|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
*Makes note to himself never to try and duel Styphon in a history-off...or duel a mod in any other thing for that matter* This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Can I have a dollar?
|
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I was speaking idiomatically. |
Honestly, I have NO clue why I talk about history outside of pure masochism. That, and a futile hope that ONE DAY I WILL BEAT LORD STYPHON IN A HISTORY DEBATE. ;_; What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
FELIPE NO
Can I have a dollar?
|
They're all regional powers. I don't see any of them becoming world superpowers like China. Japan is already at its high and likely won't get much more powerful, and Brazil has the chance to rise, but it won't become a US or anything. Regional powers are still very much alive and will survive, its not coming to an end really. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Most amazing jew boots |
Also, theres a difference between a world power and a superpower in some regards. You talked about the military aspect, although remember, military power is a difficult area. For example, the French and British both have remarkably powerful navies. No rivals of the US, but the French can still stick a CBG almost anywhere relatively quickly. The Charles De Gaulle is a formidable force. In addition, France has a formiddable strategic bomber force, nuclear force, and strong air dogfight capabilities. Yet, its not a superpower. Distinctions are a bitch sometimes, aren't they? How ya doing, buddy? |
But hey, it's France.
I do understand what you're saying and agree, though. Just couldn't resist throwing in a jab at France for their military history. How ya doing, buddy? |
Well, the French, British, Russians, and Americans are probably the four most liberally minded when it comes to using their militaries nowdays. The French certainly don't hesitate when it comes to dealing with their former colonies and civil wars (read: Ivory Coast).
How ya doing, buddy? |
However you are right about my word choice, should've used "Super power" instead. I was speaking idiomatically.
Last edited by Yggdrasil; Apr 12, 2006 at 09:26 PM.
|
I will commend the French though, the Charles De Gaulle remains the most capable carrier outside of the US Navy, in which the Nimitz decimate almost anything else. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
FELIPE NO |
Military nerds are so funny.
~ What about the claims that Iran HAS finished enrichment of Uranium? True/False/Dream? What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
As far as I understand - enriched uranium is just one of the many steps required to produce a working atomic weapon. Through the use of various pieces of equipment, you seperate the U235 (middle weight isotope) from the mined uranium, usually by gaseous diffusion (uranium tetra-chloride), or centrifuges (iran is using the latter iirc).
Even though this is a major step - they are still far away from creating a working weapon - they still have to deal with obtaining the right weights for a critical mass, and perfecting the timers and explosives to the accuracy needed to acheive that critical mass. etc... Jam it back in, in the dark.
Licensed Commercial Pilot!
Currently: Float Pilot in BC Need a pilot? PM Me. Commercial Pilot, land and seaplanes, single and multi engines, instrument rating... I'm a jack of all trades! I can even be type rated! |
Just because they have a long way to go doesn't mean there is anything standing in their way.
There's nowhere I can't reach.
Can I have a dollar?
|
(During the production of Pu239 through neutron absorption in a nuclear reactor, a whole load of different nuclear reactions take place in the fuel. You have the fission of U235 itself, used to produce energy, but you have impurities in the fuel which might be tranformed into other elements, or even a minority of "unusual" reactions in the U238, U235 or Pu239. One element resulting of those reaction is a rather uncommon isotope of uranium or plutonium, I can't remember which. I *think* it's Pu240, doesn't really matter. Anyway, that isotope has a somewhat low half-life, meaning it's likely to desintegrate and release a number of products, including neutrons. Neutrons happen to be what is used to split U235 or Pu239 atoms in an atomic bomb. The process is essentially this, you'll have different masses coming together, forming a supercritical mass, meaning more neutrons are produced than lost, leading to a chain reaction. The longer the masses stay together, the more energy you'll have time to release. If the masses do not stay supercritical for long enough, the bomb will fail to work correctly. Now, the thing is, the neutrons liberated by the Pu240 are enough to make the reaction begin much sooner, when the masses are not completely together, or right after they've touched. Enough energy will be generated to separate the masses, but not much else. In the end, the bomb will fizzle out.) Now, what this means is that to use Pu239 you need to have a much greater force holding the masses of fissile material at first. Those found in an implosion-type device are enough. Those in a gun-type device are not. However, U235 does not have this same problem, meaning a gun-type device will work with U235. And gun-type devices are a whole lot simpler than implosion-type devices. First of all, there's no need to worry about explosion timing, no need to worry about explosive lenses used to focus shockwaves at particular points and all the calculations that follow. Second, the masses of fissile materials don't have to be made as precisely. Figuring out how much you need isn't the toughest thing ever. There are calculations to be made, of course, but they're not complex when compared to other things you encounter in physics or engineering. This is somewhat similar to the path South Africa followed. They want to get a bomb, any bomb. It doesn't matter if it's inefficient and that they can't make it into an H-bomb afterwards. And they want it soon. Of course, there are other circumstances; unlike North Korea, Iran doesn't have a reprocessing plant or any other source of plutonium, and they're not building an arsenal capable of destroying the US, as the USSR was, so they have no reason NOT to make a gun-type device if they want a bomb. Most amazing jew boots |
I have a question, you may be able to answer it.
What is between ANY country and the building of a nuclear weapon, really? The technology CANNOT be that tough - the US got it right many many years ago. Isn't there like tons of literature on it too? I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Depends.
First of all, there isn't much litterature on nuclear weapons per se. Not technical litterature anyway, meaning you can have a good idea as to how a bomb works, but you won't necessarily have any idea how to make all the calculations. However, a large number of physicists have pretty much all the knowledge you need, so it's possible to fill the holes. For an H-bomb, then it's a whole different matter. Even the non-technical litterature is somewhat scarce. The basic principle is somewhat simple, but the actual "implementation" is harder. As for what stands between a country and nuclear weapons, it depends on the country. One of the things is secrecy. Quite often, you don't want to tell the world you're making a bomb. If you're a somewhat powerful country, think G7 member, then it's likely easier for you as you already have a large nuclear industry which you can use as a cover for your activities. If you're a smaller country, then anything large is likely to be noticed by someone. Even if you're a walled hell-hole like North Korea, it'll be noticed. That means you're restricted in what you purchase and the size of your program. Now, secrecy wouldn't be as much of a problem if not for what is essentially the biggest obstacle: obtaining fissile material suitable for bomb construction. Here, you have two options: Highly enriched uranium 235 or plutonium 239. Both have advantages, both have drawbacks. Though in both cases, you'll need large-scale facilities to do the processing. That's one of the biggest challenge. I assume here that no black market for such materials exist, and I think it's fairly safe to assume so (though if there is, any seller is welcome to PM me for offers...). The size of the facilities themselves are one issue, but the actual equipment you need is probably even worse. First, it's expensive. Not much of an issue if you don't mind starving your people to the death, though. Second, it's restricted. Unless you already have a nuclear industry, or are building a large one from scratch, people will wonder why you need those 800 separation centrifuges. There's no reason for you to enrich your own fuel, it doesn't make sense if you have one nuclear plant. Same goes if you choose plutonium instead of uranium; it doesn't make sense for you to have a reprocessing plant for your one nuclear plant. You could try to make the equipment locally, or even develop new methods specifically geared to produce a small amount of material of bomb-grade material, which I think is what Saddam did in the 80s. Or attempted, anyway. But the equipment we're talking about is often quite complex and you'll still need some high-grade material from other countries. Something else you need to add if you don't have a local uranium source is importing the actual ore, which might arouse suspicion too. Then you have the IAEA and the like. Since you probably can't conceal your facilities, you might decide you want to try to conduct your enrichment or reprocessing in broad daylight and camouflage the whole thing as a civilian operation. For reprocessing, it's somewhat difficult to judge what you'll do with the plutonium you extract, so you shouldn't have much trouble. But the simple fact you built the plant in the first place means everyone know you're full of shit, unless you already have a real nuclear industry. If that is the case, then you're likely going to be able to proceed to the next step. If instead you build an enrichment plant for uranium, then your concerns are different. If you don't have a nuclear industry, then people know you're full of shit. If you do have a nuclear industry, or are building one, then you have yet another problem. Typical civilian fuel is 20% U235. For a bomb, you need at the very least 90%. Whether you obtain one or the other depends on how you configure your centrifuges. Feed the output of each centrifuge in the next until you reach the last and you get a small amount of bomb material. Make 5 centrifuge groups in the same way and run those in parallel and you get a large amount of civilian-grade material. But the problem is, the people inspecting your enrichment plant will know what you're doing. If you throw them out, then you're back at square one, since you wanted to camouflage your operation, except now everyone suspects you. You got fissile material? Good! Now it's time to make the bomb. If you managed to get uranium, then you might actually be able to make a bomb easily enough, as I've said in my previous post. Congratulation. If you got plutonium, then your physicists will have fun with various calculations involving shockwaves and explosive lenses. It's much more complicated, requires precision and you might even have to develop a number of different technologies along with it. Not to mention you'll have to test it. A uranium bomb is relatively simple, and there probably won't be any need to test it, but not testing a plutonium bomb is insane. Unless you have access to a supercomputer of reasonable power. So there you have it, this is what stands between a country and the bomb. How hard it is for a particular country, as I said, depends. One with a source of uranium will have an easier time. One with a decent industrial capacity will be able to do so faster than a seventh world agrarian people's republic. Lots of things factor in. I was speaking idiomatically. |
I stand massively corrected.
Still, your major point was that the biggest problem for a country is secrecy. Well, the cat's already out of the bag, so there's no sense in them even worrying about secrecy. As far as obtaining materials, aren't the Russian more than willing to sell nuclear technology? Weapons are their biggest export right now. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Can I have a dollar?
|
Russia depends on the US too much to be willing to lose that relationship over selling weapons to nations like Iran. Theres too much at stake. FELIPE NO |
However just because we give them money to do this doesn't mean the Russians aren't going to deal with whatever country we don't like. In fact its never stopped the Russians from selling weapons to Iran before. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
The US is quite unfortunate when they trust thier allies with military technology... Isreal screwed them pretty bad too I heard.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
Licensed Commercial Pilot!
Currently: Float Pilot in BC Need a pilot? PM Me. Commercial Pilot, land and seaplanes, single and multi engines, instrument rating... I'm a jack of all trades! I can even be type rated! |
Say what?
How did Israel screw the US over? There's nowhere I can't reach.
Can I have a dollar?
|
Ever wonder why a majority of the Middle East is pissed off at the US? Yeah - blatant support of Israel. Israel is the biggest reason the US won't win the hearts and minds of the Middle East. It either needs to become more balanced in its foreign policy, or enjoy the status quo. Most amazing jew boots |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Iran Captures 15 British sailors | Gumby | Political Palace | 4 | Mar 28, 2007 03:53 AM |
Baha'is in Iran on Edge Of Pogrom? Sun Nov 05, 2006 | RonPrice | Political Palace | 0 | Nov 7, 2006 10:18 PM |