- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 7,466
- Reaction score
- 2,083
- Location
- North Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
You really have no clue how a nuclear weapon works do you?
You only need about 40lbs of HEU, which is the step they are at now... they either reconfigure their known plants or they have something set up elsewhere... take 4-6 months max to process what they have.
And fatman was bulky because of the era... we didn't know better... explosives were different... a fission bomb is at the heart of every one of our modern nuclear weapons... it don't take much set one off.
YouTube - M65 Recoiless Nuclear Rifle
Do you really think it's much secret how that thing works?
And using that you could attempt a multistage fusion weapon....
And 40lbs is for an inefficient weapon.in Italics: No freaking clue.
in Bold: Hey! It seems that we agree that is silly to think that Iran would use a nuclear weapon as it seems just so g'd easy to create, and use, that if there were to be a nuclear weapon used it was going to have already been done...
Nuclear weapon design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaFat Man, the Nagasaki bomb, used 13.6 lb (6.2 kg, about 12 fluid ounces in volume) of Pu-239, which is only 39% of bare-metal critical mass. (See Fat Man article for a detailed drawing.) The U-238 reflected, 13.6 lb (6.2 kg) pit was sub-critical before detonation. During detonation, criticality was achieved by implosion. The plutonium pit was squeezed to increase its density by simultaneous detonation of conventional explosives placed uniformly around the pit. The explosives were detonated by multiple exploding-bridgewire detonators. It is estimated that only about 20% of the plutonium underwent fission, the rest (about 11 lb (5.0 kg) or 5 kg) was scattered.
You really have no clue how a nuclear weapon works do you?
You only need about 40lbs of HEU, which is the step they are at now.
they either reconfigure their known plants or they have something set up elsewhere... take 4-6 months max to process what they have.
And fatman was bulky because of the era... we didn't know better... explosives were different
a fission bomb is at the heart of every one of our modern nuclear weapons... it don't take much set one off.
Do you really think it's much secret how that thing works?
And using that you could attempt a multistage fusion weapon....
And 40lbs is for an inefficient weapon.
And that was a wasteful pure fission weapon. Most of the weight was the conventional package around the weapon.
Did you know South Africa once had fully functional nuclear weapons?
Also, to make weapons grade plutonium U235 is used in the reactor.
So any hoots, it's not so much that a nuclear weapon is hard to build, it ain't.
Nope they just have Al-Qaeda operating in their country. But I guess that isn't a concern of yours is it since Pakistan is a nuclear country.
Given how the U.S. deals with nuclear (and terrorist supporting countries) like Pakistan, it is no wonder why every ME country wants nukes.
It is most likely Osama Bin Ladin is in Pakistan, why doesn't the U.S. do something about it? Oh yeah, they have gone nuclear.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make that connection and why every country wants to go nuclear.
Hmm. What did I say?
There are those here that will -never- comdemn Iran for building a bomb.
These people fall into two groups:
Those that believe the US is the cause of most problems in the world;
Those that look forward to the destruction of Israel.
No one makes nukes out of LEU, you take that and enrich it...Given the numerous posts here, I do know how it works. What is clear is that you clearly don't have a clue.
Incorrect. The step they are at is about 1,000 + lbs of LEU, which as Arch pointed out can be made into a weapon by excessive use of neutron deflectors and shaped charges. The problem with that is largely weight.
You clearly don't understand the difference between LEU and HEU and what they both entail in producing a weapon.
That's why you further enrich the uranium... and yeah most of Fat man was the CONVENTIONAL side. Note the Davy Crockett weapon I showed you in that fun video... it's 180lbs.Hardly. Fatman is fundamentally no different then what Iran is doing aside from being plutonium rather then uranium based. And explosives weren't difference. The same principles for shaped charged and neutron deflectors are the same as today abet with better milling processes. To produce a weapon from LEU would require huge amounts of additional shaped charges and deflectors, all adding additional weight.
That's why they won't use LEU.. they'll refine it further... durrrr.Like I said, Iran's going to need a semitruck to deliver such a weapon.
Really... they aren't? You sure? Got proof?That's because our weapons are fusion based and fusion does not occur at room temperature. A fission reaction is required to produce the correct level of temperature to allow fusion to occur. Iran is not building a fusion weapon.
It's really not a big deal, the physics are straight forward... it's just a matter of getting the material to implode fast enough and retain it's shape.You do realize that weapon was more or less suicide for whoever used it no? Furthermore, the yield on such a weapon was absolutely tiny compared to what we have today. Not to mention that the weapon was an implosion type. Being a single millimeter off in a shape charge will cause the weapon to fail. It's quite a feat of engineering that we actually managed to build such a small implosion type weapon in the first place.
I believe my point was that it doesn't take much to start a fission reaction, and a multi-stage thermonuclear weapon... you really think they are very big? MIRV's were small, thermonuclear warheads... 150-250kt yields... small fission triggers... it really doesn't take that much to kick off a fusion reaction.Come again? You think that a .1 kiloton blast could produce the necessary heat to sustain a fusion reaction from large amounts of HEU?
It would be bigger then a .1-.3kt, but not much, again the point was to show how small a nuke could be. Hell we had made nuclear land mines with yields up to 15Kt...MAYBE. But it's real questionable that such a small fission reaction will produce sufficient neutrons among other radiation necessary to cause fusion.
I also find it hilarious you believe Iran is somehow rationale, and wouldn't ever use a nuclear weapon...
There is way more evidence to suggest that America would be the first to use a nuclear weapon.
Hmm. What did I say?
There are those here that will -never- comdemn Iran for building a bomb.
These people fall into two groups:
Those that believe the US is the cause of most problems in the world;
Those that look forward to the destruction of Israel.
Yes, and this is based on....
Oh nothing. Nice thought though.
Iran, terrorist sponsors... calls for the destruction of Israel and the USA... pushing a Nuclear Program and refuses to stop... but hey, the REAL threat is the USA!
Based on the fact that America's the only country in the history of civilization to use an atomic weapon, and not just one, but two......
I suppose Germany is likely to invade France again. And Japan will attack Pearl Harbor again. And Russia will have a Czar again. I mean based on the fact these nations did these things before it MUST mean they are more likely to happen again.
OR: There's more to it than that. Am I right?
I never said that *I* believed America will nuke (infact, I have made it apparent that *I* believe that nobody is going to nuke anybody). I just say that base on straight up historical statistics on atomic weaponry, America is the only one with a history of using it.
FFS.
So which is it?
1) Irrelevant to the debate.
2) A red herring.
3) Begging the question.
Are you claiming that you did not say that the US will be the most likely to use a nuke in the future than Iran based on the fact the US used them in WW2?I nobody is crazy enough to use a nuclear weapon.
Prove what wrong, exactly? It appears you just changed your claims.Prove me wrong. Please.
I think that's the only time a nuclear weapon, or predecessor to a nuclear weapon (as to even compare the damage caused by those dropped on Japan, and those in our arsenal now is quite silly), will ever be used. Everyone knew it was going to be horrible, but nobody knew to what extent--exactly.Are you claiming that you did not say that the US will be the most likely to use a nuke in the future than Iran based on the fact the US used them in WW2?
Prove what wrong, exactly? It appears you just changed your claims.
I think that's the only time a nuclear weapon, or predecessor to a nuclear weapon (as to even compare the damage caused by those dropped on Japan, and those in our arsenal now is quite silly), will ever be used. Everyone knew it was going to be horrible, but nobody knew to what extent--exactly.
You can't prove your claim is true. That's why your claim is silly and useless.Prove me wrong! That a nation-state will use a nuclear weapon.
This has nothing to do with your previous claim that the US is more likely to use a nuke based solely on the fact that the US used nukes to end WW2.
If you mispoke or misworded that's fine. But your above post is a non-sequitor in regards to my post..
You can't prove your claim is true. That's why your claim is silly and useless.
But here goes:
1) You cannot predict the future.
2) Thus you cannot prove that a nation-state will not use a nuclear weapon.
3) Therefore, your statement is not true.
That was simple. :lol:
the following is what I had an issue with:Oh come on. Read my posts.
I said that I, personally, do not think America will use a nuke (nor will any nation-state; extremist organizations are slightly different, but one should be more worried about small-pox and other biological attacks).
I would argue that the US has shown unwavering restraint regarding nuclear weapons given the many circumstances where use was applicable.But, I do think that, based on history, that America is the only one with the record of using atomic weaponry
...
I said "based on history,I think that America has the best credentials to Nuke (given her record)".
the Iranian regime is nearly as unpredictable and irrational as crazy Kim in N Korea. Make no mistake.I don't think I can predict the future. I am just simply stating that the statement "If Iran gets a nuclear arsenal, then Israel is screwed" (which is a summation of all the fears) is trying to predict the future.
it sure walks like a duck.... (Continued later)I know I know, there's the whole "Islamo-Fascist" Iranian government spelling disaster for Israel. My beliefs are that it's just rhetoric; political bull****; that Iran is trying to flex.
Then why the rhetoric? What is their goal? The answer to that question is far more concerning.The Iranians don't support the elimination of Israel.
uh yea. That's not an accident. Its designed that way. And adhinamijaday isn't a wackjob. He knows exactly what he's doing. And he's damn good at it. The regime has practiced hard to develop strong propaganda skills and its having an effect.Hell, to most muslims it is religion first, then it is politics. The Ayatollah seems to have more influence on the people then that wack-job in the "Presidency".
...it also quacks like a duck. :mrgreen:Just trying to state that people are irrationally fearful
Applicable? Any situation is applicable you've got to be more specific.the following is what I had an issue with:
I would argue that the US has shown unwavering restraint regarding nuclear weapons given the many circumstances where use was applicable.
Where does the nuclear soviet union fit onto your chart of irrationality?the Iranian regime is nearly as unpredictable and irrational as crazy Kim in N Korea. Make no mistake.
They are opposing the west and her influence. It is what is hot in the Middle East/ former Persian territory. Helped Al Quedia's requirement.Then why the rhetoric? What is their goal? The answer to that question is far more concerning.
uh yea. That's not an accident. Its designed that way. And adhinamijaday isn't a wackjob. He knows exactly what he's doing. And he's damn good at it. The regime has practiced hard to develop strong propaganda skills and its having an effect.
...it also quacks like a duck. :mrgreen:
There are consequences for every action. I doubt whether we could come to a conclusion about "what-if" we used nukes. Suffice it to say we have not used nukes since WW2 and the opportunities in conflicts from Korea to Cuba have presented themselves, nonetheless.Where does the nuclear soviet union fit onto your chart of irrationality?
That is the end game? Just leave us alone? If we just stopped "influencing" the ME everything would be fine? Hmmm... i don't think so.They are opposing the west and her influence. It is what is hot in the Middle East/ former Persian territory.
E.G. launching long range missiles while openly developing nuclear weapons and being hyperagressive toward S Korea. The obsession of the Kim regime to reunite the peninsula at great expense of life, liberty, and money could be diagnosed as "crazy", yes.So Iranian President is sane, and Kim is insane.. oh okay.
They was one way to ***** foot around the answer to my question.There are consequences for every action. I doubt whether we could come to a conclusion about "what-if" we used nukes. Suffice it to say we have not used nukes since WW2 and the opportunities in conflicts from Korea to Cuba have presented themselves, nonetheless.
You are drawing connections that are not there.That is the end game? Just leave us alone? If we just stopped "influencing" the ME everything would be fine? Hmmm... i don't think so.
This is not even getting into the whole world economy problem.
E.G. launching long range missiles while openly developing nuclear weapons and being hyperagressive toward S Korea. The obsession of the Kim regime to reunite the peninsula at great expense of life, liberty, and money could be diagnosed as "crazy", yes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?