Nuclear Weapons

There is a huge difference between Chernobyl and a "limited" nuclear war or even a simple nuclear strike. The difference is between tons of nuclear material at Chernobyl to pounds (kilos) of nuclear material in a modern nuclear weapon. The material at Chernobyl was not consumed by the meltdown but in a weapon much of it is consumed to create the kinetic explosion. A nuclear strike is "cleaner" than a melt down by far. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki where is a better illustration than Chernobyl. They are thriving cities WITHOUT any significant increases in cancer or other diseases associated with long term exposure of radiation. As for North Korea and the economy...North Korea has no part in the world economy to speak of. In fact, after the communist government were blown off the planet I am sure that a unified Korea would kick their economy into the best they have seen in half a century.

For the rest of you; think outside the box. A bomber dropping a bomb? Think a privately owned aircraft that could carry a few thousand pounds. Don't worry about the return flight, there will be none. Think about a fishing boat or an RV. Like I said the more modes that are changed the more likely that we catch on. By far the easiest way is by boat but don't think that we are not monitoring every boat that comes out of North Korea.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/...tes/?hpt=hp_t2

The material (uranium) is pretty abundant all over the world but the separation of the constituent isotopes U235/U238 is a major hurdle. Now that the Germans no longer sell the required equipment to rogue regimes I doubt you'll see any new nuclear club members. The Germans and to a lesser degree the French helped Pakistan, N. Korea and Iran into nuclear powers by selling them centrifuges for separation and material handling equipment. We should include Germany and France in the trade sanctions and embargoes until they solve the problems they knowingly created for profit.

To build a bomb that will fit on a rocket you need plutonium. Plutonium doesn't occur naturally but is a byproduct of a standard or breeder type reactor. N. Korea and Iran both have breeder reactors and both are now trying to accumulate enough plutonium to get into the bomb delivered by rocket business ....... We are not sure how far along either one is on the road. Either one or both may be there by now. Separating the plutonium from the rest of the byproducts of fission is another long and difficult technical hurdle that requires lots of German equipment. Iran was set back years when the US introduced a computer virus into the controls of Iran's German centrifuges that caused them to spin out of control until they self destructed. Brilliant stuff CIA!

Iran and Pakistan both have purchased their rocket technology from N. Korea and it's not very good. It's so bad at this point that one of the biggest technical problems to date has been trying to build a glass bottle big enough to hold their ICBMs' wooden stick (humor). If they do try to attack us it won't be by rocket ......... my guess is it'll be by ship or less likely trucks from Mexico or Canada. There's no chance of a plane or jet making it through our defenses but there's a very good chance a small commercial or fishing ship could dock or that a large cargo carrier with a rigged cargo container aboard could succeed. Another reason they'll chose this scenario is it can be covert. Not even the Mullahs in Iran are crazy enough to risk an overt nuclear attack on the US ........ yet.

Now if I wanted to attack the US there are a number of non-nuclear concentrations of potential chemical energy that would approximate the energy yield of Fat Boy and could be easily taken and exploded with devastating results. Some of the larger LNGs (ships that carry liquefied natural gas) that are found at all of our major ports could be easily taken by a SEAL type team and with only a small amount of an easy to buy chemical and a flashlight for ignition become horrific bombs. Homeland Security inspects the wheelchairs of the elderly at airports (hundreds at risk of event) but has yet to put armed guards on the LNGs (millions at risk of event).

Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki .... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Must you keep showing your ass? Those were "atomic" blasts ..

.. this Earth has never had an uncontrolled hurling of nuclear weapons across borders! Or a "controlled" one for that matter.

Period.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushi...adiation/28870



The "propoganda pablum" you consume causes brain dysfunction.

delete

Note: My use of "nuclear warheads" in comparison to atomic bombs is making a distinction between "hydrogen" bombs and "atomic bombs" ... that the comparative devastation of two the the "after-life" of the contamination. Environmentally a nuclear pissing contest on the Korean Penninsula with potential "over flow" to Japan will have long range and long distance impact on the rest of the World.

That little turd over there doesn't care. He ain't gonna clean up the mess.

I have question hopefully someone can answer- in terms of nuclear weapon- what is the most vital access to have nuclear weapons- is it the technology or actually having the raw material? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

First of all, I kinda laugh that you ask this question on a HB. The technology to make the uranium or whatever fissionable material that is the key component to nuclear device is, uh, the key. Even Woody Allen knows that.

For the rest of you; think outside the box. A bomber dropping a bomb? Think a privately owned aircraft that could carry a few thousand pounds. Don't worry about the return flight, there will be none. Think about a fishing boat or an RV. Like I said the more modes that are changed the more likely that we catch on. By far the easiest way is by boat but don't think that we are not monitoring every boat that comes out of North Korea. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

About three years ago a NK suicide sub sunk a SK destroyer that resulted in the loss of 47 sailors. NK formally denied involvement but the evidence is conclusive. There was no substantive retaliation by either SK or the USA.

You are right JD. Imagine a suicide nuclear attack where there are a couple of handoffs between multiple vehicles/vessels before the nuke exploded AND North Korea didn't take responsibility.

What then? We start nuking NK? Parts of WhateverStan? We are fucked. The pussification of the US is complete. 60 or 90 days later when we get the conclusive proof necessary for appropriate retaliation would we actually do it? 30 years ago they answer is different that it would be today.

The pussification of the US is complete. 60 or 90 days later when we get the conclusive proof necessary for appropriate retaliation would we actually do it? 30 years ago they answer is different that it would be today. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Today: Let the inspectors do their work, first. Then sanctions, as a last resort.

The last thing we need is a "conventional" war with NK.

A successful nuke attack without retaliation would cause what reaction in America?
Do you actually believe that in a conventional war that there are no innocents killed?
If NK attacks as a nation should they not be dealt with as a nation?
As a citizen of NK are you innocent because you refused to stand up against the leaders that have duped you?
Are there no sane people left to stop their idiocy?

Such reveals the failure of the socialist state run by communists. A few deciding what is best for all rather than the individual having a role in self determination. Sounds similar to a path this nation is headed down.

The last thing we need is a "conventional" war with NK.

A successful nuke attack without retaliation would cause what reaction in America?
Do you actually believe that in a conventional war that there are no innocents killed?
If NK attacks as a nation should they not be dealt with as a nation?
As a citizen of NK are you innocent because you refused to stand up against the leaders that have duped you?
Are there no sane people left to stop their idiocy?

Such reveals the failure of the socialist state run by communists. A few deciding what is best for all rather than the individual having a role in self determination. Sounds similar to a path this nation is headed down. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

2 fogs let's be realistic- you have a far greater collateral damage during a nuclear war than a conventional war. If the U.S drops a nuke on any city in N.Korea everyone is obliterated -children, elderly- etc- the only way the media would not possibly blow this out of proportion is if the U.S was to drop a nuke that took out 95% of the N.Korean military- which isn't going to happen. Then you run the risk of the nuclear aftermath- possible radiation staying in the air and spreading to other countries that had no role in the conflict.

Do know what the explosive force is of a liquid gas bomb? How about a Daisy Cutter? The MOAB stands for the mother of all bombs which is the liquid gas bomb. It is measured in kilotons just like an atomic or nuclear bomb (want to explain the exact difference to the class LL). The North Korean army is forward deployed and civilians are kept away from the border. If we dropped some gas bombs there would be massive destruction, massive death of ground personnel, and little residue like radiation. That is if you want to kill a bunch of guys who might surrender (just a guess) if given half a chance like the vaunted Iraqi army in 1990.

In reality, the mechanical workings of a Fission Bomb is brutilly simple. You take two pieces of fissionable material, (U235 or Plutonium), and smash them together with enough force to cause a chain reaction of atoms splitting each other.

The first U235 bomb was nothing more than a cannon with a piece of U235, with a hollowed out spot, at one end, and a piece of U235, (a slug), that fits that hollwed out spot of the other at the other end. Behind the "slug" was a charge that propelled it down the barrel.

The first Plutonium Bomb was nothing more than a hollow sphere of Plutonium that was violently crushed into a criticle mass by directional charges.

So, if it is thai simple, what's the big problem?

Arriving at what is known as Fissionable Material. In WW-2, the entire industrial complex that was known as the Manhattan Project was not geared to actually building a bomb, it was geared to producing enough U235 and Plutonium to make it work.

A fission bomb, as destructive as it can be, is nothing compared to a Fusion Bomb, or as it is commonally known as the Hydrogen Bomb. In that, a Fission Bomb is used to produce million+ degrees temperature to cause a quanity of heavy Hydrogen Isotopes, Duterium and Tritium, to fuse, releasing tremendous energy. Hydrogen Bombs are so destructive because in theory, there is no limit to how large you can make one.

A good example is our Sun, which in reality is one big continuous Fusion Bomb.

One problem they had was getting the right shape in order to get the maximum contact on implosion. Anything less than optimum would get a minor atomic explosion. The material which took a long time to collect had to be machined to a fine standard. Think about a jigsaw puzzle coming together at the speed of any explosion and that is the simple way of describing how you achieve a atomic explosion. Now if you want a nuclear explosion...no wait! LL is going to explain it to us.