<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Amchitka</title>
	<atom:link href="http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2790/amchitka/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2790/amchitka</link>
	<description>an ACW Network site</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:49:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will</title>
		<link>http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2790/amchitka#comment-824</link>
		<dc:creator>Will</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:56:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://armscontrolwonk.com/?p=2790#comment-824</guid>
		<description>Has the video been removed from the post?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Has the video been removed from the post?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: user_hostile</title>
		<link>http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2790/amchitka#comment-811</link>
		<dc:creator>user_hostile</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://armscontrolwonk.com/?p=2790#comment-811</guid>
		<description>Captain Ned,Wait till you see the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.srmsc.org/video/005003m0.wmv&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Sprint&lt;/a&gt;. I was in Mitchell county, NC in &#8217;99 and ran into a person who worked on the program with Bell labs.  He told me that designing the electronics to work at the high G&#8217;s was a major challenge.  Didn&#8217;t quite grasp it until I saw the video.  He and his wife run a pottery place in Penland, NC and said he was a lot happier playing with mud instead of missiles.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Captain Ned,Wait till you see the <a href="http://www.srmsc.org/video/005003m0.wmv" rel="nofollow">Sprint</a>. I was in Mitchell county, NC in &#8217;99 and ran into a person who worked on the program with Bell labs.  He told me that designing the electronics to work at the high G&#8217;s was a major challenge.  Didn&#8217;t quite grasp it until I saw the video.  He and his wife run a pottery place in Penland, NC and said he was a lot happier playing with mud instead of missiles.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anon</title>
		<link>http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2790/amchitka#comment-810</link>
		<dc:creator>anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 21:08:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://armscontrolwonk.com/?p=2790#comment-810</guid>
		<description>We didn’t build many but she was unique &amp; interesting to  assemble.

	-The Sugar &amp; Orange folks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We didn’t build many but she was unique &#038; interesting to  assemble.</p>
<p>	-The Sugar &#038; Orange folks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MK</title>
		<link>http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2790/amchitka#comment-809</link>
		<dc:creator>MK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:54:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://armscontrolwonk.com/?p=2790#comment-809</guid>
		<description>this from Amb. Meerburg:

 Thanks for this interesting story on Amchitka. I justed wanted to remind
you (but you probably know this already) that the test lead to the first
action of Greenpeace who were against the explosion because inter alia
it would disturb the sea otter.

	Yours sincerely,

	Arend J.Meerburg
former ambassador of The Netherlands</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this from Amb. Meerburg:</p>
<p> Thanks for this interesting story on Amchitka. I justed wanted to remind<br />
you (but you probably know this already) that the test lead to the first<br />
action of Greenpeace who were against the explosion because inter alia<br />
it would disturb the sea otter.</p>
<p>	Yours sincerely,</p>
<p>	Arend J.Meerburg<br />
former ambassador of The Netherlands</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Captain Ned</title>
		<link>http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2790/amchitka#comment-808</link>
		<dc:creator>Captain Ned</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:22:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://armscontrolwonk.com/?p=2790#comment-808</guid>
		<description>Ok, after reading the GS article it&#8217;s pretty clear that the 850,000 pounds meant everything they stuffed down the hole.

	That said, I&#8217;m still in awe of the acceleration capability of the Sprint missile.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, after reading the GS article it&#8217;s pretty clear that the 850,000 pounds meant everything they stuffed down the hole.</p>
<p>	That said, I&#8217;m still in awe of the acceleration capability of the Sprint missile.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Blankenbaker</title>
		<link>http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2790/amchitka#comment-807</link>
		<dc:creator>John Blankenbaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:31:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://armscontrolwonk.com/?p=2790#comment-807</guid>
		<description>To Captain Ned&#8217;s question above, I&#8217;m pretty sure the 850,000 pound figure represents not just the warhead and missile body, but the giant instrumentation package (which was 264 feet long!) that had to be lowered over a mile down the 90 inch borehole. 

	See 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w71.htm/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To Captain Ned&#8217;s question above, I&#8217;m pretty sure the 850,000 pound figure represents not just the warhead and missile body, but the giant instrumentation package (which was 264 feet long!) that had to be lowered over a mile down the 90 inch borehole. </p>
<p>	See<br />
<a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w71.htm/" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w71.htm/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Allen Thomson</title>
		<link>http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2790/amchitka#comment-806</link>
		<dc:creator>Allen Thomson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:27:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://armscontrolwonk.com/?p=2790#comment-806</guid>
		<description>IIRC, the reason for doing a full-yield test was that the intended kill mechanism required massive and &lt;strong&gt;directional&lt;/strong&gt; emission of x-rays from the weapon. Which, for reasons I could speculate about but won&#8217;t, probably required a very unconventional design of the secondary. I.e., they weren&#8217;t sure it would a) work at all and b) provide the desired x-ray emission.

	If you look at the picture of the W71 warhead on the Wikipedia page, there&#8217;s a cylinder at the large end of the device that I think is probably an x-ray window and maybe collimator next to the secondary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IIRC, the reason for doing a full-yield test was that the intended kill mechanism required massive and <strong>directional</strong> emission of x-rays from the weapon. Which, for reasons I could speculate about but won&#8217;t, probably required a very unconventional design of the secondary. I.e., they weren&#8217;t sure it would a) work at all and b) provide the desired x-ray emission.</p>
<p>	If you look at the picture of the W71 warhead on the Wikipedia page, there&#8217;s a cylinder at the large end of the device that I think is probably an x-ray window and maybe collimator next to the secondary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: C.D.</title>
		<link>http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2790/amchitka#comment-805</link>
		<dc:creator>C.D.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:35:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://armscontrolwonk.com/?p=2790#comment-805</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the post.  I&#8217;ve studied the Amchitka shots and find them very interesting.  Not to be a smart ass or anything, but in the YouTube video, the aerial shot that shows the ground shock moving away from ground zero was from Long Shot (10/29/65), not Cannikin.  

	&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/films/media/mpg/0800039.mpg&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Long Shot Video from Nuclear Testing Archive&lt;/a&gt;

	&lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=nksEAAAAMBAJ&amp;lpg=PA151&amp;ots=qd47qxZxfU&amp;dq=operation%20longshot%20nuclear&amp;pg=PA151#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Time Magazine Article&lt;/a&gt;

	Cheers!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the post.  I&#8217;ve studied the Amchitka shots and find them very interesting.  Not to be a smart ass or anything, but in the YouTube video, the aerial shot that shows the ground shock moving away from ground zero was from Long Shot (10/29/65), not Cannikin.  </p>
<p>	<a href="http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/films/media/mpg/0800039.mpg" rel="nofollow">Long Shot Video from Nuclear Testing Archive</a></p>
<p>	<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=nksEAAAAMBAJ&#038;lpg=PA151&#038;ots=qd47qxZxfU&#038;dq=operation%20longshot%20nuclear&#038;pg=PA151#v=onepage&#038;q&#038;f=false/" rel="nofollow">Time Magazine Article</a></p>
<p>	Cheers!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kyle Mizokami</title>
		<link>http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2790/amchitka#comment-804</link>
		<dc:creator>Kyle Mizokami</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:32:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://armscontrolwonk.com/?p=2790#comment-804</guid>
		<description>I used to work with a guy who was a retired LLNL nuclear weapons designer. (Actually I&#8217;m assuming that&#8217;s what he was, he didn&#8217;t really talk about it.)

	I don&#8217;t know how we got onto the subject, but he mentioned he&#8217;d been involved in the CANNIKIN test. He&#8217;d been to the very bottom of the shaft and said it was 130 degrees Fahrenheit down there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I used to work with a guy who was a retired LLNL nuclear weapons designer. (Actually I&#8217;m assuming that&#8217;s what he was, he didn&#8217;t really talk about it.)</p>
<p>	I don&#8217;t know how we got onto the subject, but he mentioned he&#8217;d been involved in the CANNIKIN test. He&#8217;d been to the very bottom of the shaft and said it was 130 degrees Fahrenheit down there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex W.</title>
		<link>http://krepon.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/2790/amchitka#comment-803</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex W.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:58:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://armscontrolwonk.com/?p=2790#comment-803</guid>
		<description>Amchitka is interesting as a major P.R. issue for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and US government, since the domestic political opposition was very strong to it as a specific nuclear test (rather than generalized anti-testing opposition). The AEC spent a lot of time in this period trying to decide how much information to release about it. They felt pretty strongly that if &#8220;the public&#8221; knew what it was for and why they were doing it, they would support it. 

	(This period was also when the AEC really began to lose its luster in the public eye along a number of fronts, and to increasingly find its paternalistic applications of expertise, and secrecy, under general attack. Brian Balogh&#8217;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=MD4cPQAmF7oC&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Chain Reaction: Expert Debate and Public Participation in American Commercial Nuclear Power, 1945-1975&lt;/a&gt; (1991) is a great source on this general development and its consequences.)

	The DOD of course was not interested in declassifying the information, even though it was clear that a lot of the information was already pretty well known by the general public, because one doesn&#8217;t want one&#8217;s enemies knowing the details of your defense systems.

	Here is an excerpt from a January 1971 memo that I found interesting. (Original memo is part of document NV0076111 in the Nuclear Testing Archive, Las Vegas, NV.) Written by Edward B. Giller (Major General, USAF, and AEC Assistant General Manager for Military Application) and Charles L. Marshall (Director, AEC Division of Classification), it is trying to argue the pros and cons about releasing the information, and strategizing on how to get the DOD to come around to AEC&#8217;s point of view:  

	&lt;blockquote&gt;
		Under these circumstances [of strong domestic opposition], we feel that we should do everything we reasonably can to increase public understanding of the need for and probable environmental effects of CANNIKIN. Providing the public with an official statement on the predicted yield and purpose of this test could be a step in this direction, a step which we feel might tend to decrease opposition to the test. Another consideration is the extent to which the yield and purpose of CANNIKIN are already known to the public. &#8230;
		As far as our announcement of an accurate predicted yield for CANNIKIN, again we must agree with the DOD that this might tend to remove the uncertainty in the minds of the USSR and Communist China as to the yield of the SPARTAN warhead. This information would be helpful to the Communist side in planning the employment of their strategic offensive forces. 
		Although yields have been published for many weapons program tests, it has not been the practice to announce the specific purpose of such tests in terms of which weapon system warhead was being tested. Thus, our declassification of both the yield and _ purpose _ of CANNIKIN might be considered as constituting a major AEC policy change. It should be pointed out, however, that in view of statements made by authoritative government sources, e.g., Senator Jackson and Dr. Wiesner, the purpose of the test at the Amchitka STS is for all practical purposes already unclassified. 
		Authoritative statements about the yield have been less clear but the multimegaton nature of the event has been publicly stated. &#8230; 
		We believe careful consideration should be given to their reasoning in this matter before further attempts are made by the AEC to convince the DOD that declassification of this information would be in the national interest. It is pertinent, however, to note that in view of the fact, as illustrated above, that the information involved here is essentially already in the public domain, there can be little or no effect now on the national defense, as a result of formal declassification.
		
	&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amchitka is interesting as a major P.R. issue for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and US government, since the domestic political opposition was very strong to it as a specific nuclear test (rather than generalized anti-testing opposition). The AEC spent a lot of time in this period trying to decide how much information to release about it. They felt pretty strongly that if &#8220;the public&#8221; knew what it was for and why they were doing it, they would support it. </p>
<p>	(This period was also when the AEC really began to lose its luster in the public eye along a number of fronts, and to increasingly find its paternalistic applications of expertise, and secrecy, under general attack. Brian Balogh&#8217;s <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=MD4cPQAmF7oC" rel="nofollow">Chain Reaction: Expert Debate and Public Participation in American Commercial Nuclear Power, 1945-1975</a> (1991) is a great source on this general development and its consequences.)</p>
<p>	The DOD of course was not interested in declassifying the information, even though it was clear that a lot of the information was already pretty well known by the general public, because one doesn&#8217;t want one&#8217;s enemies knowing the details of your defense systems.</p>
<p>	Here is an excerpt from a January 1971 memo that I found interesting. (Original memo is part of document NV0076111 in the Nuclear Testing Archive, Las Vegas, NV.) Written by Edward B. Giller (Major General, USAF, and AEC Assistant General Manager for Military Application) and Charles L. Marshall (Director, AEC Division of Classification), it is trying to argue the pros and cons about releasing the information, and strategizing on how to get the DOD to come around to AEC&#8217;s point of view:  </p>
<blockquote><p>
		Under these circumstances [of strong domestic opposition], we feel that we should do everything we reasonably can to increase public understanding of the need for and probable environmental effects of CANNIKIN. Providing the public with an official statement on the predicted yield and purpose of this test could be a step in this direction, a step which we feel might tend to decrease opposition to the test. Another consideration is the extent to which the yield and purpose of CANNIKIN are already known to the public. &#8230;<br />
		As far as our announcement of an accurate predicted yield for CANNIKIN, again we must agree with the DOD that this might tend to remove the uncertainty in the minds of the USSR and Communist China as to the yield of the SPARTAN warhead. This information would be helpful to the Communist side in planning the employment of their strategic offensive forces.<br />
		Although yields have been published for many weapons program tests, it has not been the practice to announce the specific purpose of such tests in terms of which weapon system warhead was being tested. Thus, our declassification of both the yield and _ purpose _ of CANNIKIN might be considered as constituting a major AEC policy change. It should be pointed out, however, that in view of statements made by authoritative government sources, e.g., Senator Jackson and Dr. Wiesner, the purpose of the test at the Amchitka STS is for all practical purposes already unclassified.<br />
		Authoritative statements about the yield have been less clear but the multimegaton nature of the event has been publicly stated. &#8230;<br />
		We believe careful consideration should be given to their reasoning in this matter before further attempts are made by the AEC to convince the DOD that declassification of this information would be in the national interest. It is pertinent, however, to note that in view of the fact, as illustrated above, that the information involved here is essentially already in the public domain, there can be little or no effect now on the national defense, as a result of formal declassification.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

