[R_G]

So apparently there's been over 2,000 nuclear bomb tests done over the 1945-1995 time period.

Why?

You'd think by at least the 1960s the nuclear fallout issues were addressed and hence wouldn't it be considered a rarity to test a bomb?

What's most shocking is France testing 210 bombs, WHY?? That's the third most of any country.

And while I do realize using bombs underground to limit fallout, it's still not great and that soil is fucked for the next 70-80 years.

Meanwhile there were a ton of water tests which I think were beyond retarded.

[youtube]cnDFcDEsm4c[/youtube]

[Wolfman]

I'm probably wrong in saying this, but I think I've been told that nuclear warheads degrade over time, so you can either spend a large amount of money keeping them ready to go, or you can set them off in a "test" when it becomes obsolete.

[R_G]

I'm probably wrong in saying this, but I think I've been told that nuclear warheads degrade over time, so you can either spend a large amount of money keeping them ready to go, or you can set them off in a "test" when it becomes obsolete.

[url=http://www.nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/studies-show-plutonium-degradation-u.s.-nuclear-weapons-will-not-affect-reli]Warhead aging.[url]

Overall, the weapons laboratories studies assessed that the majority of plutonium pits for most nuclear weapons have minimum lifetimes of at least 85 years.

Interesting. Again, by the 1960s I believe these kinks were worked out. I mean half of these tests were done after the 60s.

[Wolfman]

The nuclear material is one thing. What about the rest of the equipment in the missile? You know how you're supposed to change your oil every so many miles or after a year? Same principle. Even if you aren't using a piece of equipment doesn't mean it doesn't need to be maintained. And if after 20 or 30 years there's a more advanced missile available, why even bother keeping the old model ready to go? Why not just shot the bitch off?

[AuContraireVoltaire]

Even more unbelievable is why certain nations continue to spend so much on stockpiling massive arsenals of Nuclear weapons. Ten is enough to obliterate the Earth chaps.

[Captain Sam]

Even more unbelievable is why certain nations continue to spend so much on stockpiling massive arsenals of Nuclear weapons. Ten is enough to obliterate the Earth chaps.

Far more than ten would be needed to cause a nuclear winter.

[AuContraireVoltaire]

Far more than ten would be needed to cause a nuclear winter.

Excuse me? Do you have video evidence of these Nuclear explosions you have seen which have determined your assessment so clearly and definitively?

[Captain Sam]

Your assumption is based on watching videos of nuclear explosions?
The amount of soot that would be required to cause a nuclear winter would be immense. Hundreds of bombs, maybe thousands would need to be simultaneously dropped.
Ten is nothing.

[R_G]

Maybe he's speaking continental Europe.

Ten bombs the magnitude of the Tsar bomb would essentially destroy Europe, if not on a physical scale then surely by radioactive winds.

BTW, how creepy is this?

[AuContraireVoltaire]

Your assumption is based on watching videos of nuclear explosions?
.

What? No!

[roxunreal]

Ten is enough to obliterate the Earth chaps.

Ridiculous.

BTW, how creepy is this?

These craters are from underground testing on the Nevada Test Site, the surface collapsing because of the underground explosions. Had these been atmospheric tests the US would have a bit of a radioactive predicament on their hands.

[J Oswald]

Even more unbelievable is why certain nations continue to spend so much on stockpiling massive arsenals of Nuclear weapons. Ten is enough to obliterate the Earth chaps.

That makes no logical sense. Ten nuclear weapons fired = ten destroyed cities and close suburbs. The amount of dust produced by ten weapons would not result in nuclear winter.

Considering that we've had more than 10 nuclear weapons tests throughout history, we can already see that this claim is rubbish.

[roxunreal]

[youtube]856fWEltiXo[/youtube]

Here's a nice visual reference.
This is an animation on a world map of all the known nuclear explosions that ever happened on Earth excluding the North Korean ones. The vast majority were underground detonations.

[R_G]

These craters are from underground testing on the Nevada Test Site, the surface collapsing because of the underground explosions. Had these been atmospheric tests the US would have a bit of a radioactive predicament on their hands.

U.S. Atmospheric Testing

Couldn't find the actual number but pretty sure it was roughly 50+ atmospheric tests in Nevada and the Atolls.

Though the Americans claim the radiation levels were minute..


Also, you posted the same video as in the OP.

[Cookie Monster]

So apparently there's been over 2,000 nuclear bomb tests done over the 1945-1995 time period.

Why?

There are numerous explainable and unexplainable reasons to the why. It does indeed seem insane to continue such practice which great economic costs, environmental damage and little political coinage (especially in the later years of the cold war and the post-cold war era). Luckily, with some exceptions, it is becoming the norm not to test nuclear weapons anymore. And when the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty enters into force, it will consolidate this norm as an international rule. The numerous detection stations established by the Treaty already make it impossible to secretly test nuclear weapons anymore. And taking into account the life-span of nuclear weapons, as Wolfman had already noted, the Treaty can effectively end not only the testing but also the existence of nuclear weapons in the following century, provided the Treaty enters into force of course.

[Typhoon]

, provided the Treaty enters into force of course.

And remains in force, limited testing will and probably should resume the moment nations feel that current nuclear weapons may be at the end of their warrenty period, though the use of existing designs and remanufacturing of older weapons should limit the need to test.

[Cookie Monster]

And remains in force,

Of course, but from a legal point of view that needs no mention. The Treaty remains in force once it has entered into force. And as this Treaty will become a cornerstone of international peace and security, its demise could only occur in circumstances akin to those leading to a world war.

limited testing will and probably should resume the moment nations feel that current nuclear weapons may be at the end of their warrenty period,

At the moment the test-ban is a non-binding norm, so the danger indeed exists that a nuclear-test race is triggered if current arsenals expire their warranty period before the entry into force of the Treaty. However, current arsenals are expected to last long enough for the international community to advance the ratification of the Treaty. The main challenges, rather, are to achieve nonproliferation and disarmament in the DPRK, to introduce/expand safeguards, controls and verification mechanisms in the Indian subcontinent without undermining the NNPT regime, to secure nonproliferation in the Middle East and to satisfy the needs of the developing world for nuclear energy under IAEA aegis.

though the use of existing designs and remanufacturing of older weapons should limit the need to test.

That indeed remains a problem but States are not eager to rely on untested weapon systems and even those based on existing designs could become questionable because of the lingering threat of advancement in (anti-)ballistic technologies.