>> Less than one kilogram of Plutonium-239 is required for a implosion nuclear device

There is a reason one of the most highly guarded secrets of nuclear weapons design are the explosive lenses used for implosion devices.

indeed

see

So if this leaks out, we're all doomed?

No, still have to manufacture them.

Inb4 pedophile cartoons so just in case:

What surprises me is that Terrorists haven't built dirty bombs yet. A Nuke might be hard, a dirty bomb isn't. It doesn't even take much to make a bomb dirty, just rip apart some old smoke detectors and throw the tiny bits of Americium into a conventional bomb. There's no nuclear bang but the Geiger Counters will go tick and that's enough to cause a panic.

Biological/chemical attacks are a serious threat in Europe : labs were broke into and searched, protective equipment was stolen.

Not very surprisingly, the kind of Islamic terrorists that are currently threatening Europe don't have the knowledge by far. Some of them have had higher education, but none of them have the technical or operative know-how to gather the necessary materials, and to build and deploy such a weapon effectively, without being detected by any of the security agencies.
Besides that, the only terrorist attack with advanced weapons that I can think of is the nerve gas attack in the Tokyo metro by that crazy Japanese cult.

>> gas attack

A purely radiological terror attack wouldn't probably differ that much from a chemical attack. All the crazy motherfucker would need to do is disperse some source of radiation like Am-241 in pulverized form to scare people and make geiger counters wild.

Never the less, even if pork haters are not dumb enough to learn how into physics and engineerng for physic-ing and engineering said devices, i bet my ass that being such knoweledge haram, they just won't use it, you know, because Allahu won't abide.

i like your duck image, i am going to save it

can you tell me where you got it, please?

Given how most Islamic terror organizations have funding from the US/Israel/Saudis/Russians/Turks/EU in some capacity or another I'd wager it's not so much a matter of "dumb mudslimes not being able to figure out nuclear" but rather "Agent Smith putting down Abdul al-Nu Kle Arallah so he doesn't fuckup a decades long puppet show to build a pipeline from Saudi Arabia to Europe or some such".

i think on /mu/ the other day, if not there somewhere here

cheers user, i hope it comes in handy someday

that makes me sad, as i would like to have more nice walking duck images

thank you anyway

>Is it much harder than just mashing two 5kg pieces together?
Considerably. Basically, you'll get a fizzle unless either the pressures generated by the escaping energy serve to compress rather than disperse the critical mass, or you can assemble a *very* supercritical mass before a stray neutron sets the whole thing off.

It's pretty hard to find someone academically smart enough to do the math and practically smart enough to make the device match the math, without having a very convincing, very reasonable argument for why you should have nuclear weapons (including how you're going to pay them, and how your actions after they've built you a bomb will be consistent with them getting to enjoy their pay over a long, peaceful life).

These sorts of people aren't buttmad in a desert somewhere. They're largely free to live in whatever country they want, and get as rich and comfy as they want, while openly enjoying the esteem of their peers and respect of their community.

The production or other acquisition of plutonium isn't easy either. I don't doubt people try to get it all the time, and this is when most of them get caught.

>Nuclear engineer here, not true. Even weapons grade plutonium (~90% 239Pu) has a critical mass around 10kg
That's a bare critical mass at STP.

You mean "nuclear engineering student", right? Like... first year?

They do make boosted fission primaries with under 1 kg of plutonium. Density (and the reflector) matters a lot.

4th year but I'm not an expert, no. From what I was aware of the lowest critical masses for implosion type devices were around 4kg with reflection, 3 stage weapons have other engineering requirements. It was my understanding that you need a DT fusion source for such a small critical mass.

In any case I still think it's especially unlikely that a non-state actor could assemble any kind of functional nuclear weapon with under 1kg of Pu

>Nuclear engineer here

>It was my understanding that you need a DT fusion source for such a small critical mass.
There's nothing to set off the DT fusion fuel if the fission core doesn't go supercritical. It's not like it's magnetized target fusion starting with a hot fuel plasmoid in the middle. It's just a cold DT gas blend, put in the hollow center of a plutonium core.

It might be a pretty disappointing little bomb without the DT charge to sustain it as the minimal charge of plutonium is consumed and heated, but the fission detonation needs to be able to happen on its own first.

>Never the less, even if pork haters are not dumb enough to learn how into physics and engineerng for physic-ing and engineering said devices, i bet my ass that being such knoweledge haram, they just won't use it, you know, because Allahu won't abide.
Did pulling all of that out of your ass hurt?

>They do make boosted fission primaries with under 1 kg of plutonium. Density (and the reflector) matters a lot.
I'm definitely in no position to argue with those numbers, but wouldn't the kinds of tech needed to build "lightweight" bombs massively increase the complexity of the device?

Edgy

Is intergalactic travel even conceivable? We can't manage .1c, and Andromeda is 2.5M light years away

fug

Didn't some terrorists try to build a nuclear weapon only to fry themselves with radiation due to a mistake?

...

maybe, we don't need light speed to send life to another galaxy. One day we will send an entire solar system in its youth over there unless humanity destroys itself which isn't so bad either.

It's unlikely that a non-state actor could assemble any kind of functional nuclear weapon, period.

Even for a nation state, you need a fairly high level of technological development, and be either reasonably wealthy or (as in the case of NK) willing to spend far too much of your GDP on it.

A gun-type device has as significantly lower technological requirement, but that's offset by needing a huge production and enrichment program. Little Boy used 64kg of 80%-enriched uranium, equivalent to ~7111 kg of non-enriched uranium or 1024 kg of 5% uranium (reactor-grade is typically 3-5%).

I dont think it means what you think it means.

I'm pretty sure Merica is the edgelord in this picture, not the person who dares to point out facts.

...

> just rip apart some old smoke detectors and throw the tiny bits of Americium into a conventional bomb.
Inverse square law.

Any Geiger counter far enough away not to get destroyed by the blast probably wouldn't even notice such a minuscule amount of radiation.

The source in a smoke detector is about the size of a grain of flour. If you actually want to scare people, you'd be better off burgling a hospital radiology department.

you think that killing 50k people is funny? What are you, 13?

Yeah man incredibly funny.
That's why we bombed the Japs. Thought it would just be hilarious.

Bombing strategic targets in an act of war is not terrorism, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen for their importance, bomber range, weather conditions. Not to kill the most japanese.

atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp5.shtml

it still was unnecessary.
aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2016/05/hiroshima-atomic-bomb-160527065818628.html

Not according to military intelligence at the time.

This historical revisionism bullshit is fucking cancer.

>Bombing strategic targets
Bombing sure makes it sound more relatable to previous events, huh? Gotta choose them words carefully like a politician.

>Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen for their importance, bomber range, weather conditions.
No, they were chosen to strike so much fear as to prevent war. Range & weather conditions? Are you that stupid? That's completely tangential to the fact that they were nuclear weapons.

>Not to kill the most japanese.
That's just a bonus. As it always has been.

Are you one of those "Japan surrendered" memers

>No, they were chosen to strike so much fear as to prevent war. Range & weather conditions? Are you that stupid

Fuck off.
You clearly don't know shit about the topic.

A lot of actions seem unnecessary retroactively, especially after wars.
At the time and for the USA, it was judged necessary to nuclear bomb Japan. Was it catastrophic ? Yes. Should we do it ever again (on another country) ? Maybe. Is it moral ? No, and modern war isn't either.
But saying it's terrorism is wrong, the US didn't do it to kill people or allahu akbar.

>nuclear weapons have greater range and survive harsher weather conditions than classical bombs in the same shell
>going nuclear had nothing to do with scaring the shit out of the country and showing dominance

>pretty much placing the explosives correctly

if you mean "having extremely well understood, stable and homogeneous explosives, perfectly placed with high precision into a device with highly precise and durable neutron deflectors, connected with state-of-the-art extremely precise computer controlled timers for the state-of-the-art detonation mechanisms", then yeah, sure.

It's easy.

>nuclear weapons have greater range and survive harsher weather conditions than classical bombs in the same shell
What the fuck are you even talking about

Because Nuclear Bombs AREN'T REAL.
THEY DON'T EXIST. I'm being serious.
Don't even bother replying til you watch this video

youtube.com/watch?v=sULjMjK5lCI

>3 hours
Come the fuck on.

but it was. 5 out of 6 generals were against it.

>denial

The claims made. Follow the post chain brudder.

Just Youtube "Nukes Don't Exist" then

>At the time and for the USA, it was judged necessary to nuclear bomb Japan
it wasn't.
thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/
still denying user

it's ok to make mistakes.

>But saying it's terrorism is wrong, the US didn't do it to kill people or allahu akbar.
they did it because they wanted to see what it would do.
It's even worse.

Watch this 10 minute version then
youtube.com/watch?v=j7jVHzYzYw0
NUKES DON'T EXIST.
NUCLEAR. BOMBS. ARE. A. HOAX.

FISSION AND FUSION AREN'T REAL
MY FUSOR IS A LIE
REACTORS ARE FAKE
THEY ARE FULL OF HAMSTERS IN HAMSTER WHEELS

They did it because they needed to show the Soviets they had the bomb, and because they needed the Japanese to firmly acknowledge defeat for the post war occupation. The amount of propagandising and brainwashing that took place would have made the occupation a nightmare and absolute disaster if the Japanese people thought there was still 'unfinished business' and that their government surrendered when they could have kept fighting.

Even after the bombs there was still a faction of the government that wanted to kill the Emperor to stop the surrender. That's the kind of irrational mindset they were dealing with.
Any sane leadership would have surrendered LONG before the atomic bombings.

Watch that video starting at 5:29. That nuclear bomb footage is clearly fake. In fact it's the fakest shit you could ever see if you didn't have cognitive dissonance blocking your common sense. Those are nothing more than miniature models. Worse than the lowest budget special effects in a movie today.

>thenation
Literally fuck off

Noone really knows what would have happened, the fact is that the Japanese would've fought and Americans and Brits would have died. I'd rather sacrifice 100,000 of them than 10 of mine. Even Churchill supported the bombings (not American for retards).

I like how Japanese don't really care now and take it for what it was. But butthurt western lefties bitch about it constantly.

*tips tinfoil hat*

>anger, bargaining

USA are a major terrorist state and they have a fuckton of nuclear weapons.
And isn't north korea trying to get nucular?

humanity has had nuclear weapons for less than 100 years. It's literally only a matter of time until a full blown nuclear war destroys most of the planet

>Noone really knows what would have happened
>the fact is...
shut the fuq up lamo

More Proof That Nukes Don't Exist:
youtube.com/watch?v=Kr-sx6NXkEs

>leftie 0 argument butthurt
Love it

>anger

>the camera must have been pretty close to record a picture appearing that close!
what are optics

would you like to point out your other complaints individually so i can laugh at them? are you a moon landing = hoax guy too because you don't understand that shadows fall on hills at a different angle than they fall on flat ground? and albedo is too hard to understand?

His argument was roughly that you contradicted yourself in a single sentence and therefore you are probably too stupid to breathe and type at the same time. Just helping out.

It's not a contradiction if you actually read the previous posts. Don't be so anal about it.

No one knows how the it would have turned out, what is known without a doubt is that people would have died either way.

You are either autistic or pretending

People would've died, that's my point. Would you sperg out too if I said that earth would orbit the sun?
Do you have a degree?

>bargaining
desu I don't even read your posts anymore, I just find keywords and respond with the correct stage of grief.

What's wrong with you?

>People would've died, that's my point.
That's cool. It's tangential to the entire point at hand, but cool.

You're arguing with at least two different people.

>>bargaining
You should seriously stop posting.

>anger

How so?

At least watch the first 3 minutes of this then
youtube.com/watch?v=AYiouIQoXgk

is there any more information to this than a shady youtube documentary full of just emotional appeal? articles, documents etc

Bullshit documentaries preying on emotions exist for everything. Show me data, studies, something not shady as fuck.

>cancer hoax
what does this have to do with nukes

>her urine was so toxic we had to wear gloves
nonsense

>WAKE UP SHEEPLE
I am skeptical of the government, but I am also skeptical of you as well.

All these conspiracy theories are often held by the same people and often portrayed in the same 2spooky4u format, walls of text or 2 hour long youtube videos. Seems to my like you all share a common mental illness.

>I am skeptical of the government, but I am also skeptical of you as well.
Just wanted to pop in to agree with this. The most infuriating argument from conspiracy theorists is "oh so you think the government would never do that?"

No, I don't have any such undying blind faith in the government. I simply am not persuaded by weak claims.

isn't that a chemist of a physicist?

>>nuclear engineer
>> nuclear technician
>> technician

>>They do make boosted fission primaries with under 1 kg of plutonium. Density (and the reflector) matters a lot.
>I'm definitely in no position to argue with those numbers, but wouldn't the kinds of tech needed to build "lightweight" bombs massively increase the complexity of the device?
I don't know that much.

I don't see nuclear bombs as complex devices, just very precise ones, made from very costly materials.

I expect it would be more difficult if you're working under a constraint like less plutonium.

he is just some nerd on Veeky Forums at best

The lower the mass of plutonium used, the higher the mass of high explosives needed. The relation, of course, isn't linear. Nuclear bombs that would require small amounts of plutonium therefore wouldn't make really good warheads but were looked on by people like Ted Taylor for other purposes like nuclear pulse units for project Orion. When you're exploding 3000-4000 bombs under your spaceship, using less plutonium and more high explosives becomes more favourable due to the fact that plutonium-239 is expensive compared to rdx. Especially when the yield is pretty much constant in pulse unit purposes, no matter the amount of plutonium used.

In warhead design, small mass and volume is more desirable than small cost and therefore more plutonium and less explosives are used.

>They did it because they needed to show the Soviets they had the bomb
The jew in charge of the program was a communist, the Soviets were well aware of the bomb

>and because they needed the Japanese to firmly acknowledge defeat for the post war occupation.

Japan had been willing to surrender for years

>Any sane leadership would have surrendered LONG before the atomic bombings.
?
It was the allies who wanted war, it was the allies who insisted on unconditional surrender/other terms to drag out the war.

The only irrational mindset is brainwashed westerners defending the behavior of the allies during ww2.

>Japan had been willing to surrender for years
And yet they didn't.

>it was the allies who insisted on unconditional surrender
Sorry, but you don't get to start a war, get your ass handed to you, then demand favourable surrender conditions.

>trying to justify biggest war crimes
just stop embarassing yourself.

Who needs to justify it?
We won, now it's history.

...

*spends hours fapping to animu immediately after defecating this post*

because plutonium is the most guarded and controlled element on earth

The first bomb was a warcrime.
The second was Japanese arrogance.

The second bomb was dropped so that a third wasn't necessary.