Stephen Schwartz
@atomicanalyst.bsky.social
Editor/Co-author, “Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of US Nuclear Weapons Since 1940” • Nonresident Senior Fellow, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists • Nuclear weapons expert (history, policy, costs, accidents) and tracker of the nuclear “Football.”
P.S. I still have Tsipis' book on my shelf.
November 13, 2025 at 2:20 AM
P.S. I still have Tsipis' book on my shelf.
The fundamental problems of space-based missile defense have not changed because physics has not changed.
And unless we're foolish enough to start preventive wars to try and stop Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran from ever attacking us, we must pursue political solutions to political problems.
And unless we're foolish enough to start preventive wars to try and stop Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran from ever attacking us, we must pursue political solutions to political problems.
November 13, 2025 at 2:20 AM
The fundamental problems of space-based missile defense have not changed because physics has not changed.
And unless we're foolish enough to start preventive wars to try and stop Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran from ever attacking us, we must pursue political solutions to political problems.
And unless we're foolish enough to start preventive wars to try and stop Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran from ever attacking us, we must pursue political solutions to political problems.
Back in August, I spotted a similarly very wrong caption on an atmospheric nuclear test photo over on Getty Images that was reproduced in the Wall Street Journal. Here's a short thread on how I tracked down the truth and how Getty responded:
According to the @wsj.com and its source, @gettyimages.com, the image in the post below is a photo of the “first test explosion of an atomic weapon, in Alamogordo, N.M., on July 16, 1945.”
Just one small problem. There’s only one good color photo of the Trinity test, and that ain’t it. This is:
Just one small problem. There’s only one good color photo of the Trinity test, and that ain’t it. This is:
November 12, 2025 at 11:32 PM
Back in August, I spotted a similarly very wrong caption on an atmospheric nuclear test photo over on Getty Images that was reproduced in the Wall Street Journal. Here's a short thread on how I tracked down the truth and how Getty responded:
Alamy.com has the same image as AP but labels it Buster-Jangle CHARLIE. No other details, unfortunately.
I agree CHARLIE and DOG are the best matches, based on time of day, cloud height, cloud dispersion, and cloud color, with a preference for CHARLIE based on stem width and the red cloud top.
I agree CHARLIE and DOG are the best matches, based on time of day, cloud height, cloud dispersion, and cloud color, with a preference for CHARLIE based on stem width and the red cloud top.
Operation Buster-Jangle Charlie 001 Stock Photo - Alamy
Download this stock image: Operation Buster-Jangle Charlie 001. - 2EFWABP from Alamy's library of millions of high resolution stock photos, illustrations and vectors.
www.alamy.com
November 12, 2025 at 10:35 PM
Alamy.com has the same image as AP but labels it Buster-Jangle CHARLIE. No other details, unfortunately.
I agree CHARLIE and DOG are the best matches, based on time of day, cloud height, cloud dispersion, and cloud color, with a preference for CHARLIE based on stem width and the red cloud top.
I agree CHARLIE and DOG are the best matches, based on time of day, cloud height, cloud dispersion, and cloud color, with a preference for CHARLIE based on stem width and the red cloud top.
In any case, the AP label is clearly wrong. That is absolutely not a subsurface test (which as we can see from the films produces very different results).
Still trying to find a match for an airburst in Nevada.
Still trying to find a match for an airburst in Nevada.
November 12, 2025 at 9:59 PM
In any case, the AP label is clearly wrong. That is absolutely not a subsurface test (which as we can see from the films produces very different results).
Still trying to find a match for an airburst in Nevada.
Still trying to find a match for an airburst in Nevada.
Here's another video of the ESS cloud. Hard to see how it would become the thin-stemmed mushroom cloud in the AP photo, especially as that photo was clearly taken shortly after detonation (as evidenced by the shockwave-disturbed dust rising from the ground ). www.sciencephoto.com/media/k00722...
November 12, 2025 at 9:50 PM
Here's another video of the ESS cloud. Hard to see how it would become the thin-stemmed mushroom cloud in the AP photo, especially as that photo was clearly taken shortly after detonation (as evidenced by the shockwave-disturbed dust rising from the ground ). www.sciencephoto.com/media/k00722...
This contemporaneous AEC film says the maximum cloud height was 10,500 feet 10 minutes after detonation (starting at 7:50):
Operation Teapot • Military Effects Studies (1955)
YouTube video by Nuclear Vault
www.youtube.com
November 12, 2025 at 9:41 PM
This contemporaneous AEC film says the maximum cloud height was 10,500 feet 10 minutes after detonation (starting at 7:50):
Here is an official National Nuclear Security Administration video commemorating the dismantlement of the last B53. Taking apart the approximately 36 B53s left in the stockpile required developing specialized tools and processes and took about a year, at an estimated cost of at least $40 million.
B53 Nuclear Bomb Dismantlement
YouTube video by National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
www.youtube.com
November 12, 2025 at 8:11 PM
Here is an official National Nuclear Security Administration video commemorating the dismantlement of the last B53. Taking apart the approximately 36 B53s left in the stockpile required developing specialized tools and processes and took about a year, at an estimated cost of at least $40 million.
The B53/W53 was a two-stage device with a highly enriched uranium pit. Its 9-Mt yield was equivalent to 600 Little Boy bombs. Originally designed to destroy cities across the Soviet Union, it was later targeted against deep underground Soviet command bunkers.
The last B53 was dismantled in 2011.
The last B53 was dismantled in 2011.
November 12, 2025 at 7:28 PM
The B53/W53 was a two-stage device with a highly enriched uranium pit. Its 9-Mt yield was equivalent to 600 Little Boy bombs. Originally designed to destroy cities across the Soviet Union, it was later targeted against deep underground Soviet command bunkers.
The last B53 was dismantled in 2011.
The last B53 was dismantled in 2011.
Even if our infrared early-warning satellites “missed” the launch, a long-enough radar track would allow us to determine the launch point (if not necessarily the country, if an ocean launch).
We have only 44 GBIs. In the film they (a) were overconfident and (b) chose to hold some back just in case.
We have only 44 GBIs. In the film they (a) were overconfident and (b) chose to hold some back just in case.
November 12, 2025 at 4:31 AM
Even if our infrared early-warning satellites “missed” the launch, a long-enough radar track would allow us to determine the launch point (if not necessarily the country, if an ocean launch).
We have only 44 GBIs. In the film they (a) were overconfident and (b) chose to hold some back just in case.
We have only 44 GBIs. In the film they (a) were overconfident and (b) chose to hold some back just in case.
A film dramatizing the serious 1950s fight between team pro-offense (LeMay, the Air Force/SAC, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, many AEC weapons scientists, and the congressional airpower caucus) and team pro-air defense (Oppenheimer, Lincoln Laboratory/MIT, the NSC, and the Army) might be interesting.
November 11, 2025 at 11:28 PM
A film dramatizing the serious 1950s fight between team pro-offense (LeMay, the Air Force/SAC, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, many AEC weapons scientists, and the congressional airpower caucus) and team pro-air defense (Oppenheimer, Lincoln Laboratory/MIT, the NSC, and the Army) might be interesting.
A realistic-looking exterior, but judging from how easily he picks it up, the satchel seems to be empty.
Also, check out Rhea Seehorn's face a second or so later:
Also, check out Rhea Seehorn's face a second or so later:
November 11, 2025 at 8:20 PM
A realistic-looking exterior, but judging from how easily he picks it up, the satchel seems to be empty.
Also, check out Rhea Seehorn's face a second or so later:
Also, check out Rhea Seehorn's face a second or so later:
"Brazil" was ahead of its time.
November 10, 2025 at 8:08 PM
"Brazil" was ahead of its time.
From this 1999 book, per standard operating procedure, "The fuzes were to be set to detonate the bomb at 1200 m above the water. After checking the river for shipping both visually and with radar, and on consultation with the aircraft commander and pilot, Major [Newton] Brown released the bomb ...."
November 10, 2025 at 7:39 PM
From this 1999 book, per standard operating procedure, "The fuzes were to be set to detonate the bomb at 1200 m above the water. After checking the river for shipping both visually and with radar, and on consultation with the aircraft commander and pilot, Major [Newton] Brown released the bomb ...."
See also his 2018 article about the need to determine if there is potentially serious radioactive contamination at Goose Bay resulting from plutonium pit maintenance activities conducted at the base during 1950-54:
The Canadian Forces may be ignoring a nuclear waste problem they may have in Goose Bay.
News blog about current military history, interesting events, and movements of military assets globally. Army, Navy, Air Force; not the party line.
www.vesselofinterest.com
November 10, 2025 at 3:41 PM
See also his 2018 article about the need to determine if there is potentially serious radioactive contamination at Goose Bay resulting from plutonium pit maintenance activities conducted at the base during 1950-54:
For more about US nuclear weapons deployed in Canada at Goose Bay during the Cold War, see this detailed, illustrated 2016 review by @steffanwatkins.bsky.social of the many buildings at the base associated with the US nuclear weapons mission:
Goose Air Base | (Nuclear) Weapons Storage Area
Building 1092 Earth Covered Magazine (representative of 1091-1095) Photo: Howard Haby (2010.04.05) I have the impression th...
campingcdn.blogspot.com
November 10, 2025 at 3:41 PM
For more about US nuclear weapons deployed in Canada at Goose Bay during the Cold War, see this detailed, illustrated 2016 review by @steffanwatkins.bsky.social of the many buildings at the base associated with the US nuclear weapons mission:
And even then—31 years later—the Department of Defense was exceedingly vague about exactly what had happened, or where this Broken Arrow had occurred.
November 10, 2025 at 3:41 PM
And even then—31 years later—the Department of Defense was exceedingly vague about exactly what had happened, or where this Broken Arrow had occurred.
It exploded at ~2,500 ft., scattering ~100 lbs. of uranium-238. Strategic Air Command covered up the incident (partly because nuclear weapons at Goose Bay were a secret), claiming the blast was a 500-lb. conventional practice bomb. The DoD did not officially confirm it was an atomic bomb until 1981.
November 10, 2025 at 3:41 PM
It exploded at ~2,500 ft., scattering ~100 lbs. of uranium-238. Strategic Air Command covered up the incident (partly because nuclear weapons at Goose Bay were a secret), claiming the blast was a 500-lb. conventional practice bomb. The DoD did not officially confirm it was an atomic bomb until 1981.
Got you covered:
Tonight in 1961, the experimental SL-1 reactor at the National Reactor Testing Station near Idaho Falls, Idaho, accidentally went prompt critical and exploded during a routine reactor restart maintenance procedure, killing operators John Byrnes (22), Richard Legg (26), and Richard McKinley (27).
America’s fatal nuclear accident you’ve never heard of
Around 9:10 p.m. on January 3, 1961, first responders rushed to the site of the Stationary Low-Power Nuclear Reactor Number One (or SL-1)…
medium.com
November 10, 2025 at 5:17 AM
Got you covered: