BS: Nuclear Weapons

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 09:59 AM

rapaire


"Alas, Babylon" by Pat Frank.

"A Canticle for Liebowitz"

Level Seven



Books all should read- and think about.

The problem is not that nuclear war is unthinkable- but that there are those who think it practical. The ONLY way that deterrence can work is if, at the first use, there is an overwhelming, totally destructive response. If the attacking side is ready to accept casualties, anything less is not effective. So, the threat of Korea or Iran with a few ( dozen) warheads would be a threat WITHOUT being a deterrent- and any government worth having will react to threats to its people.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 06 - 02:55 PM

"By the way, don't you colonials call them 'nucular'?"

Only the President of the United States of America.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 24 Jan 06 - 08:33 AM

LOL!! :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jan 06 - 11:42 AM

Pied - No, I was not accusing Oppenheimer of arrogance. Not at all. I am familiar with the original context in which he spoke those words.

I'm in agreement with you, in other words.

What struck me as arrogant was the narration behind a number of short videos I saw, footage taken of atomic test explosions in the 50's, mostly in Nevada and the South Pacific. I moved Oppenheimer's words (or the Baghavad Gita's words) into relation with those narrations in those videos.

I was not intending to imply that Oppenheimer himself was arrogant. He was not. He understood the moral complications involved in creating atomic weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Kaleea
Date: 24 Jan 06 - 12:26 PM

"Newkyewler wepponz?" They'z makin' newkyewler wepponz! Nyewke 'em 'n pave 'em!"

"Uh, Mr. President?"

"Yew heered me!"

"Now, Mr. President, it's my duty to remind you of the proper protocol, you must first . . ."

"Dooty!? PROTOCOL!!? Who'ze the dadgum prezeedint hyar? Now gimmee thet thar red button!"

   "Now dubblepew, how many times do I have to tell you that those dumb voters'll get real mad and vote for a democrat next time & all our oil cronies'll be hoppin mad'n squeeze us real tight in the family jewels'n again, n'maybe even start sinkin' our tankers again'n leak somore stuff to the press we don't want em t'know 'bout 'n . . ."

"Ok, ok, chain, I won't punch it yet."

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 24 Jan 06 - 12:45 PM

Sorry, can't link to this, but it's relevant. Shit yourself now and beat the rush ...

Worldwide nuclear energy revival powers uranium exploration boom - Business in Vancouver, Issue #848 – January 24-30, 2006

Vancouver mining companies riding upward spiral of global demand for the commodity

Krisendra Bisetty

Global fuel supply security concerns have helped kick-start a nuclear power renaissance that's generating multiple opportunities for British Columbia uranium miners.

A correspondingly tight inventory of its essential ingredient, uranium, has pushed the commodity's price to levels not seen since the 1970s.

Uranium mines, some previously mothballed, are running at capacity. Exploration, meanwhile, has increased rapidly while both producers and mining companies are seeing their stock prices surge to record highs.

Canada is the world's top uranium producer, with the largest known high grade deposit in Saskatchewan's Athabasca Basin. The site has reserves estimated at 800 million pounds, the equivalent of 19 billion barrels of oil or four billion tonnes of coal, according to the Canadian Nuclear Association.

Eager to cash in on nuclear fuel's resurgence, Vancouver mining junior Mawson Resources Ltd. (TSX-V:MAW) has staked out a 5,000-hectare claim in Sweden, which it believes has the potential for a "world class" uranium deposit of about 100 million pounds, even though the country does not allow uranium mining and will phase out its nuclear power program by 2007.

"We've taken a strategic position over some large uranium assets and if and when Sweden changes its policy to uranium mining, we're extremely well positioned," said Mawson's president and CEO, Michael Hudson, who's counting on a September election that could change both the Scandinavian country's government and its uranium mining policy.

He added that despite Sweden's current position, it and other European countries are re-examining nuclear power for several reasons, including a recent natural gas price dispute between Russia and Ukraine.

The confrontation, which resulted in Russia temporarily halting gas sales to Ukraine, was likely the reason uranium stocks rallied considerably in the first few days of trading in 2006, GMP Securities analyst Duncan McKeen said in a report on the nuclear fuel market.

In addition, both Germany and Britain are heavily dependent on natural gas and are reviewing their future energy policies.

Hudson also pointed out that renewable energy sources "have not stepped up to the plate" and cannot satisfy the insatiable energy demands of countries like China and India.

Globally, 41 new nuclear reactors are being planned and 25 are under construction, including four in Russia and two each in China and Japan. They will be added to the world's inventory of 438 reactors, about half of which are in the U.S., France, Japan and Russia.

Hudson said available uranium supplies will therefore be squeezed further, another reason that Mawson, which was floated on the Toronto Stock Exchange in 2004, has begun exploring for the commodity.

"Uranium has gone from US$7 a pound to US$36 a pound in the last two to three years ... . That makes for a very profitable mine if and when you can get them started."

Mawson's share price, which was around $0.43 in October 2004, rose to $1.76 shortly after the company announced its Swedish claim.

In his January 9 report, McKeen said the nuclear power renaissance is being driven not only by concerns around fuel supply security but also because of a need to diversify energy sources.

He added that "leading uranium-producing countries, such as Canada and Australia, are considered less risky as supply sources than some of the countries currently supplying coal and natural gas."

McKeen said another bonus is that nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gases, which is a critical factor as the world adopts cleaner energy policies.

Production from existing uranium mines satisfies just 55 per cent of current annual global demand of 180 million pounds. The balance comes from inventories and decommissioned weapons, said Doug Cannaday, president of Vancouver energy junior Dejour Enterprises Ltd. (TSX-V:DJE), which is aggressively exploring for uranium in Saskatchewan.

"Although it's impossible to get an absolute handle on what those inventories are, it's believed to be less than a three-year supply out there, and when you consider it takes seven to 10 years to identify a commercial mine and put it into production, what the marketplace sees is anywhere from a four, five, possibly six-year huge shortfall."

Cannaday said there are about 280 mining juniors in the North American market exploring for uranium, a commodity 500 times more common than gold.

Other Vancouver companies include Western Prospector Group Ltd., which recently announced two new discoveries in Mongolia, and ESO Uranium Corp. (TSX-V:ESO), which completed $4.7 million in financing last December for exploration in the Athabasca Basin.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 12:30 AM

Figures for comparison:

A nuclear power station producing 1000 Megawatts creates 23 tons of waste a year which is actively managed. It produces no carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide or nitrogen oxides.

A similar coal-fired power station producing 1000 megawatts creates 300,000 tons of crude ash a year. In addition it creates 6000lbs of nitrogen oxides, 13000lbs of sulphur dioxide and 2.2 million lbs of carbon dioxide which is blasted into the air. That's 1100 tons of gas.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Peace
Date: 25 Jan 06 - 01:50 AM

Then there's this.

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: GUEST,P-35
Date: 26 Jan 06 - 03:29 PM

Growing up under the shadow of the Bomb

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: GUEST,Nukes For All
Date: 26 Jan 06 - 06:54 PM

Tactical Nuclear Warhead Made From Smoke Detectors

    Many people don't realize this but most smoke detectors contain an artificially produced radioisotope: americium-241. Americium-241 is made in nuclear reactors, and is a decay product of plutonium-241. This radioisotope can be used as the fissionable material in a homemade nuclear warhead. I will outline the details of how to make your own nuclear weapon on this page.

    First some background:

    The key component in household smoke detectors is a small quantity of americium-241. This element was discovered 50 years ago during the Manhattan Project. The first sample of americium was produced by bombarding plutonium with neutrons in a nuclear reactor at the University of Chicago.

    Americium-241 emits alpha particles and gamma rays. The alpha particles are absorbed within the smoke detector, while most of the gamma rays escape harmlessly. The alpha particles emitted by the Am-241 collide with the oxygen and nitrogen in the air in the detector's ionization chamber to produce charged particles called ions. An electric voltage applied across the chamber is used to collect these ions, causing a steady small electric current to flow between two electrodes. When smoke enters the space between the electrodes, the alpha radiation is absorbed by smoke particles. This causes the rate of ionization of the air and therefore the electric current to fall, which sets off the alarm.

    The amount of Americium in a smoke detector is small - about 1/2 gram. And the amount of Americium-241 required to form a critical mass - about 750 grams - is large by comparison, yet if you collect enough smoke detectors it IS possible to accumulate enough of the stuff to make a tactical nuclear warhead. A quick calculation would indicate that 1500 smoke detectors are required, but because of impurities and unavoidable inefficiencies in a homemade design, you will want at least 2000.

    I guess I should put in a disclaimer here so I don't get sued:
    Americium-241 is a potentially dangerous isotope if it is taken into the body in soluble form. It decays by both alpha activity and gamma emissions and it would concentrate in the skeleton. Also, constructing a home-built nuclear weapon has many obvious risks to yourself and to the people in your community. If you decide to go ahead with this: DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK!

    OK, down to business. First of all how can an average person afford to buy 2000 smoke detectors? At about $20.00 each that would be about $40,000! Let me give you a little secret: The half-life of Americium-241 is 432 years. Old discarded smoke detectors work just as well as brand new ones! Still, getting 2000 discarded detectors may seem like a daunting task. Here is how I did it: The best place to find detectors is at your local dump. I have combed through the garbage heaps at my local dump every Sunday for the past two and a half years. I have found an average of 15 smoke detectors in the four hours or so that I spend there every week. I never found less than five, and one memorable day I came home with almost 40!

    Once you have your smoke detectors, you need to separate the fissionable material from the plastic and metal of the detector. You will quickly get the hang of this, and it shouldn't take you more than one or two minutes each. One word of caution here: Do not keep your Americium in one big container! Remember – a nuclear bomb is detonated by bringing enough fissionable material into close enough proximity with itself, to create a "critical mass". I don't think you will be wanting to create an unintentional critical mass in your sock drawer, so keep it in separate containers, and keep the containers well apart.

    When you have collected and separated your Americium-241, you will be ready for the actual construction of the bomb. First, you will need to prepare the two masses of americium so that each of these sub-critical masses can be brought together rapidly into one super-critical mass that will sustain a runaway nuclear chain reaction. The best shape for the critical mass is a sphere, so one logical configuration would be two half-spheres. This is just what I did. I found that a tennis ball makes a great mold, and it's the perfect size. Cut it in half, and put half of your americium in each side of the ball. Use an epoxy or similar glue to hold the particles of americium together. I used Elmers non-toxic paste, and it worked great.

    Now we have to figure out how to bring these two half-spheres together and hold them together long enough for the chain reaction to take place. If they are not held together long enough you will probably still get a blinding flash and searing heat but no real explosive power - in other words, a dud.

    For you technical types, here is the formula for the power required to bring these masses together violently enough to ensure a chain reaction: g(l-CmCl)sin +K*(Pi-Omega)/L1(1+CmCl2). This works out to the explosive power of about 1/20 of a stick of dynamite, or the power of one common M-80. M-80s are like giant firecrackers, and they are usually available around the Fourth of July. They are not legal in most states, but if you have ever heard those big explosions in the distance on the Fourth, you can bet it's some kids who have gotten a hold of some of these. You may have to hunt around a bit, but you should be able to find them.

    Now you will need to collect some common materials to make your warhead. You will need a two foot length of 2.5" diameter pipe, Two screw-on end caps for the pipe, a can of frozen concentrate orange juice, and some common hand tools.

    Glue one of your sub-critical masses into one of the end caps. Screw this onto the pipe. Glue the M-80 into the other end cap, and pass the fuse through a drilled hole in the cap. Now we could just glue the other sub-critical mass on top of the M-80, screw the end cap on light the fuse, and hope for the best, but this probably won't work because we want the two halves of the Americium-filled tennis balls to come together with the flat sides facing each other. Here is how you can guarantee that happens: Make sure the can of frozen concentrate orange juice slides nicely in the pipe. If not, use some other canned food like tomato paste. Then glue the second half of the tennis ball (flat side out), to your canned food. Now, when the can slides down the pipe, it will keep the tennis ball properly oriented. You should glue the can to the M-80 to hold it apart from the other sub-critical mass until you are ready to trigger your device. Screw the second end cap on securely, and you have your bomb!

    Obviously, a 20-second fuse is not long enough for you to get away to a safe distance if a weapon like this were ever detonated. Three miles is the minimum safe distance from an explosion of this size. One solution is the powerful missiles available to the model rocketry hobbyist. I have constructed a five foot long rocket using components that are available from Earl's Hobby and Crafts at: http://www.earles-hobby.com. This rocket should be powerful enough to carry a payload the size of the warhead at least three miles. This would be plenty for a small bomb like this, but I would make sure you use some very dark sunglasses, or welder's goggles, if you plan to observe a nuclear fireball.
    Back
    Send E-Mail to: [e-mail]
    Free Webpages This page created using the webpage creation facilities of Webspawner.
    Copyright © 2002 . All Rights Reserved

Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons
From: Raedwulf
Date: 27 Jan 06 - 06:57 PM

Troll - "defense" on the personal level is based on the premise 'I prevent you hurting me". This is as opposed to "attack", which is 'I hurt you". From the national & internationl p-o-v, the meaning does not change, only the scale on which it operates. I'm not going to bandy words with you. You already know exactly what I mean.

If you & I face off with guns, neither of us can defend ourselves. The best either can hope for is to shoot the other. A beneficial side effect of the latter is that I (I hope!) am no longer in danger of being shot. But "defense" it isn't!