Comments on "Prevent Nuclear Terror"

This is a complex topic. Neither the article “Prevent Nuclear Terror” (as one of the NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering) nor the several dozen comments on it (as of today, 12-15-13), however, mention the U.S. Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) nor any technology-based strategy for science-based diplomacy to relieve international tensions over existence and possible use of nuclear weapons. Concerning the SSP part, this has program thrusts of computational simulation, fundamental scientific and engineering research, and improved nuclear (sub-critical) and non-nuclear experiments to assure the safety, security and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. Annual responsibility for doing this falls upon the shoulders of the directors of the U.S. national nuclear security labs (Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, and Los Alamos) who send Annual Assessment Letters to the secretaries of Energy and Defense and to the Nuclear Weapons Council. That is, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and responsible, effective, and timely means at the national level are thus needed to control this force for the sake of the safety and security of all mankind, not just Americans. Basic scientific and engineering research, then, can help in this regard. To break off just the piece of advanced supercomputing within the SSP, then, a recent, comprehensive review of or related to this topic is provided by the April 2013 issue of Los Alamos National Laboratory’s magazine, National Security Science, available online. This comment highlights only one of its eight articles, "Strategic Deterrence in the 21st Century" (pp. 42-51) by Admiral Richard W. Mies, United States Navy (retired). A quote from its section “"Guiding Principles for Strategic Force Reduction" reflects my own sentiments as a Viet Nam Era veteran and Life Member of the Military Officers Association of America as well as holder and user of a Ph.D. in physics earned in 1974: “There are a number of fundamental principles that should guide further strategic force reductions. First, we should continue to focus on arms control measures that directly and demonstrably enhance stability and reduce the risks of war. Stability—the lack of an incentive on either side to initiate major aggression or conflict, the assurance against being caught by surprise, the safety in waiting—rather than numerical parity is the most important criterion in assessing force structure and posture options. As Albert Wohlstetter wrote many years ago, “Relaxation of tensions, which everyone thinks is good, is not easily distinguished from relaxing one’s guard, which everyone thinks is bad.” Deterrence ultimately depends not on our capability to strike first, but on the assurance, we always have the capability to strike second.” That is, stability is key for having an effective national defense that works well enough that nuclear war can be removed from the table as an option for responsible but competing national governments to use whose overarching goal is global peace, not war. In turn, scientific knowledge can contribute to that stability, not only for certifying just what a fully detonable nuclear weapon is and does and how it ages and what can be done about that, but also on how to develop means to avoid irresponsible use of nuclear weapons technology including design and possible use of so-called dirty bombs without full nuclear detonation capability but with potential to radioactively and chemically contaminate and put out of service large land areas -- and put large populations at risk for long-term effects including cancers.

Do we have the technologies to detect nuclear wepons? If so why don't we have constent patrolls of drones with these devices incorporated into them. Then if we were to have an attak on the US we would be able to identify where and when it might hit based on its projectory.

I think it's important not to overlook social engineering when it comes to protecting ourselves. That invovles educating and providing alternatives to would be terrorists. There are better things than nuclear bombs that can be used to solve problems suffered by any people group. There are tons of technologies via the internet that we could use to promote commuication, awareness, democracy, human dignity, and actual aid. If we find better ways to engage our world in humanatarian ways, even fewer people are going to want to blow us up to begin with.

Send a missile to stop it in the air.

Whilst engineering and the application of technology to nuclear proliferation can have a mitigating effect, it is unlikely to contribute much to the problem of reducing nuclear terrorism.
Nuclear Terrorism is a extension of the power of the nation state. It is not wielded by groups or those the West defines as 'Terrorist'.
The engineering and scale of nuclear bomb making is enormous and commands much applied effort which is difficult to conceal.
So the proliferation to date (French assisted the Israelis, the Chinese, perhaps assisted Korea and Pakistan.. who knows who else is been playing.. ) is between state players.
The act of deploying a Nuclear bomb in the future is likely an act of a nation state. So the solution will not be found in engineering it will be found in the relations nations have with each other.
If the World continues to conduct it self as a cut-throat bazaar of limited resources and squabbles over the bounty nature affords, then the bounty as is now happening, is wasted in the creation of ever more ingenious methods of waging the grand old art of war against our fellow human beings.
These thoughts are offered by a semi retired handy-person from rural New Zealand with no formal tertiary education.
If the logical truth is available to me, why is it that the combined brains trust that runs this place doesn't get it? Co-operation not competition.
Have a lovely and bomb-free future, greg

I think it would be possible to develop radio sensing devices that can monitor the amount of energies coming from these hot rocks and sense when they are enriched. I have a re-occuring dream of a pile of hot rocks possibly uranium 238? that is apparently just sitting in one place but has been formed into fuel rods. It appears yellow and isn't really causing me any mentally energetic problems, however it does make me wonder if someone else is looking at it with me. Isn't it time we looked to other materials for nuclear power??? Perhaps Uranium and Plutonium are a little bit nasty compared to enriching other materials for energetic purposes. Isn't fission possible with other kinds of rocks or elements?

I can't imagine that this is not a basic thoght and in existence now.
Place a constellation of satelites detectors, a la GPS, to alarm any motion of radiation sources so that they can be investigated.
So, any engineering work towards this end would be helpful,such as smaller,more sensitive and simpler detectors, basic signatures of the sources to target, areas of the globe most likley to be target sources,

The world needs healers and thus for the destruction idea of nulear material or bomb can be such that if unauthorised personnel have access to the bomb then the auto setup sefusses the material to produce heat or so that they can't use it for their dangerous purposes untill authorised.But side by side we must find some method to convince various countries to submit their n bomb inventories to no external entities but their own peaceful purposes like power generation.
Other political approach can be that if some country surrenders its n bombs to its own peaceful needs then various countries can provide it a agreement of protection in case of war or so because it has surrendered its nbombs for peaceful reasons.
Lets pray that such ideas may reach the right hands at the right time and become realized.

I think like a material like iron can be distroyed by rust. Same we need an environment which we can project it at place where we find nuclear material exist and make it of no use.
It may be a crazy idea but if it is possible then we can save our planet from nuclear distructions.

half of this is completely ridiculous. the easy majority of nuclear reactors simply cannot produce bomb grade plutonium or uranium. reactors use relatively unrefined nuclear materials as opposed to bombs that require incredibly refined materials. and with nuclear inspectors from the un going around everywhere, reactors with enough power would be both in an easily recognizable set-up pattern and would also be three or four times bigger than a reactor should ever have to be. while nuclear terrorism is a thing to fear, chances of terrorists crafting their own billion-dollar reactor to churn out bomb grade materials is just incredibly unlikely... honest opinion: this article is chock full of bs.