Can Iran bypass the 'trial and error' stage in nuclear weapon development?

Maybe Iran will go for a "live" test. That is an option.

Maybe they will field weapons which work in theory.

Maybe they don't have a nuclear weapons programme. If that is the case then why do they hide so much?

Clearly Iran are in a fairly primative state in comparision the the advance nuclear nations have signed or ratified the Comprehesive Test Ban Treaty. I cannot speak for all the nuclear nations, but recall discussion in the UK which indicated that the UK were able to model the effects of new nukes with computers, thus avoiding the need to detonate and analyse. Clearly Iran cannot do this.

Regards

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Big Raging Loner

 

Thanks to the Internet there is no more testing. You can pull up diagrams. I wont post a link to prove my point.but heres part of the diagram text with links removed.

This is a more detailed illustration of the Teller-Ulam configuration as used in the B28 bomb. This example was picked because at one time it represented the backbone of US nuclear weaponry. Also, for what ever the reason, more information seems to be available on this type than most other modern nuclear weapons.

For a nicely executed color solid-modeled version of this conceptual design, by Paul McDonell, click here for an internal view (110 K), or here for an external view (48 K).

Testings been done the only thing that stops countries is refinement of nuclear materials and the detonators.Both of which can be tested without nuclear blasts.So yes a country can have a stockpile and the world wouldn't know.

[edit on 8/1/10 by dragonridr]

And all that info you can find on the internet is declassified, in other words it doesn't have the details you'd actually need to build an h-bomb. Its no different then the info you can pull up on stealth via the internet. You can get a pretty good idea of how it works, but all the physics, mathematical equations, materials details, ect. involved is far removed from the public domain. If you really think a diagram reveals the secrets of the latest and greatest warheads, then you have very little understanding of the physics involved. Besides, the basic design questions/assumptions involved have never been the hard part of designing atomic weapons.

If I remember correctly the department of energy hired a team of recent grad students to design a nuclear bomb using only publicly available information back in the 70s. After 4 years or so of work the design they produced was deemed reasonable, but they were off the mark in several important areas.

And regarding the jump from a-bomb to h-bomb, you simply can't. The basic a-bomb is a fission reaction, while the h-bomb is typically a fusion boosted fission reaction.

reply to post by IAMNOTWHOITSAYSIAM


Thanks for the reply I had not heard about that experiment. I will have to share with my brother who is a physics grad himself.

So the students came up with a reasonable design they were just lacking the precision that nuclear scientists have garnered over the years.

What if you take some physics professors, engineers and chemists, as an earlier poster mentioned. Get them together and say make the bomb by any means necessary. Do you think they could do it? I mean they have alot more ot go on than the publicly available info on the internet.

reply to post by Big Raging Loner[/url] That's a releif then!

The problem is far more complicated than people imagine. The manufacture of any nuclear weapon or device comes down to choice.

Do you go with a Fission device or a Fusion bomb/warhead?

A fission device uses a trigger mechanism to detonate a quantity of explosives to force fissionable material together and cause a chain reaction.

This device is relatively easy to manufacture and in my opinion, requires no testing - provided the device is manufactured to the highest specifications possible.

A fusion device is far more complicated. To trigger the device it requires an implosion to initiate a chain [nuclear] reaction, by squeezing the radioactive material - a bit like how a deisel motor works.

BUT, in order to manufacture this type of device, the best skilled machinists need to manufacture a sphere of high explosives to tolerances of thousands of microns in sections.

Each sections must join perfectly. There can be no seams or even the tiniest of gaps because if there is, then your device becomes what is known in the trade, as a fizzle. (The weapon detonates but the mass does not go critical because all of the explosion is not directed at the radioactive material]

With all due respect to the Iranians who have brilliant scientists and extremely skilled engineers, i doubt whether they have the skills to develope such as device.

There is a way round this problem but that is even more complicated. A device can be boosted by the injection of deuterium and tritium in to the core of the device at the moment of detonation. This releases a surge of high-energy neutrons which boost the fusion energy released.

Most modern weapon designers use this method to increase the fusion and maintain the yield whilst reducing the overall size of the weapon.

So, having designed and built a nuclear device, how do you get it to the target?

Iran has developed a rocket [Safir-2] capable of launching a satellite into space. Good for her!

But used as a nuclear weapon delivery system? No, not anywhere in the near future!

One poster said the Russians would help the Iranians. Well, the Russians have always been closer to Syria. It's the French who love Iran or more importantly, their oil.

I reckon the French would do anything to get Iranian oil but supply components to help build a nuclear weapon?

Even the French aren't that crazy. Are they?

Hey Fritz thanks for coming back!

Alot of the other posters share your sentiments on the matter. It would appear that the general consensus is, that there is a logical progression to follow in the development of nuclear weapons, and in particular the precision involved in creating a fusion based hydrogen bomb is a task currently insurmountable by Iran. So at present the only viable device that could be developed by Iran would be an old school fission based bomb.

Also the question of a viable delivery system seems to have been answered quite conclusively here, the simple fact being at present this too is above the logistical skill of the Iranians. Most likely missile development in the future will be related to ventures into space, to show the glory of the Iranian nation. As for the idea of Iranian ICBMs I find this laughable.

So we come to the conclusion that Iran does not currently have the technical skill nor the drive to produce these weapons. We do so without the aid of intelligence reports or classified scientific data, using only our collective common sense. More other contributors than myself I admit...

Then why is the question of whether or not Iran is pursuing the bomb being pushed on us by the mainstream media?

I think we all know the answer to that.

Fritz as for your question of the French being crazy enough? No comment