posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 12:14 AM
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by pheonix358
I believe your mistaking atom vs thermo nuclear weapons, one if a really big fire cracker, the other is thousands of times stronger.
They basically use an atomic weapon as a trigger for the thermo nuclear reaction, so basically an a bomb is the primer for a bullet, or fuse for a
grnade or artillery round.
But both can be built easily, the hard part is the knowhow, and the nuclear material
A full thermonuclear weapon is much more difficult and there is much less known design available openly. It took the US at maximum effort and large
infrastructure 8-9 years to get a first practical weapon (first LiD device), vs 2-3 for the first fission device when nearly all the theory had to be
invented on the spot.
There is no known cases of developing full radiation implosion thermonuclear weapons without a significant experimental test program. Even it took
the UK a few tries until they got it right.
Apparently there is another fundamental breakthrough for the W-47 polaris warhead (first small enough weapon for a missile) which has never been made
open source, and this was really the key.
edit on 31-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-3-2013 by
mbkennel because: (no reason given)