Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Yes,I know it sounds like a bad science fiction novel,but couldn't you see a fundamentalist President fomenting a (nuclear or other) war to bring about the Apocalypse and Rapture? It doesn't take a crazy person to do this-just a zealot in a position of power. This has happened before-do you think the US is immune???
I think what most people misunderstand, is that a single nuke (which is entirely possible) anywhere in the world, particularly in the USA would shut down EVERYTHING. Air, global shipping, financial markets, commerce.
I am old enough to remember the LA riots of '92, where with a police infraction led to anarchy. Can you imagine what a nuke attack would do? It would turn us against ourselves.....
Suskind posits that the matierial could be bought for 10-20 million dollars. There's lots of people who could come up with that.
Hey you guys arguing about fissle matierial
Go read Suskind's book. I give it a year or two. Geenie is OUT of the bottle.
WE invented and used this monster. On this 9/11 I had the thought that maybe we should examine on this night- Not the maudlin, fading, Rah-Rah memorials; as the relatives complained today "yearly funerals".
Maybe we should look at how we got here. No, not just Bush, how we got here for the last 62 years.
That's the message people want to hear.
-- cdr42
I've read it. I assume by give it a year or two, you mean a nuclear device being detonated? Just asking for clarification.
It's much much harder to make nuclear bomb that many give credit. First generations devices have poor yield would be poor and it would be undeliverable.
The exception is uranium devices, which are much easier to make, but the process of uranium enrichment is exceedingly hard. These types of gun type weapons can made, but they are very very heavy and hard to deliver. The only practical delivery method would be a ship, which would mean a ground burst, greatly reducing its effectiveness.
Plus, all such nuclear explosions leave a signature trace that allows you to know where the uranium was mined, which could easily lead back to the country of development, which would then be destroyed.
Any country or group deciding to use a nuclear weapon would have to be suicidal. Not that such a possible does not exist, but most nations are rational. I highly doubt Iran, for all the talk otherwise, really want's to be destroyed in a nuclear exchange with Israel.
For more likely and still dangerous are dirty weapons. The is unsecured nuclear material in certain countries, and at least two of Russia's beacons have lost. They contain contain a Pu isotope that is very dangerous. It can't explode, but inhaled it's very deadly.
I'm not arguing with you. You're arguing with Xanthro, which is useless because he's a lying neocon propagandist with delusions of adequacy.
devaflowers
Yes,I know it sounds like a bad science fiction novel,but couldn't you see a fundamentalist President fomenting a (nuclear or other) war to bring about the Apocalypse and Rapture?
That's not sci-fi. That's Joel's Army.
They were big last year. They're a lot bigger this year. I wouldn't recommend Googling it up if you're at all prone to depression.
Xanthro--It seems you are saying that if you have a critical mass, then just because of this a warhead will go detonate.
That's right. Here, have a citation:
As part of a re-creation of a 1945 criticality accident, a 'pit' of plutonium is surrounded by blocks of neutron-reflective tungsten carbide. The original experiment was designed to measure the radiation produced when an extra block was added. Instead, the mass went supercritical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass
Notice that your claim that "A great amount of heat and pressure must be applied to trigger an nuclear denotation" doesn't even enter into it. Because you don't know what you're talking about.
I think I know why you are confused. You are mixing up nuclear power with a nuclear explosion. They are two very different processes, though they share many terms.
In a nuclear power plant, if it's producing electricity it's in a critical state, it's not detonating, and it's not creating a nuclear explosion.
It's not nearly as simple as bringing together a critical mass, which is a term that indicates the smallest mass in which a chain reaction can be self-producing, that's why in your example, there were neutron reflecting panels. You have to generate and control the neutrons. That's why Pu-240 works well in nuclear power production, because it freely releases neutrons.
No, you don't need heat or process to start a chain reaction in a nuclear power plant, but it's not detonating by any stretch of the imagination.
To create a nuclear detonation, such as in a warhead, you have to have heat and pressure. It's a very different process than a nuclear power plant.
Naturally, that can't be true, because they are not going off right now.
Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.
A warhead contains subcritical masses which are combined to create a critical mass which causes the detonation.
No, sub critical masses are only used in gun type devices, and they are never used with plutonium.
The refined Pu-239 is compressed into a critical mass. It's the actual compression that creates the criticality.
If a warhead didn't contain enough material to create a critical mass it wouldn't detonate and you wouldn't have a bomb.
Do you know understand the difference between how a nuclear power plant works and a nuclear warhead?
I can give you plenty of links if you want.
It's much much harder to make nuclear bomb that many give credit.
I just posted a Wikipedia article which provides all the information needed.
Plus, all such nuclear explosions leave a signature trace that allows you to know where the uranium was mined, which could easily lead back to the country of development, which would then be destroyed.
Rather beside the point once the explosion has been accomplished, wouldn't you say?
By the way, were you aware that your statement here is idiotic?
A great amount of heat and pressure must be applied to trigger an nuclear denotation.
I'm still waiting for your evidence, which isn't going to happen because it's not true. Because you don't know what you're talking about.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
