Nuclear weapons

[Bruce]

Do you get the feeling that someday very soon, you are going to wake up and read the headlines, "Nuclear weapon detonated in the Middle East!".

I'm pretty sure that Iran has at least one. Nuclear weapons are not difficult to make. The hardest part of making a nuclear weapon is preventing it from detonating when you DON'T want it to go off.

If you have a bunch of suicide bombers at your disposal, you don't have to worry about any of that. It's simply a matter of bringing enough enriched uranium atoms in close proximity to one another. If your suicide bomber manages to reach his intended target before collapsing from radiation sickness, he could literally have a chunk of uranium in one pocket and a chunk in the other, and then smack them together when the time comes.



Ok, I'm not a nuclear weapons expert so it may not be that simple, but I know enough about nuclear energy to know that starting a nuclear chain reaction is not all that difficult.

 

[Azure]

So why hasn't it happened yet? Don't you think that Iran would instantly strike is Israel if they had nuclear weapons?

I fully expect it yes, but I expect Israel to be dropping it, not Iran. I think its about high time too.

 

[clarsct]

DO you realize what that would do to the price of GAS?!!

We must stop this at all costs....

 

[gumboot]

To be honest, I'm not surprised that no state has detonated a nuclear weapon since WW2. Doing so would basically mean the end of your state... I mean... who would vote against an invasion in the UN? And a single nuke, or even an arsenal of nukes can't actually knock out a country.

What is a little more surprising is that no "renegades" have set one off. By this I mean terrorists. Pre-9/11 I would have said none were willing to inflict that level of destruction. Now I think some would not even hesitate. Thankfully none have got a hold of any yet...

But the more countries there are that have nukes, the greater the risk that someone who would use them gets hold of them. Unless something changes dramatically, I think a nuclear terrorist attack is a matter of "when?" and "where?", not "if". And that is a scary thought.

I also think that some of the countries that are currently being hounded (like Iran and N.Korea) are excellent candidates for supplying terrorists with a nuke (whether intentionally or simply through poor security/corruption etc)

-Andrew

EDT. That should be "no state has detoned a nuclear weapon against an enemy since WW2"

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually, refining uranium to the point where you can make a bomb out of it is still a long and difficult process.

Mind you an awful lot of plutonium apparently "went missing" after the fall of the USSR. It's a fairly good bet a lot of it ended up in the hands of nations that want to be nuclear powers, and Bruce is right about how easy it is to make a nuclear weapon if someone has enriched the fissile material for you.

On the other hand, I read somewhere that Osama bin Laden contemplated crashing planes into nuclear power stations instead of economic and military targets of symbolic importance, and rejected the idea as "too extreme". An actual nuclear bomb would be more extreme by far. So even the people we usually see presented to us as utter lunatics aren't too keen on going that far.

 

[The Don]

So why hasn't it happened yet? Don't you think that Iran would instantly strike is Israel if they had nuclear weapons?.

No, I think they would posture for a long time before even considering such a thing. After all, the repercussions would be terrible for them.

I fully expect it yes, but I expect Israel to be dropping it, not Iran. I think its about high time too.

It always alarms me when someone seems to be in favour of a nuclear strike. I would be concerned that there would be ramifications far beyond what we currently envisage.

For example, if the Muslim world already hates the West (and it's be very easy to portray Israel as a stooge of the West to the faithful following a nuclear attack on an Isalmic country) then I would imagine a series of terrorist attacks in all major cities in the West.

One problem about having a very effective military is that the country that owns it could become trigger happy.

 

[Bruce]

Actually, refining uranium to the point where you can make a bomb out of it is still a long and difficult process.

All you need is a centrifuge, a Geiger counter, and at least one graduate student.

 

[Bikewer]

Producing a reliable fission reaction isn't that easy, the critical mass of fissionable material must be "assembled" (as the nuclear engineers euphemize) rather quickly.

The "little boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima was of the "gun" design, which fires part of the critical mass into the rest by means of high explosive. It worked, but did not produce the "yield" (another euphemism) of the "fat man" implosion bomb. This is now effectively the standard design, where a sphere of plutonium is crushed by specially-shaped charges around it's periphery.
The expertise for doing all this is available technology, obtaining a critical mass of fissionable material and machining it into the very-precise shape needed is difficult.

 

[Mephisto]

It always alarms me when someone seems to be in favour of a nuclear strike. I would be concerned that there would be ramifications far beyond what we currently envisage.

It alarms me too, especially if you consider that the jump between advocating the use of a nuclear weapon and advocating the use on schools and residential areas for the purpose of elminating future terrorists isn't exactly a chasm.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

All you need is a centrifuge, a Geiger counter, and at least one graduate student.

My understanding is that with just one centrifuge it would take, in layperson's terms, bloody forever.

The difference in mass between U-235 and U-238 (if I recall correctly) is so slight that you need enormous amounts of uranium being furiously centrifuged for a very long time to get enough weapons-grade material to do anything explosive with.

 

[Bruce]

My understanding is that with just one centrifuge it would take, in layperson's terms, bloody forever.

Thus the graduate student.

Or prisoner. Same thing.

 

[Kerberos]

It alarms me too, especially if you consider that the jump between advocating the use of a nuclear weapon and advocating the use on schools and residential areas for the purpose of elminating future terrorists isn't exactly a chasm.

Particuarly not in this case since in this thread our friend advocates that Israel engages in the lagest genocide in the world by well over an order of magnitude. Though whether this interesting position is the result of trolling or a failure to take antopsychotic medication I don't know.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Thus the graduate student.

Or prisoner. Same thing.

It took the Manhatten Project two years or so to scrape together enough U-235 for one relatively measly atomic bomb, and they had more than one graduate student on board, plus a whole lot of centrifuges and cyclotrons.

 

[Dcdrac]

It took the Manhatten Project two years or so to scrape together enough U-235 for one relatively measly atomic bomb, and they had more than one graduate student on board, plus a whole lot of centrifuges and cyclotrons.

It is heer fantasy that nuclear weapons grade material can be whipped up in a garage with a single cyclotron and centifuge, still it makes great fiction.

 

[shemp]

DO you realize what that would do to the price of GAS?!!

We must stop this at all costs....

It would also drive up the price of nuclear weapons. Note to self: stock up today.

 

[Azure]

No, I think they would posture for a long time before even considering such a thing. After all, the repercussions would be terrible for them.

They are obviously suicidal anyways, why would a nuclear strike stop them?

It always alarms me when someone seems to be in favour of a nuclear strike. I would be concerned that there would be ramifications far beyond what we currently envisage.

For example, if the Muslim world already hates the West (and it's be very easy to portray Israel as a stooge of the West to the faithful following a nuclear attack on an Isalmic country) then I would imagine a series of terrorist attacks in all major cities in the West.

One problem about having a very effective military is that the country that owns it could become trigger happy.

And you see a different solution to the problem outside of a nuclear attack? Unless Syria and Iran are both taken out now, we will eventually see nuclear war. I prefer we drop it on them first.

 

[The Don]

They are obviously suicidal anyways, why would a nuclear strike stop them?.

Why obviuously ?

An obviously suicidal regime would launch an all-out terrorist attack against the US or perhaps an airstrike against Israel. I see no evidence of either.

And you see a different solution to the problem outside of a nuclear attack? Unless Syria and Iran are both taken out now, we will eventually see nuclear war. I prefer we drop it on them first.

I'm sure you do. I would prefer to limit the use of nuclear weapons. The action of first resort is not to nuke 'em.

I hope that in years to come we can look back at many years of not using nuclear weapons against Muslim countries in the same way we didn't use them against the Warsaw Pact.

 

[Azure]

Why obviuously ?

An obviously suicidal regime would launch an all-out terrorist attack against the US or perhaps an airstrike against Israel. I see no evidence of either.

I think we all realize what part Iran is playing in the Israel/Lebanon conflict. Wouldn't you call that suicidal? Wouldn't you call 90% of the terrorists out there suicidal, considering that they're the ones who walk into a market place and blow themselves up.

I'm sure you do. I would prefer to limit the use of nuclear weapons. The action of first resort is not to nuke 'em.

I hope that in years to come we can look back at many years of not using nuclear weapons against Muslim countries in the same way we didn't use them against the Warsaw Pact.

If I had the utmost certainty that Iran or NK, or some other terrorist group would never launch nuclear weapons against the free world, I would agree to limit the use of nuclear weapons.

I really don't see that happening. The idea of MAD went along way in stopping nuclear war from breaking out with the Warsaw Pact. Sadly, that theory cannot and will not apply to Muslim extremists.

 

[Art Vandelay]

The reason nuclear bombs are more than just putting together two lumps of uranium is that a true nuclear explosion requires significantly more than the critical mass. If two lumps are put together, then once it reaches critical mass, there will be an explosion that pushes the pieces apart, but only a small part of the uranium will fission, because it's only slightly above critical mass. To get the full yield, you need to get the lumps to stay together long enough for all the uranium to fission.

 

[IIRichard]

As it happens, I have some experience with nuclear weapons. What follows is, however, all in the public domain.

A gun type weapon, where two subcritical masses of Uranium 235 are brought together by low explosives, is relatively easy to engineer as the technology is basically field artillery. I believe that in most designs, both peices are shot towards each other.

The problem is the need for highly enriched uranium, that is mostly U235 not U238. The centrifuge method uses uranium hexaflouride so the differ4ence in maas between the two molecules is tiny and the centrifuges are set up in cascades with the slightly enriched product being feedstock for the next cetrifuge and the, realatively unenriched going back to the first centrifuge.

This process can take years. In 1945, the US had three bombs, one uranium gun type and two plutonium implosion types. Gives you some idea of the time inolved.

Plutonium bombs cannot use the gun type arrangement because it simply isn't possible, or at least practical, to bring the almost critical parts together fast enough that there will be a significant yield. Plutonium bombs use the implosion method of increasing the density past criticality by an explosive shock wave. This requires very sophisticated engineering and extremely precise fabrication of the explosive "lenses". Merely surounding a plutonium pit with high explosive doesn't work.

Besides, manufacturing plutonium and handling it require a large sophisticated industrial base. Plutonium can be made by the intense neutron ombardment of a nuclear reactor. It must then be separated chemicaly from the spen fuel rods. This is easier than enriching uranium but is not a trivial problem.

I do have a guess. My guess is that the nuclear material necessary for a bomb is not now in the hands of a terrorist group. If it were, they'd have sold it for chemical and biological weapons or a lot of conventinal ones. Refined plutonium and enriched uranium are literally woth their weight in gold and diamonds.

IIRichard