/k/ - Weapons, Combat, Outdoorsmanship

wepon

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Captcha
no cookies?
Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


what's a war board without a conflict?


Open file (63.00 KB 500x406 66364a.jpg)
Where can I get plans to build a nuke? Atomicon 02/19/2021 (Fri) 20:03:37 No.13445
I'm looking for blueprints to build a nuke.
>>13445 Let us say someone here had blueprints, and step-by-step instructions with no words, a la IKEA, so that you could follow them, where in the hell would you get any significant quantity of fissionable material for its construction?
Building a nuke is stupid easy. If you can't figure it out on your own and this movie doesn't clear up any details that might not be apparent to you, then you're too retarded to be building one. A nuclear reactor is stupidly easy engineering principles that 2nd graders have actually built as science projects, and a bomb is just a scaled up/quickened reactor reaction. My dad did his high school science project on how to build a nuke because of how stupid easy it is. A literal fucking monkey could make a (dirty) nuclear reaction happen with roughly 7kg of purified uranium by banging two pieces together, even if it didn't know how it caused the reaction and the actual reaction was about the size of a water fountain. There's even faggots on Youtube who've been visited by the DoE precisely for separating out said nuclear particulate for the purpose of generating electricity, and the DoE will rip you a new asshole a lot faster and a lot harder than the ATF if you fuck with their shit. How you acquire the fuel source is really the only part that's difficult. I suppose how to shield said fuel source if you plan to live more than 30 days as well.
>>13447 Where do you get the monkey, so you can do without the shielding?
>>13445 The complete description of the Mark 1 (little boy) can be found on Wikipedia, and the Mark 3 (fat man) design can be found on quite a few websites in high detail. These designs are very well known by now, the Mark 3 is the most widely proliferated design of all time, and the Mark 1 is so foolproof, a full-yield detonation could be achieved just by dropping the Uranium round into the target and reflector case from a 40 foot tower. The average person probably thinks it's illegal just because it's such an extreme machine, but after you read enough about it you realize that it's impossible to keep the simple stuff a secret. I think every nuclear state in the world has tested a variation on the Mark 3 60inch implosion design at least once, with the exception of South Africa, and maybe North Korea. The explosive lenses are the hardest part you will ever have to figure out with a pure fission nuclear device, and with leaked knowledge and modern computer simulation I think a college student with some free time could figure those out to a good degree of certainty with a couple months of fucking around in a hydrodynamics engine. >>13447 You shouldn't need to shield it unless it's critical, which it shouldn't be because you really shouldn't have an assembled critical mass before the moment of detonation. Literal chimp mode would be substituting the plutonium in a Mark 3 for the same volume of U235, which will give you maybe 10-12KT. I think this is what indias first detonation was and they were probably just testing to see if they got the explosive lenses right.
>>13445 nice email retard
>>13451 Is there a way to cover up a nuclear test? Or is there a size that has a bang big enough for tactical purposes (without being a glorified dirty bomb like the Davy Crockett) but still not easily detectable by seismic sensors and whatnot?
>>13458 You can cover them up fairly easily with a few miles of padding unless you're setting off stuff in the 50kton+ range (conventional nukes). North Korea did this for years until they accidentally blew up the mountain they were doing their tests inside. Under the 50kton range a nuke set off underground will register on a seismograph similar to a minor earthquake and thus go virtually unnoticed unless doing them in an area that doesn't get category 1-4 earthquakes. It's like how if you set off a Tsar Bomba in the Marianna's Trench, it would have virtually no effect on the surface because the pressure/density of the water around it would cause the reaction to quickly slow down and cause minimal damage (even though it would cause massive ecological damage to local flora/fauna due to the radioactive elements produced such as Cesium salts).
>>13477 >a few miles of padding What kind of padding? >Under the 50kton range a nuke set off underground will register on a seismograph similar to a minor earthquake Fat Man had a yield of 23kt, and that is already a bit beyond tactical, so there really isn't much that could stop most countries from secretly developing tactical nukes.
>>13481 >What kind of padding? Presumably mud or water if you want to be paranoid, but sand or rock would probably do the trick just fine so long as you accounted for the general seismology of a region and how close the nearest seismograph stations are. It would be more an issue of whatever facility you set up would have to either be well-hidden or keep others out, which would create some pretty huge red flags if seismologists happen to know you are there. The thing about nukes as >>13451 alluded to is the fact that they upscale extremely easily, so you can test a small one before moving to a larger one with general ease. The transportation mechanisms of a nuke are much more complex and/or expensive than the actual warhead. The same is true of most explosives.
>>13458 Just do it in space, brah. If you can afford enough plutonium to make 2+ full-size nukes, you can afford an outer space rocket.
Open file (216.03 KB 349x427 retard_hazard.png)
>>13496 Well, yes that is true, at least a LEO launcher should cost about as much as a warhead or two. But, you fucking retard, everyone is going to fucking see it.
Open file (5.82 KB 255x255 eVErY_OnE_wIlL_sEE.jpg)
>>13500 Why would they see a nuke on the other side of the Sun unless they were already snooping around over there? You could even put it in front of the Sun and nobody will see it over the existing fireball unless they have already have their own probe watching from the side.
>>13503 A rocket capable of delivering even a small payload to Sun-Earth L1 like you're talking about is orders of magnitude more expensive than a cargo launcher that will take you to LEO or a parking orbit. An escape that puts it behind the Sun relative to Earth would be even more expensive. Even if the former were practical, I think the unusual radiation would show up on any telescopes pointed at the Sun, of which there are many. I think setting one off in an unmanned submersible in some desolate corner of the ocean would be a better bet, but there may be a reason you can't hide that either (e.g. it might show up on sonar for thousands of miles for all I know; that's outside of my area of expertise.)
You're all overthinking it. Bomb tests are easy to hide when no one is desperately searching your country for evidence of one. They talk about seismographs background radiation, etc. but in all those cases the interested parties either knew the country had nukes and were actively searching for the test site, or the country announced it was testing one (intentionally or unintentionally by building a refinement facility. The issue is a nuclear refinement facility to make the material for your nukes is hard to hide and if you go the "we're developing nuclear energy" route then everyone and their dead grandmother will want a committee or delegation with their nose up your ass making sure you aren't sneakily putting some off to the side to make a bomb.
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?
>>13516 >So did they read all that content and determine it wasn't scientifically sound by some specific insight I missed somewhere? I don't remember any of them ever bringing up physics. In fact, I don't even remember any of them ever making a single point beyond ˝big boom too big to be true, wake up sheeple˝.
>>13516 I guess it's the same reason people fall for outlandish conspiracy theories, it's more of a psychological thing rather than specific issues with the explanations given *about nukes, or GMOs, or vaccines...**da joos kinda I do think though that these kind of theories are pushed by certain "groups" as to make noise between dissidents so the stuff that actually has some evidence or good arguments gets drowned in silly shit and for the average normalfag it all looks the same.
Open file (145.15 KB 434x559 unhappy.jpg)
>>13516 At first I thought you meant the nuke hoax as in the fact that nuclear fallout is not nearly as bad as every documentary makes it out to be and how basically all the radioactive sites today are thriving with complex life with the only things really affected being detritus feeders... Who still eat dead shit, just very slowly. I think the whole thing is just normalniggers being utterly terrified of powers beyond their comprehension. It's why every third world town has some local monster superstition about going into the water or about thunderstorms. Normalcattle don't understand that nuclear science, while certainly difficult in practice, is simple conceptually to the point where the information can't be hidden even if governments wanted to (they tried). I want to blame the government and say they ran a campaign to make people think it's illegal, but generally speaking I think it's just that normalfags assume that any weapons information obtained outside of official training in the military is taboo because the immediate assumption of a normalfag is that if you want that information, you want to recreate the concepts from that information and thus you want to harm them specifically thus they come to the conclusion that you are a bad person for wanting that information. Combine this with the fact that normalniggers think anything that inconveniences them must therefore somehow be illegal (even police and politicians believe this), and the end result is the assumption I laid out above. A parallel example of this happening can be seen in Cart Narcs where people absolutely lose their shit over the inconvenience of having a magnet put onto the hood of their car, not because it actually caused any harm but because it caused them inconvenienve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQBnY9wITYs
>>13530 OH man, as for fallout, that's almost completely a myth at least as far as normalfags understand it. It's not exactly a secret how fallout works, but most of peoples information comes from movies and videogames, and worst of all the Chernobyl disaster. Actual, concerning local fallout, when it really does happen, is still pretty mild all things considered. The "killing zone" is maybe a mile wide and a mile or two long, and lasts for 2 weeks max. But the real big thing is that, if you detonate it high enough that the fireball doesn't touch the ground, you never even get fallout of any significance. There was no detectable fallout over Japan, all the radiation injuries were caused either by the prompt radiation or activated materials in the prompt radiation radius. And out of all injuries only maybe 5% of the survivors actually had detectable radiation poisoning. The most lethal radiation will always be too close to the fireball for anyone to survive long enough to suffer from it. It's the biggest thing people think about regarding nukes, aside from "they can destroy cities", and it's mostly not a real thing.
>>13544 The original incident where there was significant detection of fallout in a nuclear test was Castle Bravo, which accidentally ended up being multiple times bigger than expected and made decontamination of target vessels impossible. That fluke seemed to have lodged in the public consciousness along with the bikini. Cold War simulations also integrated a significant factor of ash from firestorms which I recall is a subject of debate as modern cities are not comprised of a significant number of wooden buildings like Hiroshima or Nagasaki in 1945. Given the ash from the fire at Chernobyl was what played the biggest part in irradiating the area this would obviously have a significant effect on expected fallout.
>>13545 Why was that the case with Castle Bravo and Bikini?
>>13546 Press coverage? Castle Bravo was 2.5 times above expected yield and irradiated a Japanese fishing boat. I actually confused two tests though, it was Crossroads Baker that irradiated all the ships, and both tests were performed at Bikini Atoll. Operation Crossroads was publicized for propaganda purposes. It was also a semi-pun about how the bikini swimsuit got its name.
>>13544 >There was no detectable fallout over Japan Would you not consider all the doctors, scientists and residence who came during the aftermath who died years down the line of tumors and lukeimia to be considered casualties of radiation poisoning? The fact is there WERE detectable elements of the byproducts of fissioned uranium scattered all over the valley and that contributed to their deaths.
Open file (219.58 KB 1280x720 Konsider the following.jpg)
>>13550 Not to play nuclear apologist, but Japan was also still in the middle of industrialization when the bombs dropped. Look up Minamata disease/"Dancing Cat Syndrome." The Japanese were messing with some nasty chemicals and there's plenty of evidence to suggest the Imperial army was experimenting on their own populations much like the US Airforce does to this day. I think that proving that those were entirely a result of radiation and not at least in part due to a change in diet (that affected the middle class like doctors and scientists before it affected the poor who the bombs largely wiped out) and in increases in industrial chemical usage and exposure in the general population would be hard to prove. I'm not saying that the results of long-term radiation particle exposure is inconclusive, just that as much of a weeb as I am, the post-war Japanese government had/has an incentive to argue that most of those cases were caused by radiation in order to cover their own ass financially and politically, rather than the true figures that were probably closer to some of those cancer cases being radiation and others being due to industrialization and increased exposure to UV rays (due to holes in the atmosphere from all the power generation) and chemicals people were handling irresponsibly when the previous generation were farmers/fishermen/paupers.
>>13554 >>13544 I know a white australian guy who claims his grandfather was helping out after the bombings and died from the fallout. It's not unreasonable to suspect that the WWII-era Japanese government wasn't entirely benevolent. But it is a stretch to say that a recently capitulated government would start running highly unethical and often lethal experiments on its own doctors at a time when doctors are needed the most just because SCIENCE!
>>13557 The implication was the unethical practices happened before occupation and the effects were already in their systems just delayed.
>>13550 >Would you not consider all the doctors, scientists and residence who came during the aftermath who died years down the line of tumors and lukeimia to be considered casualties of radiation poisoning? No, I wouldn't. Saying nukes cause cancer is like saying space lasers cause heart attacks. It's a common cause of death that really has no correlation. I'm sorry to say but all the vets who claim they got cancer from watching a nuke test from 20 miles away are full of shit, likely they just don't know any better but still. It's not unsurprising that people would really believe that considering how massive and frightening a nuclear explosion is, but the exact quantities and location of radiation from a nuclear weapon were studied in excruciating detail. As I've said earlier, very little about nuclear weapons is a mystery. Perhaps the only major one at all is how the interstage in a multi-stage radiation implosion device works. The numbers at a certain distance for any given nuclear yield at a specific detonation altitude as far as blast wave, heat, and radiation are concerned can be predicted within 5-10% accuracy, and the biggest factors in fluctuation are air density/humidity affecting visibility of the fireball, and the shaping of the blast wave. Any radiation deaths at Hiroshima would be the ones already known that were caused by prompt radiation during the detonation itself, and activated materials at the site of detonation. I don't think it was close enough to the ground for the latter though I might be wrong. Either way the fission byproducts on the ground at Hiroshima itself were too sparsely dispersed to meaningfully exceed background radiation levels. Outside Hiroshima, any detectable particles would have been so widely dispersed and so old by the time they reached the ground that, it would have been miraculous to find stuff you could link to the bomb. It's not really a mystery whether fallout killed anyone, it's simply not possible. Unfortunately no one is interested enough in reducing the hysteria and fear associated with nuclear weapons to explain to people exactly what they do. Even a horrible weapon is bound by the laws of physics and has a predictable behavior, and exists in reality instead of the nightmares of greenpeace. I believe that educating people on their real effects should be a priority of public school. Sometimes I see people criticize this kind of discussion of nuclear weapons as too emotionally detached and coldly scientific, but at the end of the day a nuclear warhead is just a machine, made by man, and the people who made those machines had to understand them as machines. Like any other weapon they had to be designed and understood with real numbers, real data, just like a gun or a tank or a conventional bomb. The treatment of nuclear weapons as something more than mans ability to comprehend is a very dangerous and very foolish thing. I'm sure the veterans and other people who claim to have been given cancer during nuke tests or by fallout outside of the reasonable, documented incidents really do believe what they're saying. But, and this is the key point, assuming the U.S. did not LIE about exact conditions under which a detonation was executed, then what they claim happened simply could not have happened within our current understanding of physics. And if we know enough about the behavior of neutrons to predict mean free paths and the exact quantities necessary not just to make a super-critical mass, but to make critical masses within the prompt sub-critical range, then it's hard to believe they missed something in their behavior on a much larger scale.
>>13582 I realize some of my sentences are a little vague so I'll specify that when I say something like "It's not really a mystery whether fallout killed anyone, it's simply not possible.", I'm referring to Hiroshima and airburst detonations in particular.
What is the best bet for a reasonably prosperous country to defend itself from nuclear attacks? Mass producing anti-ICBM missiles with small nuclear warheads?
Open file (820.69 KB 1280x720 Autistic_screeching.webm)
>>13585 Distance is the big one. Just requiring your enemy to use ICBMs instead of short-mid-range missiles to launch a nuclear warhead is what's prevented about 90% of events that could have spawned nuclear wars in the last fifty years. Of course, with third world nations closing the economic gap between them and Western nations, this won't hold true for more than another century tops unless Western nations develop an antimatter bomb and if that happens it will change warfare as we know it since antimatter comes with all the benefits of the destructive power of a nuclear bomb while only producing gamma radiation (deadly when you get hit by it in large doses, but ultimately the least harmful because it dissipates far faster than alpha/beta particles and tends to pass through you harmlessly when there's not fucktons of it). Thankfully antimatter bombs are probably about 300 years off assuming Humans don't destroy ourselves or knock ourselves back into the bronze/iron age for the 30th or so time. Other than that, the only real defense against a nuke is the same defense against non-nuclear missiles. That is, to detonate or disarm it before it ever reaches full speed or preferably before it ever launches. If North Korea were to successfully launch an ICBM at America, the only chance to stop it would be before it passes over Japan. After that it would reach full speed. There are allegedly systems developed to deter it, but realistically those systems have never been tested and are considered a last-ditch effort with a near-zero percent chance of actually working if an ICBM gets that far. Of course ICBMs themselves are a meme. The W47 is the only ICBM to have ever been tested, and that test only had it travel about 1500km or about a 16-20 hour car ride taking you across a few state lines, far short of what I'd call inter-continental if you ask me since conventional missiles can travel those distances and lack of an actual live test is equivalent to lack of potential to debug such a system. America allegedly finished developing an anti-ICBM system this last November, but considering that the way they handled the dummy missile challenge was similar to how they've handled various "war games" in the past, I'm not prone to trusting that information as being much more than propaganda to help prop up the paper tiger.
>>13586 >Of course ICBMs themselves are a meme. The W47 is the only ICBM to have ever been tested, and that test only had it travel about 1500km or about a 16-20 hour car ride taking you across a few state lines, far short of what I'd call inter-continental if you ask me since conventional missiles can travel those distances and lack of an actual live test is equivalent to lack of potential to debug such a system. It's just rockets my guy. SLBMs don't need to go that far, it's actually a benefit to have a shorter flight time to lower detection chances. I'll ignore what you said about conventional missiles and assume the exaggeration was intentional, but when it comes to modern ICBMs, they're just satellite launchers with fancy payloads. While it is true that only the polaris was ever tested with a live warhead, our reentry vehicle R&D programs have had an extensive and expensive history. I mean, the entire space race was really just a way to show off our ICBM capabilities. As for testing, the MX missile and our modern RVs have all been tested from takeoff to re-entry, there's no need to do it with a live warhead because we already know what the constraints are for a survivable reentry vehicle. Range doesn't really matter when it comes to determining reliability, it's all just fuel ratios at that point. I want to say it's not rocket science, but actually rocket science is pretty easy. Let me put it this way, if we can send people to space and bring them back down, we can do it with a warhead. It's really not hard. I'm actually a little bit amazed that you'd see ICBMs as a meme in the sense that you think they might not work, rather than the sense that they're obsolete as a concept.
>>13586 >antimatter bomb For fucks sake anon, I'm glad you're effortposting rather than doing one-liners (like I am doing right now) but why even mention this Dan Brown nonsense? Even if you think it's 300 years away. The very concept of an antimatter bomb is so dumb in every sense just mentioning it ruins your post.
This is the dumbest thing I've seen, but there is an old book (originally a magazine article) titled "The H-Bomb secret"... the only truly secret thing about a H-bomb is exactly what FOGHORN is in it.
>>13597 Memes aside, what's so funny about anon's proposal? Aluminum used to be virtually unobtainable (chemical innovation) and the Bessemer process resulted in more steel being produced in a year than had previously been produced in all of human history. Wouldn't a jump in electro-magnet or laser technology make it just as easy to create a small batch of antimatter? You only need like a milligram of the stuff to level a city just crunching some raw numbers, and the bomb mechanism would only have to consist of "stop separating the antimatter from the matter" so you could use whatever you want in building the bomb since it would just be annihilated anyways? A fallout-less bomb (antimatter only produces gamma radiation that kills in concentration and passes through everything/dissipates within 48 hours) of equivalent or greater size than a nuke seems like a corrupt politician's dystopian wet dream.
Open file (235.46 KB 675x507 fogbank2.png)
>>13599 >FOGHORN You mean FOGBANK, or is there another ridiculous component I'm unaware of?
>>13602 Nukes are already effectively fallout-less as far as military usefulness is concerned, as long as you airburst them. There's a little bit of stuff that might, at most, increase cancer rates for a hundred civilians or so, but no one is even going to get sick. Since prompt radiation is going to happen anyway there's literally no difference unless you're a pussy afraid to give maybe a parish worth of people a 5% risk of developing cancer in addition to the dozens of collaterals who inevitably will be killed in any massive detonation. The big problem with nukes really is their stigma, for a superpower, and for any country desperate enough to use them (and I do believe nuclear weapons can be militarily advantageous in several scenarios), their biggest problem is how greedy the superpowers will get about anyone other than them having nukes. It's fucking hollywood man, they created the mythical image of the nuke.
>>13617 What about MAD? wouldn't the use of nukes by one state prompt others to use theirs right away?
>>13617 >Nukes are already effectively fallout-less as far as military usefulness is concerned I don't think you'll find disagreement about that on /k/ outside of someone who's just never looked into it. The threat of fallout is a political tool though because whether it's true or not, people believe it's true and will act in accordance to that.
>>13618 In theory, but large nations have shown their true colors and turned the other way plenty of times when it was disadvantageous for them. If China theoretically nuked Taiwan, the international community would be quick to condemn the attack while playing the "cooler heads prevailed" card for sympathy points so long as a Democrat is in office in America. Obviously that will never happen because the Chinese want the human resources and waterways of Taiwan and they would have to clean up the aftermath, fallout or not.
>>13618 Why the fuck would it unless governments are dumb and blind reactionary animals that will just think "nuke = strategic counter-value time"? When used to wipe out early warning systems, destroy land-cased ICBM forces, and cities, a nuclear weapon is a weapon of mass destruction. But when it's used in a position where conventional weapons were already going to be used, the effects are just those of a very effective conventional weapon. Now there are some limitations, for example using tactical nukes in an offense war would have a good chance of scaring your opponent. But here's a scenario: Country A is currently being invaded (or "intervened") by Country B. The conventional forces of Country A are clearly not capable of winning in an engagement, so whenever the opposing forces start crossing into their borders either by air or land, they use a low airburst detonation to take out the position. Assuming these are 1 kiloton warheads, this will be enough to incapacitate tanks within a 150m radius and all other troops to a much greater extent. For aircraft this is a little harder with modern fast strike aircraft, but it's still reasonably possible to take them out with good confidence. Country A may want to avoid hitting airbases and capital ships to decrease the likelihood of the appearance of a strategic threat. At this point I have a hard time believing that Country B is going to switch over civilian genocide mode simple because a conventional invasion failed. If this was not an all out attack, this should be even more true. Propaganda does have the ability to spin any action as a "dangerous opposition to democracy" and city bombing as a "justified action to win a Just War" but even the greatest propaganda machine in the world would have a hard time spinning a limited, defensive tactical nuclear response as worthy of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. I may be wrong about this, but I just really think that a few low yield battlefield nukes would not be MAD material for any sane military. I think the only reason you even see that kind of posturing in defense circles in NATO is because it's actually a net negative for the U.S. if battlefield nuclear weapons become "acceptable". If any country that can whip up a hundred kilograms of HEU can deploy dozens of tactical warheads, and if it turns out the tactic I described actually WORKS and politicians don't resort to MAD because it's not worth it, then suddenly the balance of power and world hegemony has pretty much been flushed down the toilet. Or, at the very least, it's become very inconvenient and very expensive to "intervene" in a countries affairs.
>>13632 There's also the fact that tactical nukes and city-crushing nukes have the same mechanisms, so any nuclear-ready country can make the latter if they can make the former. It's easier to attack a mechanism entirely since regulating such things internationally is nearly impossible even if specifics can be worked out (see: chemical weapons, US use of depleted uranium in ammunition and tank armor, etc.).
>>13635 I think from a design standpoint tactical nuclear weapons are harder to make, simply because lightweight and small systems with efficient low yields are a problem for nuclear weapons. That said, any nuclear weapon design can be used in a tactical scenario, at the end of the day it just means targeting battlefield fighting units with an arbitrarily high yield rather than targeting populations and industry. One thing to always keep in mind is that nuclear weapons of any practical yield will be fucking massive compared to conventional weapons, the recent Beirut explosion is about the scale of an artillery fired atomic projectile. With that being said we know from declassified documents that weapons using less than a kilogram of Pu and weighing less than 1 ton could achieve yields of around 1500 tons. This scales slightly differently for HEU, but with gun type weapons the efficiency sliding scale means that a kiloton yield uses about half the amount of HEU required for a nominal yield fission device with the same enrichment level and critical mass conditions. Going with just an early device, in operation sandstone in 1948 we detonated a pure HEU device using around 6kg of material, so you can calculate that about 3kg or so would be necessary for a low kiloton weapon. Since most HEU enrichment plants have a capacity of around 100kg per year, that means that even a relatively small country with a budget of around 100-200 million could be producing 30 or so tactical warheads within a year of production going online. So in this case, a low yield weapon for tactical use is not only more practical for making more warheads, it's just safer because it will relax the overbearing pressure of a strategic arms race. While any warhead can be used against any target theoretically, weapons explicitly intend for strategic use may actually bring more problems than they solve for a smaller country. Conversely, weapons whose only possible use is against battlefield targets could probably be safely used in a limited fashion without risking catastrophic consequences for the user. Is that "probably" worth the risk that always exists of NATO or Russia going apeshit? I guess it depends on the threat level. But I really think weapons that can't be used, shouldn't be made, and weapons that are made should be intended for actual future operational use. Tactical nuclear weapons should be made with the intention of actually using them in real combat, and not just as a deterrent. Because a weapon that only works if you don't use it is useless when your enemy passes whatever barrier you didn't want to be passed.
>>13636 My only main criticism would be that an HEU bomb needs closer to 15kg of enriched uranium to be operational. I think you're thinking of plutonium, which you only need about a kilogram of to produce a nuclear bomb. The biggest difference being reliability and cleanup costs. Uranium is easy to work out how to trigger it because most uranium systems involve taking two sub-critical masses and squishing them together to make them supercritical, whereas a plutonium system requires you to set off explosives around it to for the material to implode in order to make it supercritical. Plutonium makes for very good nuclear landmines/traps or suitcase bombs, but shitty warheads because of this. There's also the fact that a plutonium facility is going to create a lot of chemical waste that can poison people very quickly and very easily since while it's easier to get ahold of, the process of making it involves a lot more waste products.
>>13632 >Why the fuck would it Think a ww1-esque scenario. Though the point is more about opening a sort of pandora's boox, once one state uses nukes ww2 doesn't count as the US was the only one with nukes all the other's will find it easier to justify the use of theirs and it won't take much escalation until we get MAD, sure cooler heads should prevail, but a few hot heads might spoil the whole thing. >I may be wrong about this... I think you're spot on basically. >>13636 >But I really think weapons that can't be used, shouldn't be made, and weapons that are made should be intended for actual future operational use. but isn't deterrence their main use of nukes? If you want peace prepare for war after all, maybe it'd be better to look at armies as deterrence rather than for actual employment probably an unpopular opinion here, not to imply that you should be prepared to actually fight.
>>13639 >probably an unpopular opinion here While I hate the Nasty Girls/Coast Guard, they're basically the only DoD branches that can justify long-term employment prospects because they are completely a self-defense force at the end of the day. /k/ recommends militaries as temporary employment for learning purposes, but at the end of the day I would take not having a standing army (outside National Guard/Coastguard, both of which should be state-funded not federally funded) over having one if given the option. It makes it much harder to go to war with others and crash your economy with no survivors when you don't have a bone to pick in the international community.
>>13637 I see the 15kg figure is used by a loot of journalists and even nuclear physicists but it's not very accurate. Sandstone Zebra used 6-8kg and had a yield of 18kt, and it was either a levitated pit or hollow implosion. Sources differ, but the 6-8kg figure is consistent throughout all of them. To be fair the 15kg figure makes sense, the optimal reflected critical mass of HEU is 16.5 and you use about 90% of a critical mass for a simple, solid, unlevitated core. This article isn't completely accurate, but it explains some of the commonly cited misconceptions about new nuclear weapon states https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/604623/why-no-one-will-ever-build-another-nagasaki-type-bomb/. >>13639 I know escalation is a risk, but my personal belief is that it's not nearly as likely as is cited by most modern narratives. I think it depends on the scenario in which it is used. At the end of the day it's better to have a "superweapon" that you CAN actually use in the real world without dooming your own country as a result, even if it still isn't a desirable thing to do. Nuclear weapons will always require more sensitive treatment than other weapons, even in a world where they are used occasionally on the battlefield, and their usage would require careful estimation of another nations reaction to it. But I think nuclear weapons CAN be used without triggering MAD down the line, and I think the chances of MAD are actually pretty low. At the end of the day, when it's all said and done, the current non-usage policy on nuclear weapons is just delaying the inevitable evolution of warfare, most likely because superpowers have gotten very good at the current state of conventional warfare and any upset in the balance at this point would be catastrophic for a large country. At the end of the day using nuclear weapons just makes killing something easier, and what matters is the targets you use it on. Massive strategic bombings targeting civilian population centers already happened, in ww2, and nukes weren't even involved until the very last days of the war. It's not the weapon but how you use it that counts. And at the end of the day using a nuclear warhead in a tactical scenario has more to do with conventional warfare than strategic nuclear weapons, in my opinion. SHOULD nuclear weapons be used in war? I don't think that's a choice we get to make, I think it's inevitable. What we can do to control that future is to figure out how they would actually be used, and how they CAN be used. If, inevitably, we end up using nuclear weapons in warfare, we want to find a way to use them that will leave our societies intact. I think the Pakis already realized this and that's why their nuclear doctrine is based on defeating the conventional Indian army rather relying on strategic nuclear weapons as a deterrent. It gives them a nuclear option that doesn't rely on the war not having started in the first place.
>>13645 >What we can do to control that future is to figure out how they would actually be used, and how they CAN be used. If, inevitably, we end up using nuclear weapons in warfare, we want to find a way to use them that will leave our societies intact. I think Russians figured it out: their doctrine is to use tactical nukes to deescalate the conflict if an enemy force attacks them inside their own borders. Of course it works for them because if somebody attacks them with a conventional force that their army can't stop, then something went horribly wrong for them, and using tactical nukes is still better than immediately launching their whole arsenal of ICBMs. Such a defensive doctrine is good in my opinion, but it's much harder for a small country to correctly gauge an enemy force and decide if they should nuke them or not, because they simply don't have the conventional forces to slow them and the land to retreat back to.
>>13650 I mean, alternatively, you could just rely solely on tactical nukes outside a small border protection force. That might actually make deterrence easier for a smaller country. Sure, it's always a risk to use nuclear weapons, but if you make sure to keep it tactical and exclusively defensive, there's little argument any country can really make to justify a strategic response. I mean, what, you're gonna nuke someones cities because they destroyed invading forces within their own borders? Yeah yeah I get it, nuclear weapons are different and all. I still think there are scenarios where a countervalue response is just retarded for the country issuing it. Actually, I think in general it's a pretty bad doctrine, and I think it's much safer to deter an enemy just by the fact that they stand to gain nothing by attacking a country that can delete their military forces when they get in range. Think about it, tactical nuclear weapons could have the same deterrent effect, but without the looming threat of MAD, and if it comes down to it you can actually use them to prove you really will without committing to a zero sum game the moment you DO have to actually use them. Risky? Yeah, any use of nuclear weapons hypothetically risks a strategic exchange. But so does fucking around in Cuba, or Syria, and it's a lot less safe in my opinion when the only deterrent option is all or nothing: no wars ever again or everyone fucking dies. Just seems like setting yourself up for failure.
It's strange to remember that at one point even Swedes thought that peppering enemy formations with nuclear shells should be an integral part of their national defence. On that note: in theory what kind of nuclear artillery shells could we develop today? I've read something about how only gun-type nukes were possible for 6" and 8" calibres, and that they are somehow inferior to implosion devices, but I'm not knowledgable enough to make much of that information, and reading what more knowledgable people know is better than trying to make my own research.
>>13723 And I'd post that webm about the Swedish SPG from hell, but we still have the robot, and so I can't, because somebody somewhere already posted it.
>>13723 I'm not knowledgeable, but from a pure uni physics perspective, an implosion device would be cleaner but needs a precise timing mechanism that the impact of a shell could throw off or create duds from. You could use the slamming method of creating a supercritical mass (two sub-critical pieces slamming together), but that method produces more of a dirty bomb and at which point the ecological damage might be a bigger factor than it would be with conventional artillery.
>>13724 r9k mode should be disabled, did you try recently?
>>13723 We had nuclear artillery for a wide variety of calibers, and a very wide variety of yields. 6inch, 8inch, 11inch, 16inch and whatever the Russians had just to start. The lowest yield I know of was the W48 with just 72 tons, and the highest yield was a 40,000 ton variant of the W33. The most common yield though was just about 1000 tons and preferably with an enhanced radiation option. I know the smallest designed and completed shell and possibly the actual lightest nuclear system ever developed had a yield of 200 tons, and being in a rocket boosted 6 inch shell was probably 2/3rds of the shells weight. This might have been only 50-60lbs without the metal jacket, cap, and rocket motor. This is just from declassified material, so it's nothing super-mysterious. At lower yields the greatest reaching effect in terms of damage scaling is the prompt radiation emitted by the detonation as it happens. This seems to be the primary intended use of nuclear artillery, you would use the radiation to kill "hard" targets and troops protected from the heat. The blast wave is actually pretty useless against most mobile military targets relative to its scale. For some reason, in the US army field manuals on tactical nuclear weapon usage, the effect on which damage against tanks is based on is heat and not blast or radiation. Just judging from the scaling laws of effects, I found out that it matches thermal radiation scaling laws the closest and in fact perfectly for some yields, and when considering that they list ranges in multiples of 25 meters, it's obviously this scaling law. I don't know what specifically we could develop today, but modern nuclear weapons are still in the same place they were in the late 60s. The thinnest linear implosion device was 5 inches across, 24 inches long and had a yield of 200 tons unboosted. Most artillery shells were larger physically and had higher yields, but the boosted version of this device was probably going to be about 1500 tons. It's conceivable that a nuclear artillery shell made today could be the same size with a yield of over 10,000 tons just based on modern primary sizes. Enhanced radiation might no longer be as useful with tank armor protecting much better against it now, and I suspect in practical warfare it would be desirable to use a reduced radiation warhead if possible just to make it more reasonable to use against urban targets. Going above 500tons is also probably pretty pointless with modern targeting systems, or just in general. Keep in mind that the largest tianjing explosion was equal to about a 500 ton nuclear detonation blast wave.
>>13783 >I know the smallest designed and completed shell and possibly the actual lightest nuclear system ever developed had a yield of 200 tons Fuck, missed a zero. 2000 tons, not 200. I don't want to confuse it with the 200 ton device we tested.
>>13783 I'd imagine that American tanks are probably safe from general radiation since they use depleted Uranium and other high-density solids in their alloys/ceramics, and the air filters designed to handle sand/dirt probably also filter out most radioactive materials.
>>13599 >>13603 >the only truly secret thing about a H-bomb is exactly what FOGHORN is in it. >FOGBANK I think the general speculation is that it's probably some sort of aerogel.
>>13787 Well, the thing with radiation shielding is that it depends on protection factor more than anything else. Past a certain point it becomes impractical to shield from high enough levels of radiation. No matter the tank and no matter the nuke, lethal radius will always be measured in dozens of meters at least. At 100m from a 1kt detonation, the prompt radiation is something like 100,000 rem which would require a protection factor of 2000-3000 to prevent the tank crews from being killed. No tank has a protection factor over 100, and most are closer to 20. This is where you'd probably rather not be in a tank, because at those distances unprotected you'd get a mercifully quicker death of full body roasting and shock wave organ damage instead of seizures and death by nervous system shutdown.
>>13819 At 100m the heat radiation will cook the tank like a can of beans over a fire so I don't understand arguing semantics.
>>13825 Yeah sorry I wasn't trying to argue. My point was that radiation near the blast is pretty intense. I think even out around 400m or so the radiation is lethal to most tanks.
>>13618 It's not the Cold War any longer. The world doesn't stand on the precipice of total nuclear war if something pops off. While MAD is the legacy doctrine between the Cold War superpowers, the climate has changed significantly, and so-called rogue states and non-state actors won't trip the "fire ze missiles" response if something happens outside the framework of major nuclear players exchanging ICBMs. If, say, China fired a nuke at the US, there would absolutely be protocols in place to immediately retaliate, but chances are, there would be diplomacy unless it was certain that the effort was exactly as a Cold War scenario depicted in the (now-legacy) Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), and even then there was wiggle room for modest amounts of sanity.
Open file (291.67 KB 1084x786 happening threads.jpg)
>>13829 You just ruined happening threads forever with one post. How dare you.
>>13836 Ehh, I wouldn't be so sure Strelok. Daily reminder all those nukes still exist. It's the gift that keeps on giving. Odd situation currently tbh. Bolshevik usurpers currently sit with their fingers (plural) on the button in the USSA. The Chinese Marxists are no less warmongering than is traditional since the Chinese Communist Revolution of 1949. They are more confident in their aggression than ever, and their timetable to overrun and capture Taiwan is a short one I imagine. Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, former KGB leader, is probably the coolest head in the bunch. The batshit insane (and allegedly the) US 'Administration' certainly mean to go to war of some sort soon, and will immediately get into something over their heads through sheer incompetence. The Chinese will stop at nothing to take over all the high-tech fabs, etc., in fake-China, and meanwhile the Russians are mad at the increasingly-mudshit-controlled-EuropeanCuckropan Union (most of whom have their own nuke arsenals). Add in the new kids on the block. the Ancient Aryans in Iran, The Poo-in-loos, The mountain goatfuckers in Pakistan, even the batshit insane sycophantic tyrant friendly leader of Best Korea -- all with their fingers currently on the button. Top it all off with Greedy Hand-Rubbers running their game 'business as usual', the odd Mudshit golem or two with a suitcase nuke, and literally millions and millions of cargo containers quite capable of carrying the cheapest-made (but quite effective) nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological WMD, scurrying here, there, and everywhere around the globe. Let's see, did I forget anything?
Open file (149.54 KB 450x437 kuso thread.png)
>>13836 On the contrary. It's knowing the truth about nukes that makes for even more interesting shit storms. When you realize that nuclear fallout is not nearly as big of a deal as countries want it to seem for propaganda purposes and that superpowers could use a nuke without repercussions because it doesn't benefit them if nukes are on the table, well there'd still be repercussions just not MAD, the world of possibilities for warfare shitposting skyrockets.
>>13838 >and their timetable to overrun and capture Taiwan is a short one I imagine. The official party line is that if Taiwan does not capitulate by 2025 they WILL invade.
>>13843 Could use a nuke without repercussions but choose not to* is what I meant to type. I need to stop editing my posts mid-sentence.
>>13838 Sounds like fun! >>13843 Isn't it more likely rogue actors will toss around dirty bombs before the interstate warfare initiates?
>>13843 >nuclear fallout is not nearly as big of a deal Yeah, I'm going to need to you to define that more specifically. What, only 2 billion dead within 2 years vs. 4 billion? There are no brakes on this train Strelok. Once the MIRVs start poppin', niggas be droppin'. And even if Fukishima, Chernobyl, et al, didn't argue against your basic position regarding fallout; the simple physics of multi-million-degree ignitions and massive air, surface, and seismic shock waves suggest otherwise as well. Regardless of the current propaganda du juor, human nature hasn't changed since the supposed end of the Cold War. The Chinese literally consider themselves insurmountable, unstoppable people destined to own the entire Earth. If anyone is going to glass North America, it will be them.
>>13848 You don't glass what you can rob, the Chinese have been reading the Talmud you know.
>>13848 >And even if Fukishima, Chernobyl, et al, didn't argue against your basic position regarding fallout Except they argue in my favor if you look at long-term studies of their effects. Shit's only dangerous for like a month tops. You're talking popsci/environmentalist garbage, anon. Your average thunderstorm contains more kinetic energy behind it than a nuclear blast. I think the Earth will be fine and humanity will survive just fine. Even in a worst case scenario we'll just be blown back to the Iron Age for a century or two until shit is rediscovered the way it happened 30 or so times after the Greeks.
>>13855 >we'll just be blown back to the Iron Age for a century or two If we will have a handful of people who remembers this stuff then we could go back to the technology level of the early industrial revolution quite quickly: https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=gNRnrn5DE58
>>13856 Unfortunately the vast majority are consumer retards that will probably lynch the geniuses unless they've locked themselves up in an island bunker somewhere.
>>13855 >Even in a worst case scenario we'll just be blown back to the Iron Age for a century or two >humanity will survive just fine
>>13836 Sorry dood, wasn't trying. And that's in no way the case. Sure, the odds of two nuclear superpowers slugging it out toe-to-toe are unlikely, but man oh man, the lack of dominant global entities keeping everyone in line and forcing them to essentially pick a side means the squabbles can be more granular, and conflicts between two minor players could absolutely escalate to the point where nuclear weaponry would be used. In other words, don't be sad because that happening never happened, be happy because there are now thousands of other happenings that could take place instead.
>>13855 Your average thunderstorm is also centered thousands of feet in the air and doesnt release all of its energy in a pin point location a few hundred feet in a city square, but lets talk about fallout. I don't know if you were >>13582 but I am still trying to find studies done to measure the level of fallout found in the aftermath of hiroshima and nagasaki to have been benign. Although matter pulled up and turned into atomic ash from the convection currents wont stay radioactive for long that still disperses enough material even at "airburst" height because of the presence of a mushroom cloud. Mostly alpha but as soon as the dust settles there could be radioactive micro particles floating around miles away from the epicenter into a neighboring county you could be inhaling.
>>13865 This is kind of a cheap throwaway answer but there should be a paper on it in the LANL.gov library. This article might give you a good starting point and some interesting information on Hiroshima in general https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/med/med_chp22.html. I just know in general from everything I've ever researched about nuclear detonations that an airburst detonation where the fireball doesn't touch the surface is simply too high for a meaningful amount of dust to get radioactive particles attached to it. This of course is a scale not a black or white problem, so there is SOME of what is called "local fallout" which is fallout that falls early enough before it decays too much to be a problem. However, because the amount is so low, it is prohibitively unlikely for there to be any concentrations in any one area great enough to exceed the normal radiation levels for say, a years average exposure before it decays into irrelevance. In a controlled environment, this amount can be tracked down and actually studied, but keep in mind that the amounts found are so low that they require careful sampling of the soil to even determine that particles were there at all. In the actual "combat" use of the nuclear weapons over Japan, the possible area was simply too large, and the probable amounts too low, for the fallout to be detectable. While some particles did land somewhere, this is a very small amount and in a practical sense, might as well not exist. The chances of it increasing cancer risk in even a single individual is insanely low. Now, no one is exactly going to be happy to know that radioactive particles were floating around near them, but if extensive searching was done they wouldn't actually know, and by effects alone it would never become apparent that they had encountered radiation at all. Since "militarily important" radiation levels are those levels high enough to cause any "hazardous" radiation illness, this is simply a non-issue from a military standpoint. I've never seen a military handbook that references any fallout danger in an airburst. The handbook I use most frequently is greatly concerned with troop safety margins as well. Would you prefer to be near these minimal fallout particles? No, but if you weren't told you would never find out.
>>13843 > the world of possibilities for warfare shitposting skyrockets. This is my main interest in nuclear weapons. Imagine fleets of nuclear missile boats wiping out each other in nanoseconds.
>>13868 Correct me if I'm wrong, but all the radioactive elements released by the nuclear detonation, in case of an airburst one, will just remain in the atmosphere instead of being deposited on the ground relatively quickly. But what goes up must come down and they will still fuck up any place the winds and clouds take them. If they don't fall down by themselves, rains shall help that instead. Not to mention that airburst detonations themselves seem to generate some amount of clouds. It's not an immediate danger in case of war, yes, but you can take the trail of radiation the Chernobyl disaster has left as an example.
>>13632 >Assuming these are 1 kiloton warheads, this will be enough to incapacitate tanks within a 150m radius and all other troops to a much greater extent. For aircraft this is a little harder with modern fast strike aircraft, but it's still reasonably possible to take them out with good confidence. >>13783 >At lower yields the greatest reaching effect in terms of damage scaling is the prompt radiation emitted by the detonation as it happens. This seems to be the primary intended use of nuclear artillery, you would use the radiation to kill "hard" targets and troops protected from the heat. The blast wave is actually pretty useless against most mobile military targets relative to its scale. >Enhanced radiation might no longer be as useful with tank armor protecting much better against it now, and I suspect in practical warfare it would be desirable to use a reduced radiation warhead if possible just to make it more reasonable to use against urban targets. Going above 500tons is also probably pretty pointless with modern targeting systems, or just in general. Taking these two posts at face value, what kind of yield a tactical nuke should have, how should it kill (raditation, balstwave, heat), and how should it be deployed? It seems like the answer is to burst one over the enemy and then keep up the nuclear bombardment if that's not enough to deescalate the situation.
>>13873 >and they will still fuck up any place the winds and clouds take them They won't really, although I guess it depends on your definition of "fuck up". Will they increase background radiation levels by less than half a percent and be detectable due to man-made elements? Yes. Will they affect a population in any physical way such as causing mutations, radiation sicknesses, decreased lifespan, etc.? No, they will not. In an absolute worst case scenario they will increase a few peoples risk for cancer by a marginal but still undeniably measurable amount. >you can take the trail of radiation the Chernobyl disaster has left as an example. No, you cannot. Chernobyl was thousands of times more dangerous than a groundburst detonation, let alone an airburst of significant height. Just because a nuclear detonation creates a big ominous looking cloud does not mean that it is a "fallout" cloud or that it will start producing black rain. Local fallout, which is the term for the "fallout" we know of in popular media and the one of risk, is caused by particles falling to the ground before they've decayed enough, this time period is around 15-30 days. The reason this changes with a groundburst is because soil and heavy particles are mixed up into the fireball and become carriers for the light fission products that produce constant radiation. This then falls back down rather quickly due to it's weight, and rain can increase the speed of this process. In an airburst detonation, the vast, vast majority of the "cloud" is water vapor and burning oxygen. For a low altitude airburst, such as say one for a 20kt detonation that is closer to the ground than usually used for soft targets like cites, you can get some percentage of heavy dirt and dust mixed in. This might create some noticeable local fallout, although the amount would be low enough to produce the worst case scenarios I mentioned earlier where the only long term effects are an increase in cancer risk. This increase is never desirable, make no mistake, especially at around 10%. But it will be the only noticeable affect. No radiation sickness. No mutations. No uninhabitable land that cannot be used for agriculture. For a high altitude airburst of the height used for cities, there simply won't be any fission products brought close enough to dirt to be sucked into the stem and carried away from the blast. This shot of Crossroads Able gives a good sense of scale, keep in mind that the "cap" of the mushroom cloud is the remnant of the fireball and the location of the actual detonation itself https://youtu.be/bbhl-Z9l0YY. The dark parts of the cloud are shadows, it is composed of water vapor for the most part. For a megaton range, high altitude burst, the fission products will be thrown so high up into the atmosphere that they will not come down for decades, after which they will be little more than scientifically interesting dust.
>>13875 These two field manuals explain it better than I can. This first one explains the meaning of different terms, kinds of damage, targeting decision parameters, etc. http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM101-31-1C1%2869%29.pdf The second one (really the third but I couldn't find the second) lists the different yield and deployment options and tables for damage to different units at different heights of burst for each yield. Probably the most useful document you'll ever see regarding nuclear weapons as an actual weapon. Keep in mind, "moderate" damage is the damage sufficient enough to incapacitate a target. https://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/amd-us-archive/FM101-31-3%2863%29.pdf
Of course all the fallout discussion goes out the window if you're talking about salted warheads. As far as I know though all such devices are completely hypothetical. >>13875 >Taking these two posts at face value, what kind of yield a tactical nuke should have, how should it kill (raditation, balstwave, heat), and how should it be deployed? It seems like the answer is to burst one over the enemy and then keep up the nuclear bombardment if that's not enough to deescalate the situation. Are you talking about a neutron bomb basically?
>>13896 Salted devices that would almost certainly work have been designed, but that's as far as it goes.
>>13603 >You mean FOGBANK, or is there another ridiculous component I'm unaware of? That would be it then. It's been years since I read the book, and I'm working off memory. My local library had a copy. >>13810 The book suggested it might have been some sort of styrofoam. Apparently they improved the manufacturing at some point, and the result was "too pure" so they had to add whatever impurities back in as an additive. Of course, all this is rather moot as the USA can't effectively manufacture it's own tritium anymore, or so reports indicate. That means variable-yield warheads will not be (re)manufactured further. There's also issues with Pu-239 or so I hear. Which begs the question: wtf has the DoE been doing these last few decades for technical production to get to that state?
>>13603 Also that "toxic brittle material" is Beryllium. There was word in the non-classified press that they were seeking alternatives. FOGBANK is whatever they use as a spacer between the fission trigger and the U-238 shell in thermonuclear devices ("H-bombs"). Apparently it acts as a waveguide for the released radiation(?) so it evenly fissions the secondary. Would post image but it keeps timing out.
>>13787 > American tanks are probably safe from general radiation since they use depleted Uranium All that the DU being there means, is that if the neutrons from a nearby nuke hit it, it will fission and you'll die not from the nuke's radiation, but from that coming off the DU armor. DU absorbs the neutrons and then fissions releasing it's own neutrons, which is VERY bad for you.This was a concern during the cold war, and I recall reading about this - it was raised within military circles as an objkection to the DU inserts. If you want to actually stop neutrons, you'll need to use boron or lead, and preferably lots of both. Spall liners on Soviet tanks are/were made of lead sheets covered by boron-impregnated kevlar-like plastic. Export models to the Warsaw Pact got the kevlar-ski, but without the boron, and the "monkey models" for Iraq, Africa, etc. got nothing. If you get nuked and are in a tank with DU armor, better have a rad-counter handy, and just maybe a single bullet too.
>>14001 >Which begs the question: wtf has the DoE been doing these last few decades for technical production to get to that state? From what I understand, budgitarily the DoE is 50 years behind schedule. Chances are there's some policy or law that has them by the balls and nobody cares right now.
UK to expand nuclear stockpile in post-Brexit security review https://archive.ph/RftL5 >Downing Street is to raise the number of Trident nuclear warheads the UK can stockpile by more than 40 per cent in its integrated review of defence, security and foreign policy to be published on Tuesday.Boris Johnson, UK prime minister, is set to announce that the cap on the number of nuclear warheads will increase from its current level of 180 to 260, according to two people with knowledge of the document. The move — which signals a move away from Britain’s pursuit of non-proliferation in recent decades — is intended to cement the UK’s status as a nuclear power and firm US defence ally. Post-Brexit UK to reshape its foreign policy https://archive.ph/NhfuD >The government is pledging to reshape an "outdated international system" to better protect the UK's interests and values, in a year-long review of post-Brexit foreign and defence policy.New alliances should be formed as the UK shifts focus towards Indo-Pacific countries such as India, Japan and Australia, it says.The review also paves the way for an increase in nuclear warheads. It's quite surprising overall. Are they preparing to nuke Shina if they don't leave the Aussies and Canucks alone?
>>14072 They're increasing their capacity not their stockpile, at least by what it says there. >It's quite surprising overall. Honestly yes, i wouldn't have expected any western country nowadays to openly admit to increasing their nuclear capacity
>>14076 >Honestly yes, i wouldn't have expected any western country nowadays to openly admit to increasing their nuclear capacity >Bolshevik-in-Chief successfully usurps the US Authority, initiating the USSA-era >Immediately begins a far-reaching purge to eliminate all political dissidents within the ranks >Restricts all travel and direct face-to-face communication by the peasant hordes >Turns over foreign policy and diplomacy decisions to even more batshit-insane aides >[Saber-rattling intensifies]* Is this really all that unexpected Anon. The alleged president intends to start the next World War on his watch. While he'll never live to see the outcome accidentally'd 14 times to the back of the head, no doubt yet the other (((puppets))) will carry through on the plan. Keep your feet dry, Strelok.
>>14072 >New alliances should be formed as the UK shifts focus towards Indo-Pacific countries such as India, Japan and Australia, it says. War plan red soon?
>>14124 They are the same branch now, especially since the UK wants to play empire again, and their only ally would be the US.
Open file (58.90 KB 1280x720 mpv-shot0015.jpg)
Open file (124.98 KB 1280x720 mpv-shot0016.jpg)
Open file (138.80 KB 1280x720 mpv-shot0017.jpg)
Open file (79.77 KB 1280x720 mpv-shot0018.jpg)
Open file (81.60 KB 1280x720 mpv-shot0019.jpg)
It's all right here are your fingertits!
>>13516 >>13530 >>13523 >>13518 I think you guys are missing the true elephant in the room when it comes to these conspiracy theories. The people who believe in them (like this one) also follow other conspiracy theories like the flat earth theory or the giants are real theory (not always but a lot of the time), they believe all the governments are working together (yes china, the soviet union, Nazi germany, Japan, NK, Israel, Ukraine, Turkey and america are/were working with each other) to bring about the antichrist/satanist figure to bring about hell on Earth and ruin peoples lives, the elites make lies to convince people, through the theory of evolution/germ theory/nuclear physics/space/etc, that God/magic/whatever isnt real which would help with their satanic plan. If you dont believe me, go down the rabbit hole even further and you'll notice a lot of these low-level conspiracy theories sometimes overlap with each other
>>15233 Has it occurred to you that the creationist/mystical/reality-denying conspiracy theories are obvious bunk that no credible person would ever unironically believe, and on the other hand, that really extravagant and stupid ones about one-world governments and chemtrails and 9/11 controlled demolitions are deliberately fostered by people seeking to discredit legitimate questioning of authority via association? Just because authorities and media work around the clock to make any political dissidents appear like strawmen of cartoonish nutjobs doesn't mean that some things, like the obvious setup of the Parkland shooting, aren't evidence of real spooks afoot.
>>15261 Here's an idea for a society: no rusing allowed.
>>15261 I dont think all conspiracy theories are fake. I am just saying those that believe nukes are a hoax also are more likely to believe in creationist conspiracy theories as well. Also, as absurd as they are, there are people who believe in them, you can look up "flat earth proof" or "giants are real" or something like and you'll realise some people sincerely believe them
>>13445 Did you try using Yandex instead of Google?

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports)

no cookies?