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.

 

Pakistan develops smallest nuclear weapon the size of a tennis ball.

page: 8
30
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

I believe that in Thailand they have developed a unique short range delivery system for these Ping-Pong ball sized munitions.............




posted on Dec, 4 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
All you need is a perfect neutron reflector, and you could make them any size you'd like.

Lacking that, I'm afraid it's total bs.

The "plutonium anti-tank bullets" should have been the giveaway. I actually expected to see Sorcha Faal on the byline...



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

This is just being put out there to threaten India nothing more. They don't exist at best would be a dirty bomb but your right. This weapon is more a threat to Pakistan than anyone else.



posted on Dec, 8 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Well theres a whole new can of "F**k up" being opened right there..
The nut jobs at uncle sam HQ would of had one of these babys years ago, and now Pakistan has announced to the world they have one it will open the doors to a whole new level of black flag fun and games...I despair.



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
How large were the warheads used for nuclear air to air missiles and nuclear artillery shells?



posted on Dec, 21 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Merinda
How large were the warheads used for nuclear air to air missiles and nuclear artillery shells?


They're all over the place. 6" x 32" (mol) for an artillery warhead is about the smallest artillery shell.

Some 'luggable' ones were more 11"x16". But they're all somewhere around that volume.

Tennis ball ain't happening unless Pakistan invented electrically-switchable neutron reflectors.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: skuly

Full disclosure: I appreciate the OPs sincerity, it's without question. I do question the validity of the report/story.


Here's why:
1. A tennis ball sized weapon would, by necessity, have very little active ingredient (fissile material). A certain amount is required to achieve a useful yield. For example the much ballyhooed backpack nukes (real) had many pounds of fissile material and had a very small yield.
2. Triggering mechanism. Nukes, forget hydrogen weapons, require very specific timing on conventional explosives that cause the fissile material to go "critical" which causes the "boom". This means that the very, very small fissile material would require many separate miniature explosives with associated timing electronics and wiring. That tennis ball is getting very cramped.
3. Battery. Nukes require a "battery" that carries the appropriate electrical charge to energize the timing device that then fires all of the conventional charges at the same time. The issue is a battery that fits inside a tennis ball and carries enough juice to fire the conventional explosives AND still leaves enough space for the complicated timing devices that must also reside in the tennis ball.
4. Yield. Providing all of these conditions could be met......to what end? A tennis ball nuke that explodes with the force of a couple of sticks of TNT but spreads radiation? What military purpose would that serve?

It's a really fascinating topic and idea. I think the realities of a tennis ball nuke preclude it's actual development.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Merinda

I have some very limited knowledge on this topic. Are you speaking of yield or, the physical dimensions/weight of the warheads?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Merinda
The atomic artilary shell was 280mm..I guess roughly basketball size in diameter. It was about 15kt in explosive power.
Someone posted a figure of 20kt for this tennisball device..doesn't seem plausible.


edit on 29-12-2014 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Not to dredge up old topics, but this is highly improbable. Without detailing specifics, the critical mass is probably too great for the common isotopes. Ex:U235 is over 100lbs, plutonium is a bit less, especially when certain methods are employed to compress the mass (a very hard task).

Other theoretical isotopes, like am241 or am243 may have a much smaller critical mass due to larger capture cross sections, but I doubt there's enough in the world to do this.

Look at the design of gadget, the plutonium implosion device used at trinity. Even modern primaries used in the teller-ulam design require complex firing mechanisms to trigger explosive lenses at the precise nanosecond.

Fear not. This is probably bs



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Yield is an expression of mass-> energy conversion.

This ball couldn't use uranium or even plutonium due to size issues.

It would have to use Americum or another high cross section isotope, which are very rare and expensive to produce (Pu decays naturally to am241...but still is rare. Am243 is as rare as getting u235 from u238 (which is like .2%).

Next comes the detonators, shaped charges, batteries and neutron gennies.

Starting to see the problem?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

edit on 26-1-2015 by Mehmet666Heineken because: Double Post



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Plus Pakistan doesn't have the money or capability. Every indigenous weapon they have is Chinese in origin, and what the Chinese give to Pakistan is nowhere near the top end of Chinese hardware. They had to buy RD93 engines from Russia through China, to power their joint venture Chinese fighter jet, and that engine is essentially 3-4 decades old Russian technology. Pakistan lacks innovation and R&D like no tomorrow. They salivate at the thought of picking up excess US AH-1F Cobra gunships or F-16s. There is however, still a problem: Pakistan does have a very large nuclear arsenal, larger than Israel's, and it is a very very unstable country in a very very dangerous region. They don't need to distribute tennis balls to Muslim allies (they don't have a ton of Muslim allies to begin with, and they are a very distrustful regime, traditionally). No one would accept their alien technology tennis ball nuclear bombs because they know they'd be opening themselves up for a nuclear barrage from anyone who takes offense to such a provocative and barbaric policy. Most likely, Pakistan will eventually transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, their only true Muslim ally in the world. They talk a lot about brotherhood with Turkey, but Turkey would never get involved with Pakistan at the cost of its relationship with NATO. If SHTF, Pakistan would be alone with possibly only Saudi Arabia as an ally.
edit on 26-1-2015 by Mehmet666Heineken because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

I couldn't agree more! Although I do not single out any specific religious or political groups, these weapons, their components and the knowledge build them should never fall into hands of ideological extremists!

Yes, I include Israel and any other nuclear weapon state that has not pledged no first use with their arsenals.

Pakistans threat to disseminate nukes is unacceptable - just as Israel's threat to launch ICBMs and cruise missiles at European capitals when "existence of the state" is threatened. Mass murder and genocide are never acceptable Imho!

I realize its a bit off topic, but MAD and NUTS doctrine are not effective ways to manage such threats. A transparent and honest regime would seek denuclearization...multilaterally of course.

As far as Turkey goes, they're a lot like NK..plenty of rhetoric without the will (and sometimes means) to back it up. Like you said, Turkey will not alienate itself from Nato. Now, that's not to say Pakistan is no threat, but they must realize that any nuclear attack will be met with at best counterforce attacks and at worse, strategic counter value attacks leaving Islambad back at year 1.

I truly hope we can one day see a nuke free world. One day. The result of disarmament failure is us watching nukes fly in our lifetime.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns
first, I apologize for my poor grammar and structure. I'm on a new touch screen phone, and I'm not quite used to it yet!

I would like to clarify my last statement regarding us seeing nukes used. This is not a prediction of any type, just a logical conclusion that the "nuclear club" will keep growing as technology and knowledge becomes available. I feel its inevitable that a state will either give a hostile entity nuclear weapons, someone will steal them, or the regime will collapse and no one will be able to secure their nukes in time.

Nuclear weapons material was once highly classified. Now, anyone with a physics background and the internet can learn how to build these weapons. An example: little boy used on Hiroshima. The only barrier today is the acquisition of fissile materials. Today, its difficult due to breeding plutonium or uranium enrichment. But tomorrow? Who's to say a new method won't be pioneered that allows simple enrichment of easily available uranium-238 into u235? 50 years ago, the material posted here by myself and others would have been considered treason or whatever else, now its widely available knowledge. The components? Easyish to build, for a gun type. The material? Today, hard, but not impossible. Tomorrow?



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join