Refuting Awake: Suitcase Bombs

by metatron 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  TD

  In a multi-stage device, the "trigger" is simply the first stage ---a fission device.

  As Abaddon correctly states, a sufficiently violent fission reaction can be acheived both with highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium.

  (Of the two, the latter is more preferable because it can be produced in any quantity desired in a breeder reactor, but this only applies to nations that are already recognized nuclear powers. Nations that cannot openly operate a reactor of any type (e.g. Iran, Libya) must try to take the uranium route.)

  Typically, the energy released by the trigger slams into a mantle of heavy water producing a secondary fusion reaction. The fusion reaction releases an extremely dense flux of neutrons that can in turn be harnessed to produce a tertiary fission reaction even in unenriched uranium.
• 

  FreeWilly

  Abbadon is correct. 'Fissile material' is needed to make both types of Bombs. U-235 or Pu239 are both fissile.

  My guess is that the Backpack nukes are the gun-barrel variation. The yeild is small, but when the capabilities of these suitcase bombs are discussed they seem to indicate a low yeild device - (destruction of city blocks vs entire "cities")

  Besides, these are relatively simple devices. My only question was on the deterioration of them. Batteries and conventional explosives are not hard to reaquire. If these went bad what would stop a terrorist from replacing them? A gun barrel device doesn't need fancy timed/shaped explosives like the Tellar-Ulam device. Decay of the fissile material may come into play, but 40 years will not decay U-235 or Pu-239 that much so as to significantly disrupt the Fissile ratio. If these things are gun barrel devices I can't see what they are NOT just as deadly as they were a few decades ago.

  PS even though Plutonium is generated in Nuclear power fuel, it is very difficult technologically to extract. It requires an enourmous infastructure. I believe gaseous diffusion is only practical way to separate the scant plutonium from the rest of the nuclear fuel.
• 

  FirstInLine

  Any reason for you being so rude? I gave those links in a friendly fashion, I don't see why you need to be so snitty.

  OMG I wasnt being rude or snitty. I said nevermind as in "forget it." If people don't understand what I am saying in my own words then I have to put up a quote so you do. You don't have to act like everything is an assault on your senses I wasnt trying to debate you. I am not an expert on nuclear weapons so NEVERMIND, its not important and I didnt care to begin with.

  btw I read your links, And I know you can use either plutonium or uranium in a bomb. Look at how this has degenerated...which is why I just said nevermind... and tried once again to show what I was talking about.
• 

  Abaddon

  FiL

  It only 'degenerated' when you quoted something (that made the incorrect opinion you'd advanced earlier seem accurate) in a dismissive manner.

  Even now you can't say, "oh, you can make bombs out of just uranium, I thought you had to have plutonium".

  How do you say it in America... oh, yeah... "whatever".

  FreeWilly

  Oh, they can make the implosion bombs really small; look at the dimensions of an ICBM nose cone and consider they can get several different warheads in there, plus decoys. But technically speaking you're quite right, it would be easier. The enrichment of uranium is only a problem if you don't have the infrastructure required to enrich it, and the Soviets had that alright.

  TD

  Heh, I remember growing up in London in the '80's; most of my friends at school though they would die in a nuclear war, fission-fusion-fission, bing-bang-boom. Of course, I thought I knew better and that god would do it! It might sound flippant, but a 50/50 chance of a terrorist attack involving nukes happening at somepoint somewhere is a way better option than MAD.
• 

  FirstInLine

  Abaddon,

  I do realize you can make bombs out of Uranium without Plutonium. My frustration was over the fact that I was talking about a trigger mechanism to start a fission chain reaction and my ego took a hit to begin with when Nathan thought I didn't know what a dirty bomb was by my assertion. Then it seemed a different confusion was at play with you thinking I didnt realize you can either use plutonium or uranium in a device, so I reiterated the matter in question with a quote. Then you accuse me of being dishonest in its usage. The quote is technically not true according to you because I did not remove its context. That is fine I quoted someone who was wrong and my initial recollection of basic nuclear physics concerning chain reactions was wrong. My recollection of a neutron, an arrow stemming from a plutonium atom and colliding with a uranium nucleus must have not been at the start of the reaction then. That is fine I have no problem with you educating me, or at least on things I dont actually know.

  Cheers, sorry for the misunderstanding.
• 

  got my forty homey?

  This is great reading. Before all this talk of dirty bombs I use to think that a dirty bomb was what I had after eating a box of hamburger helper without hamburger!
• 

  FirstInLine

  In a multi-stage device, the "trigger" is simply the first stage ---a fission device.

  Yes, I know

  Abbadon is correct. 'Fissile material' is needed to make both types of Bombs. U-235 or Pu239 are both fissile.

  As opposed to me being wrong I suppose. Another thing I already know.
• 

  FreeWilly

  Fil..... chill man, I was just clarifying. Whether or not you were wrong shouldn't matter all that much should it? You will be wrong to varing degrees, sooner or later, just like me and everyone else here. Now go twist one up.