There's something I've been wondering about, a sort of elephant in the room when it comes to nuclear weapons. What on earth is up with the whole "nuke hoax" thing? I can understand if you were a dumbass normalfag you might find nukes mysterious, but any serious researcher would pretty quickly discover that information on detailed aspects of nuclear weapons design are abundant on the surface of the internet, Wikipedia themselves host a series of pages more or less describing how to build a simple nuclear device. If you're really lazy you can just rip the approximate Mark 1 design from it's main page! Now, conceptual discussion for laymen might not cut it all especially if the source is the pseudo-encylopedia of wikipedia. In that case there are a few surface websites with very detailed and lengthy discussions of the precise physics behind nuclear weapons, specifically the reactions and subatomic processes in nuclear weapons, how it ties into nuclear reactors and general atomic science, pretty much every single possible thing you might need to know in order to prove, on paper, just based on a college level understanding of physics, that a nuclear weapon is not only possible but feasible, and practical. If you're really lazy, lanl.gov themselves list many, many detailed technical reports that even includes a primer on nuclear weapon physics and design. They even have a couple documents describing in detail the casting process and dimensions of specific bomb cores! In consideration of the (((security issues))) on imageboards, I'm not going to start listing off critical mass dimensions, but suffice it to say that if I compiled all the online knowledge in a single document, it might just end up born secret. And that's all only with a few months of online research and it's not just a conceptual understanding by any means. I'm talking about determining the max alpha of a specific system or explaining exactly why an chain reaction can happen at all, and what it actually behaves like, and so on.
So did they read all that content and determine it wasn't scientifically sound by some specific insight I missed somewhere?