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.

 

What it takes to make a nuclear weapon

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   


Click on the symbol above to see a BBC 'in depth' article about the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear power and nuclear weapons

There are some nice diagrams on there which makes learning about it 'reasonably simple'.



mmm. That yellow cake uranium seems almost edible




posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Nice post. Makes me want to go make my own nuke at home. Now were to find some uranium.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   
As you can see, that diagram for the nuclear projectile is completely outdated. They have a totally different design now. FAS has one posted, but it is wrong too.

Ex-Nuclear Weapons Tech. After the INF Treaty was signed, we dismantled all of our howitzer fired nuclear projectiles in Europe, and shipped them back to the staes.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by nathraq
As you can see, that diagram for the nuclear projectile is completely outdated. They have a totally different design now.


It does say that it is 'one of the simplest' designs. The article is about what it takes to make a bomb and it is really to show us how a country might start it's nuclear weapons program where it designs and builds all it's weapons itself.

They would start off with one of these 'simple' bombs just as other countries have in the early stages of their programs.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Nice post. Makes me want to go make my own nuke at home. Now were to find some uranium.


about five years ago i wrote through the freedom of information act and got charts in michigan, ohio, indiana, and wisconsin of where uranium is. it basically tells you where and how far down you need to dig. i'm sure you can't do that anymore though.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperen

Originally posted by nathraq
As you can see, that diagram for the nuclear projectile is completely outdated. They have a totally different design now.


It does say that it is 'one of the simplest' designs. The article is about what it takes to make a bomb and it is really to show us how a country might start it's nuclear weapons program where it designs and builds all it's weapons itself.

They would start off with one of these 'simple' bombs just as other countries have in the early stages of their programs.



You are right. Wasn't bashing your post. Nukes were my mainstay for 3 years in the army. It's no secret, just look up MOS 55G (Nuclear weapons Technician). They phased out the MOS, and we had to reclassify. It's just that I love these websites that put out designs of nuclear weapons, and they are completely false. There is another member of ATS here that worked in the same specialty as I did. Here are some pic's of the deserted depot:










Real shame to think of what happened to this depot.

The bunkers were secures with heavy steel doors, that had to be lifted with jacks. There was concertina wire lining the ceiling of the bunker, in case of a break in: the wire would fall on the culprits, and a gas(don't know which one) would be emitted. The doors took two keys to open. One man carried one set of keys, and another carried the remaining set. The large watchtower was the main security observer, with small watchtowers going around the perimeter of the site. The MP's would have to rotate between towers every couple of hours.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nathraq
There was concertina wire lining the ceiling of the bunker, in case of a break in: the wire would fall on the culprits, and a gas(don't know which one) would be emitted. The doors took two keys to open.


Wow. Nice security.


What country was this in? - It's OK if you aren't at liberty to say.

Is that security system banned by any treaties?


[edit on 27/7/04 by Hyperen]



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Nice post. Makes me want to go make my own nuke at home. Now were to find some uranium.


about five years ago i wrote through the freedom of information act and got charts in michigan, ohio, indiana, and wisconsin of where uranium is. it basically tells you where and how far down you need to dig. i'm sure you can't do that anymore though.


It's not a secret where to find uranium. It is most quite abundant in any granite deposits.

Mining uranium is very easy, it is processing (enriching) it and creating a workable weapon that is difficult.



posted on Jul, 27 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I got some advice for you if your going to go an mine uranium don't tell John Ashcroft unless you want to be locked up for the rest of your life without a trial. Plus like someone said in the natural uranium is not that radioactive or dangerous but trying to enrich it is the difficult part.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   

A terrorist group or country may find it easier to acquire plutonium from civil nuclear reactors, rather than enriched uranium, to produce a nuclear explosive.

Experts believe a crude plutonium bomb could be designed and assembled by terrorists possessing no greater level of skill than needed by the AUM cult to attack the Tokyo underground with nerve gas in 1995.

A nuclear explosive of this nature could explode with the power of 100 tonnes of TNT - 20 times more powerful than the largest terrorist bomb attack to date.


I find that quite worrying when only about 4kg of plutonium is needed to make a bomb.

A 100t nuclear weapon may be small for something nuclear but it would still do a huge amount of damage.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperen
I find that quite worrying when only about 4kg of plutonium is needed to make a bomb.

A 100t nuclear weapon may be small for something nuclear but it would still do a huge amount of damage.


Considering the bomb in Hiroshima was somewere around 15KT, I'd say 100KT is just plain NASTY.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix

Originally posted by Hyperen
A 100t nuclear weapon may be small for something nuclear but it would still do a huge amount of damage.


Considering the bomb in Hiroshima was somewere around 15KT, I'd say 100KT is just plain NASTY.


Well, it's actually only as powerful as 100 tonnes of TNT but that much is still very powerful considering it is many times the sizes of the biggest bombs used by 'terrorists'.

I'd imagine that would still do a huge amount of damage, maybe wipe out an area of a city.


E_T

posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperen
I'd imagine that would still do a huge amount of damage, maybe wipe out an area of a city.

It would easily take out city block.

That Plutonium bomb in that link to BBC site is called implosion device.


nuclearweaponarchive.org...

Here's something to use for calculating effects:
nuclearweaponarchive.org...



Here's images from 100 ton test for calibrating meters before Trinity.



Site of 100 ton test is down and little right from Trinity crater. (near "bottom")




[edit on 28-7-2004 by E_T]



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Oh I think they could do better than just a city block. And the problem is once its in the US its near impossible to stop. Just drive into downtown NYC with the bomb in you car and just detonate the thing. Anybody ever read the Sum of All Fears? Well I doubt they could get into the superbowl but you get the picture. Read the book it gives you a good idea of how something like this could happen.

[edit on 7/28/2004 by cyberdude78]



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   
These are some of the missile systems we maintained:

Pershing II



Lance Missile System



M454 Nuclear Projectile (155mm)




All were tactical style weapons, no ICBM's. No systems were over a few hundred KT.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Oh I think they could do better than just a city block. And the problem is once its in the US its near impossible to stop. Just drive into downtown NYC with the bomb in you car and just detonate the thing. Anybody ever read the Sum of All Fears? Well I doubt they could get into the superbowl but you get the picture. Read the book it gives you a good idea of how something like this could happen.

[edit on 7/28/2004 by cyberdude78]


Yes good book, also saw the movie.... both different than each other but still the same "nuke the game" principle.

I wonder if you saw the movie? I wonder how close Jack Ryan was from that nuclear explosion.. there is a scene where you see Jack Ryan looking at the mushroom cloud vaporizing after the initial explosion which knocks his helicopter out of the sky.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I remember reading (or seeing) somewhere back in the early 1980's that the glow-in-the-dark hands of most night stand clocks could be scraped and the residue used for a make-shift radioactive bomb/device...

Any truth to that?



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by soothsayer
I remember reading (or seeing) somewhere back in the early 1980's that the glow-in-the-dark hands of most night stand clocks could be scraped and the residue used for a make-shift radioactive bomb/device...

Any truth to that?


I saw that on a TV documentary about that boy scout who built a nuclear reactor in his back garden. I don't know how useful the glow in the dark stuff on clocks would be for making a weapon though.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Well if the glow in the dark paint is processed then it might be useful for low-yield bomb. Thats scary when you think that a kid might have build a reactor of his own.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join