design labs couldn't guarantee the Senate that Stockpile Stewardship would be able to assure the SAFETY of nuclear weapons, the CTBT's fate was sealed.

The Laws of Physics don't care about our politics. If the nuclear weapons had an undiagnosed safety issue; that safety issue wasn't going to go away just because the President or the Democratic Party wished it.

As much as I am loyal to the Party; I'm loyal to SCIENCE even more. Just as people shouldn't ask Churches and organized religion to resolve scientific questions; neither should we resolve scientific questions by resolving them via the political party.

Science needs to be resolved by scientists; and if the science wasn't ready; then it was STUPID for the Democratic Party to push the CTBT before the science was ready.

PamW

[kristopher]

5. Yes, we know how much you admire the Republicans ability to do science...

You've made that abundantly clear in post after post.

[PamW]

6. 100% WRONG

Actually BOTH political parties are pretty BAD at science.

They just are BAD in different ways. Essentially, both parties will cite science as the reason for some policy; when in actuality, it's just an excuse of convenience.

For example, Democrats aren't really interested in climate science for science sake. It's mainly an opposition to the Democrat's mortal enemy, business. When science says something that is anti-business, like the effluent from businesses is poisoning the planet, then the Democrats are all pro-science.

However, when the scientists say that the solution to that problem is nuclear power; then the Democrats DISOWN the scientists.

When scientists can provide the high-tech weaponry that the Republicans love; then the Republicans are cheerleaders for science.

If the scientists say that the Republican's beloved businesses are poisoning the planet; then the Republicans DISOWN the scientists.

So BOTH parties support / disown scientists depending on what the issues are.

NEITHER party is really pro-science or anti-science; they just use / abuse science for their own parochial political agendas.

PamW

[kristopher]

7. Agree with your Duke Nuke'em philosophy = good at science; anyone else doesn't know science

Which of course, is why you left out the party split in your earlier remarks.
Remind me again - the legislatures of the states that are trying to build nuclear plants, are they Republican or Democratically controlled bodies?

Georgia and South Carolina isn't it? And Texas too until they got caught lying about the price, right?

[PamW]

8. State legislatures don't matter...

kristopher,

The politics of the various States doesn't matter.

If anyone learned anything from the whole Vermont Yankee incident is that States have essentially ZERO power over whether nuclear power plants are constructed in their states.

The choice of building a nuclear power plant is up to the utility that wants to build it.

From there; the application is made to the NRC.

The States can only decide whether a power plant is needed or not. If the State takes into account that the plant is nuclear or not in their decision; then they run afoul of the LAW as written by the US Congress.

Besides; just like the US Government, the legislatures / Governors vary between the two parties.

It is simply NOT the case that Republican states have nukes and Democratic states don't; if you were attempting to imply that was the case.

PamW

[kristopher]

9. Then we'll say goodbye to Construction Work In Progress financing

... that those state legislators authorize the use of for nuclear financing and see what happens. (Not to mention all the other tax bennies they dish out for all large projects.)