Nuclear war possible in our lifetime?
- Thread starter Doberman
- Start date
well in 20 or 30 years or less i plan 2 die from liver faluire..
and or over dose or alcohol poisening of soem kind
so i am not worrying..
and if the fuckin war comes well i will be drunk as hell
and have all barrels blazing at anything that moves!
so my death will be quick and easy like sunday monring...
thanks
and or over dose or alcohol poisening of soem kind
so i am not worrying..
and if the fuckin war comes well i will be drunk as hell
and have all barrels blazing at anything that moves!
so my death will be quick and easy like sunday monring...
thanks
That's the propaganda they're throwing the public. If you pay attention its actually the same BS they were using during the run up to war with Iraq. Except I believe they crossed out all the "Q"s and replaced them with "N"s. There are a lot of holes in the US "reasons" for sanctions or worse against Iran. 1)Iran has the RIGHT as a signer of the Nuclear Non-Prolifertion Treaty to use nuclear technology to generate power. Funny how the Us doesn't have a issue with Isreal having nuclear weapons or Pakistan or India. All three created their weapons programs on the sly and have not signed non-proliferation treaty. 2) You cannot make nuclear weapons with nuclear powerplants. It is a completely different process and requires entirely "cleaner" more enriched uranium or plutonium isotope. 3) IAEA and other intelligence agencies have made statements acknowleding that even if Iran was allowed to develop a nuclear weapons program unhindered it would be at least 10 years before they were able to produce a bomb or warhead. 4) Iran's longest range missle cannot reach the US. They can hit Isreal and other countries in that vicinity but not the US. So in no way are they a threat to the US unless we provoke them into a conflict.
2) You cannot make nuclear weapons with nuclear powerplants. It is a completely different process and requires entirely "cleaner" more enriched uranium or plutonium isotope.
This is a false statement that exemplifies a misunderstanding of nuclear physics. You can infact produce weapons grade nuclear material with a nuclear reactor. This process is known as enrichment.
As far as a nuclear war happening in our lifetime, I would say no it won't happen. Thats just based on my observations of the human animal.
This is a false statement that exemplifies a misunderstanding of nuclear physics. You can infact produce weapons grade nuclear material with a nuclear reactor. This process is known as enrichment.
As far as a nuclear war happening in our lifetime, I would say no it won't happen. Thats just based on my observations of the human animal.
You're misinfored on the two very different isotope requirements for weapons grade and reactor grade uranium/plutonium.
From http://www.powerfrontiers.com/nuclear.html
From http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=4&catid=19
Uranium is made of two isotopes U-238 (98-99%) and U-235 (.7%). To be considered "weapons-grade" uranium must by "enriched" be separating the isotopes and increasing the amount of u-235 to between 85-95%. Reator grade uranium is between 1-5% U-235. Similarly plutonium can also be used but unlike uranium it does not exist naturally on Earth and must be made in special reactors. Making this in a normal reactor is not energy-efficient, so usually weapons grade plutonium is produced in "research'' reactors. Its main isotopes are Pu-239 and Pu-240. Most plutonium power plant reactors have a enrichment of about 50-60% Pu-239. Weapons require 90-94% Pu-239. Although crude, low-yield (less than 3 kiloton) weapons can be made with low amounts of plutonium Pu-239 or uranium U-235. They are unreliable and in the case of reactor grade plutonium much more difficult to handle and engineer.
Use of reactor-grade plutonium complicates bomb design for several reasons.
First and most important, Pu-240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission, meaning that the plutonium in the device will continually produce many background neutrons. In a nuclear explosive using plutonium, the plutonium core is initially "subcritical," meaning that it cannot sustain a chain reaction. Chemical high explosives are used to compress the plutonium to higher than normal density (so that the neutrons released in each fission have a higher probability of hitting other atoms and causing more fissions).
In a well-designed nuclear explosive using weapons-grade plutonium, a pulse of neutrons is released to start this chain reaction at the optimal moment, but there is some chance that a background neutron from spontaneous fission of Pu-240 will set off the reaction prematurely.
With reactor-grade plutonium, the probability of such "pre-initiation" is very large. Pre-initiation can substantially reduce the explosive yield, since the weapon may blow itself apart and thereby cut short the chain reaction that releases energy.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/pu-isotope.htm
http://www.uic.com.au/nip18.htm
So please tell me where I made a false statement about making nuclear weapons from nuclear power plants? Please think before you speak.
From http://www.powerfrontiers.com/nuclear.html
From http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=4&catid=19
Uranium is made of two isotopes U-238 (98-99%) and U-235 (.7%). To be considered "weapons-grade" uranium must by "enriched" be separating the isotopes and increasing the amount of u-235 to between 85-95%. Reator grade uranium is between 1-5% U-235. Similarly plutonium can also be used but unlike uranium it does not exist naturally on Earth and must be made in special reactors. Making this in a normal reactor is not energy-efficient, so usually weapons grade plutonium is produced in "research'' reactors. Its main isotopes are Pu-239 and Pu-240. Most plutonium power plant reactors have a enrichment of about 50-60% Pu-239. Weapons require 90-94% Pu-239. Although crude, low-yield (less than 3 kiloton) weapons can be made with low amounts of plutonium Pu-239 or uranium U-235. They are unreliable and in the case of reactor grade plutonium much more difficult to handle and engineer.
Use of reactor-grade plutonium complicates bomb design for several reasons.
First and most important, Pu-240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission, meaning that the plutonium in the device will continually produce many background neutrons. In a nuclear explosive using plutonium, the plutonium core is initially "subcritical," meaning that it cannot sustain a chain reaction. Chemical high explosives are used to compress the plutonium to higher than normal density (so that the neutrons released in each fission have a higher probability of hitting other atoms and causing more fissions).
In a well-designed nuclear explosive using weapons-grade plutonium, a pulse of neutrons is released to start this chain reaction at the optimal moment, but there is some chance that a background neutron from spontaneous fission of Pu-240 will set off the reaction prematurely.
With reactor-grade plutonium, the probability of such "pre-initiation" is very large. Pre-initiation can substantially reduce the explosive yield, since the weapon may blow itself apart and thereby cut short the chain reaction that releases energy.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/pu-isotope.htm
http://www.uic.com.au/nip18.htm
So please tell me where I made a false statement about making nuclear weapons from nuclear power plants? Please think before you speak.
Well I don't think it will happen as long as the rational people stay in power. It almost happend in 1962 with the Cuban missle crisis. Thankfully Kennedy and Kristov were smart enough not to let the nut job war hawks around them lead them into WWIII. Unfortunately in the US the Bush administration is filled with some of the same people who wanted to see that conflict escalate to war. Hopefully though there are still quite a few rational people in Washington who won't let a nuclear war happen on their watch. At least that's what I hope.
