It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Nukes dead ?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
If only there was some nifty way of inserting people/things here and there


Lots o' ways to do that, too.

Interestingly, the Rooskies actually built a big honkin' metal detector network immersed in the water along the less guarded bits of seacoast to stop just such a thing.

Didn't help a lot, but they did it.




posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

You people are so ...VIOLENT.
STILL prefer a knife.



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: B2StealthBomber

Are you telling me a nuke has never exploded underground?

Isn't there like video evidence of that happening?

I don't understand your point.

Obviously the best case scenario is the lab is also in your enemies territory.

Obviously it can be in the desert and have no consequence on anyone at all. They have tested Nukes before.

This one location can still have the same procedure happen multiple times simultaneously.

To phrase it better, yes it's weakness is it requires one control explosion. The benefit is infinite amount of secondary ranged explosions.
edit on 15-3-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

How to create an atomic explosion:
Split an atom with a 'bombardment' of particles being moved at high speed into the atom

Quantum Entanglement:
Controlling the movement of particles that are interlocked, by only manipulating one set


So if entangled particles can cause enough force to split the atom, it will happen at both locations.

However force is a meaningless word, the reason they bombard it is because getting a subatomic particle to collide with the nucleus is difficult because of size. If they are able to fire the particles accurately, they no longer need a 'bombardment' and they will be able to split an atom, with it's own particles, because they won't need as many to ensure success.
edit on 15-3-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: mbkennel

so you're saying there's a major, major difference between detecting the radiation emitted from a lump of plutonium hiding in a shielded submarine 1000 feet below sea water, and detecting high energy gamma rays emitted from hellacious astronomical cataclysms?

Damn!!! I got smacked down again. See ATS members. Learn from old bassplyr here. Never try to outwit a world class physicist on the internet or you'll look foolish like me.


Well, you'd really want to detect the emissions from the sub's reactor. All of that info relating to remote detection of nukes, weapons or reactors, is very classified.

Thing is that cross section of neutrons in water is pretty high so that's out.

en.wikipedia.org...

Gammas at depth too wouldn't be that strong.

I don't think it's that productive to detect subs passively that way, unless somehow you found an enormously efficient neutrino detector as if you could boost up the weak force cross section a few orders of magnitude. (i.e. no).

Subs are just damn hard to find----sound and influence on waves are still the best ways.


edit on 15-3-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Hmm yeah see the thing is you don't really know what it takes to build a nuke, yes sure entangle one particle and then split one atom big deal, you might have enough energy to power a 1w light bulb for half a second..

Wheres the HEU?



posted on Mar, 16 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: B2StealthBomber

Idk where you get your math that spiting one atom isn't a big deal. The speed the particle hits the nucleus is the only big deal, because that factors the speed another particle can hit another nucleus and split it. If it's slow, it's lower probability, if it's fast, it's high probability. This is the only 'math' in the energy of a chain reaction of atoms spiting.

Quantum entanglement mirrors two particles. Can you speed one particle to massive speed and does this change the speed of the other? Yes.

Just like the Quantum Bubble, you miss the link of how chain reactions are what's favorable about quantum technology in the first place.

How do you get hung up on the lab exploding, but then claim there won't be enough energy to nuke, then also claim that same small amount of energy cannot be contained? When it was described to myself, it was that it is contained(A computer). I only humored the idea of it exploding in the lab mattering with you.

I don't understand your real position?

What exactly is it you don't understand about infinite simultaneous reactions? Even if they were mirroring a small reaction, the application that they can simultaneously occur, even in a single spot, is a chain nuclear reaction on it's own regardless of the speed of particles. It's a nuke that 'explodes faster' at the minimum.

I'll quote myself here:




The benefit is infinite amount of secondary ranged explosions.


I'm sure you have some grasp of all the atoms in your body being split, and the effect that causes.


originally posted by: B2StealthBomber
a reply to: imjack


Wheres the HEU?


At the first location, if it even needs to be. Remember, they are mirroring particles at a distance, does it matter what they use to accelerate them? Hopefully they don't actually need to blow themselves up to speed a particle at a distance, and cause it to start splitting atoms.

The reason uranium is specifically used in bombs is because it's unstable and good for starting the process of getting a chain reaction of individual neutrons to split a single atom that splits into 3 more neutrons, and releases a lot of energy in the process. However ultimate goal is still just getting particles to split atoms, and the experiment can replicate that indefinitely. There's no need for 1 splitting into 3.

Another humorous thought is that you can just fire the particle at HEU your enemy owns and it will cause the result you're sort of demanding. Even though that's not even necessary for it to be destructive. That's like shooting the barrel of gasoline in those shooter games to clear the whole room.
edit on 16-3-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Deleted
edit on 28-3-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join