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: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by cyberdude78
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.


The Tritium (also used on gun sights) is used for boosted fusion weapons ie a hydrogen bomb. It also is one of the most expensive items on the planet.




posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Tritium, wasn't that the stuff in spider-man 2. Not that it matters, but yeah I've heard its pretty rare. How long before kids actually detonate a nuclear bomb in the US. I mean conventional explosives have been used, its only a matter of time. Of course you have to be smart to build a nuke and with kids getting picked for being nerds, well we might see a small Chernoybl thrown together with Columbine. Is this possible? Yes. Is it probable? Definatly not. Is my imagination running wild again? Probably yes.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   
CD you answered all your own questions in one post great job

But it could be possible a super genius gets beat up in school and he could build a dirty bomb. But it probably wont happen most schools in the US have better security than most airports unless the bomb is detonated outside the school then we are...begins with F



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
But it could be possible a super genius gets beat up in school and he could build a dirty bomb. But it probably wont happen most schools in the US have better security than most airports unless the bomb is detonated outside the school then we are...begins with F



Why would a super genius detonate a dirty bomb that he had made, inside a school?

They aren't going to be that stupid.


The Story of the Radioactive Boy Scout


E_T

posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
The Tritium (also used on gun sights) is used for boosted fusion weapons ie a hydrogen bomb. It also is one of the most expensive items on the planet.

Tritium is used to boost efficiency of fission.
(fusion of tritium releases neutrons)
It's not so commonly used in real two stage thermonuclear weapons.
And it's also radioactive meaning it decays itself... so bomb would have to have "best before" date.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Well all this chat about possibly managing a 'sort of' near nuke device is very interesting but all ignoring two things.

Manufacture and electronics, to nuclear standards. We (like all nuclear powers) spent enormous fortunes sussing that out, it isn't easy.

The actual casing design and manufacture is one of the critical parts.....assuming you get as far as sufficiently enriched uranium or plutonium and haven't fallen to pieces handling that crap!

Of the two usual designs.....

The imploding 'ball' type device is incredibly precise and would be so difficult to manufacture.....nevermind getting the sequencing of the trigger charges right.

The alternate gun device also requires a precise construction able to withstand the explosive forces necessary to drive the shaped pieces together in the correct manner.

.......as to be beyond the amatuer IMO.

The most that is feasible IMO is a low grade dirty bomb poisoning a few city blocks with waste crap stolen from hospital or maybe some industrial waste.

Anything else requires a level of sophistication and education that would have the person(s) involved away off and be off making big bucks in the regular world and the specialist manufacture of the necessary components were they to seriously try would be a dead giveaway to the authorities who tend to keep an eye out for such things.

Why would they bother?







[edit on 31-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   
What I think most people are getting at is that it requires the assests and money of a nation state to enrich the uranium, develop, buy or steal the kryton switches nessecary to trigger the explosives, capacity to effectivly deliver it etc.

IMHO a dirty bomb is much more liekly, the material is easier to get and to trasnport. NOVA did a story on dirty bomb and it seems that the risk is not a big as people think. That is the health risks. Its nowere near what a functioning nuke would do in any case.



posted on Jul, 31 2004 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Tritium is actually commonly used in Thermo Nuclear weapons, its normally injected into the core just before detonation. The advantage of this is that is gives the user the ability to "dial a yeild" so to speak. Hence in theory he can have a 100kT or a 10megaton weapon... Then again, building this would be some feat...



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
the kid who built the MOCK UP nuclear device was not a genious by any means. Physics i think it was.Where do you get off that you need rocket scientists to design the things and Stratofortresses to carry them?

If you can put a nuclear warhead in an American 155 shell or a russian 130mm,how complicated do you think it is? None of these complicated shaped charges to create critical mass.
In theory ,put a lump of Uranium on an anvil and hit it very hard with a sledgehammer and it will go off.
In this case,the warhead has a berillium "anvil,and a "gun" shoots the Uranium into it.
And BTW,nice of you to keep insinuating Iran is your next unholy target.You just re-energized their nuke program.



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Well if this article is correct, one would just need a 3D printer and a bit of working with the tech know how. And the nuclear material to where it can be used in such.
usatoday.com.co...



posted on May, 10 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

uh usatoday.com dot CO?

It's a troll site. Sort of like the Onion, but not as funny.


Mike Huckabee Vows to ‘Wage War’ on Religion If Elected

Mother’s Day Cancelled by LGTB Community.

Ted Cruz: Vets Should Sell Cookies For Funding, Like Girl Scouts



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Yes but, after giving this some thought this is very plausible on so many levels it is not funny.
A nuclear weapon requires different components and parts, which a 3D printer could feasibly replicate and make. A bit of testing on the part of the person, to get down the right amount of explosives would be required, and there may be out there some instructions on such, giving either the exact amount or good clues to such. And then all the person would then need would be the nuclear materials, about 50- pounds of refined material to make a nuclear weapon.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
about 50- pounds of refined material to make a nuclear weapon.


Which requires about 1,600lbs of unrefined material to produce. Where are you going to get that?



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: mbkennel

Yes but, after giving this some thought this is very plausible on so many levels it is not funny.
A nuclear weapon requires different components and parts, which a 3D printer could feasibly replicate and make. A bit of testing on the part of the person, to get down the right amount of explosives would be required, and there may be out there some instructions on such, giving either the exact amount or good clues to such. And then all the person would then need would be the nuclear materials, about 50- pounds of refined material to make a nuclear weapon.


3-d printing adds nothing. You're talking about making a 1945-technology gun-type weapon. For that you need really high strength steel barrels which are used to make artillery. (By the way, you don't send a 'plug' of uranium down the tube---it's the other way around you shoot the 'female' part of the core on to the stationary 'male' part---almost all public diagrams until a few years ago were the other way around, and wrong. Just goes to show that there are still significant secrets. Supposedly the Polaris warhead was a big breakthrough and there is something in it very major still undisclosed. No I don't have any idea).

Everything else is more complicated still.

Otherwise, you need to very finely machine a) uranium & plutonium b) beryllium c) high explosives d) ??? into exact shapes.

Do 3-d printers do any of that? 3-d printing solves none of the difficult and expensive problems.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: stgeorge
the kid who built the MOCK UP nuclear device was not a genious by any means. Physics i think it was.Where do you get off that you need rocket scientists to design the things and Stratofortresses to carry them?


If you don't want to carry them with Stratofortresses or barges then you need rocket scientists.



If you can put a nuclear warhead in an American 155 shell or a russian 130mm,how complicated do you think it is?


More than you think. Putting a warhead into something that small and getting any significant yield requires quite a bit of cleverness.

Now it's not as hard as an accurate ICBM (rockets aren't rocket science, rocket guidance is rocket science) but those are very difficult.


None of these complicated shaped charges to create critical mass.
In theory ,put a lump of Uranium on an anvil and hit it very hard with a sledgehammer and it will go off.


That's called a 'criticality accident' and may hurt the technician and contaminate the lab, but does nothing militarily important. You need to contain successfully for a significant time to get exponential multiplication.


In this case,the warhead has a berillium "anvil,and a "gun" shoots the Uranium into it.


and that's a pretty low efficiency scheme.
edit on 11-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel
The radioactive components are the hardest part, but the beryllium would be the easiest to get a hold of. Then there is the casing and the timer that would have to be made to where it would force the 2 radioactive parts together.

Beyond the metals, the rest is fairly simple to get a hold of, and if one looks they can find plans in place along with theory. Testing it a few times with out the radioactive stuff and then making the real thing. The 3 d printer could be used to fabricate the non radioactive material.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
The unrefined material is the easy part. All one has to do is find where they have been mining such and go looking. One can even find samples of such. Though the more difficult part would be to refined to weapons grade and still survive.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 06:26 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.


I think you can find it deep within Uranus...Lmao sorry couldn't resist
Uranium/Uranus..... Ahh it's been a long week already.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
The unrefined material is the easy part.


Really? You can round up nearly a ton of uranium ore just by 'looking' through areas where it is already mined?

I suspect you do not really have any idea how uranium ore is mined, separated from the surrounding strata, along with the huge amount of machines and ancillary apparatus required to complete this process.



posted on May, 11 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Wonder how high powered magnetic waves, xrays other high energy directed at the uranium would effect the reactions. Did the test any of that back in the day?




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join