|
21 Jan 06 - 11:39 AM (#1652811) Subject: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS From: GUEST,Harold Dynes I am not being smart here, but would someone explain to me please why America and Britain feel it's okay for them to hold Nuclear weapons and if any other country decides they want to protect themselves in the same way there is an outcry and America are ready to send the troops in to disarm them. Also they allow Isreal to hold them and are against any other country in the area developing them. Honestly I do not understand this, simple to some of you as it may seem. I do understand the fact that there are crack pots leading some world countries, but if this is a point in question I would imagine George Bush fits in there to. Why does America feel they are the policeforce of the world and they are right and countries which have held their traditions and beliefs for hundreds of years seem the bad guys to the Americans. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 11:42 AM (#1652814) Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS From: Amos Well, we used to justify it on the grounds of our standards of decency and our commitment to humanity and freedom. Not sure now, though. A |
|
21 Jan 06 - 11:48 AM (#1652816) Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS From: artbrooks Well, America (the United States, anyway), Britain, France, India, Pakistan, China and Israel. Did I miss anyone? Of the two nations that are trying hard to get the bomb, North Korea has a history of aggression and attempted forced unification of its southern neighbor and Iran has a leader who has expressly stated that one of its neighbors has no right to exist and should be wiped off the face of the earth. Protect themselves in the same way? I don't think so. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 11:57 AM (#1652821) Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS From: Peace I always felt that having nukes was much like having snowballs. There are few other things you can use them for other than the thing ya made them for. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 12:24 PM (#1652835) Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS From: Little Hawk I've always wondered the same thing, Harold. ;-) But...SHHHH! Don't question the implicit assumptions of moral and cultural superiority upon which conquering empires are founded and maintained! For God's sake, man... The best thing would be if nobody had nuclear weapons, but it's too late for that. In a world where sheer pragmatism and strength rule the real decisions, the "haves" will always attempt to restrict the "have-nots" from joining the club in such destructive capabilities. Their desire for security is understandable. Their contempt for others' similar desire for security, however, is not laudable. The oddest situation of all is Israel...the country that everyone knows HAS nukes, and yet it's not officially admitted. Bizarre, isn't it? I understand why the USA and Israel don't want Iran to have nukes. I understand why the Iranians want nukes. What I don't understand is why all 3 of them can't see each other as members of the same family...in which case they don't need any nukes! Nobody needs those things. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 12:27 PM (#1652839) Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS From: Once Famous What artbrooks wisely said and why the starter of this thread is pretty dense. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 12:27 PM (#1652841) Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS From: gnu Walk softly and carry a big stick. Ya gotta hope that the guy with the big stick will walk softly, but, even moreso, ya gotta realize that the guy with the big stick ain't gonna let anyone else have a stick, if he can help it. And, no, I am not sticking around for any further debate. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 12:33 PM (#1652845) Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS From: GUEST It's a power struggle - a bid for dominance just as in some animal societies there is one alpha male. When you are the alpha male you get the best of the bestest and the most of the mostest. The alpha male has the primary influence on how things go, and usually you tend to favor those things that fortify and strengthen your authority. If someone challenges that you quell the uprising with extreme prejudice 1)to remove the threat and 2)to instill fear by demonstrating what will happen if someone else chooses to challenge you. In that context, as alpha male you have no qualms about bombing a village, for example, in a sovereign country because intelligence reports indicate a certain terrorist leader is there having dinner. You are thankful it was only a dirt poor little village on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, and not somewhere "civilized," like Toronto or Stockholm. Otherwise there would have been major international condemnation of a unilateral airstrike and the subsequent deaths of citizens in a country with which the U.S. is not at war. But what if al-Zawahri had been having dinner in Toronto or Stockholm? |
|
21 Jan 06 - 12:35 PM (#1652847) Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS From: Peace The world 'supply' of nukes (as of 2002) was close to 20,000. I agree: no nukes is good nukes. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 12:44 PM (#1652859) Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS From: Once Famous Peace, Love, Dove. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 01:09 PM (#1652873) Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS From: Peace Fifty Facts About Nukes. Interesting read. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 01:29 PM (#1652883) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Ebbie It's insane. The nuclear arms race resulted in such overkill that figures and facts lost all relevance. If those warheads had been detonated evenly over either the USA or the USSR, the world's civilizations would not have survived. In the 50s the catchphrase was 'Better Dead than Red'. That in itself is crazy making. Of course it's the other way around; if one is overwhelmed by a superior power, 'red' or not, and bides one's time the wheel will turn again. But if your nation sacrifices you in the name of dominance and prestige... |
|
21 Jan 06 - 01:34 PM (#1652888) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: GUEST,Anonny Mouse Wanna read a truly scary, horror book? "The Fate of the Earth" by Jonathan Schell. No its not a book youd ever see promoed on CBN or by Pat Robertson or Falwell-not some Bible thing, Rapture thing,--very scientific about how really LOW the actual threshold for a "nuclear winter" would be, and the after effects of even a so-called "limited" nuke war would be. Written during the Nuke Freeze era but filled with science, and relatively easy to undestand tech-speak. Dunno if its even still out there-been awhile. Explains the weak force, strong force-some physics obviously. As to the original question Iran and N. Korea wanna be "players" at the nuke poker table-give them power and influence they cant get by their economies or global influence...and a gun to hold to the rest of the world's head. Can't put this genie back in the bottle. 'Course Iran's doin' it with oil to the world economy and stock markets right now. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 03:13 PM (#1652962) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Troll Nukes exist. It would be nice if they didn't but they do. It would be nice if greed and hatred and pestilence and famine didn't exist either. But they do. We have to learn to live with such things. Some we can control, some we can't. Since nukes do exist, I in my own ethnocentric and chauvinistic way, would prefer that my country be the big dog on the block. I would also prefer that my country always be right and just in its dealings with other countries. But if it's not, I still want us to be calling the shots for our people, not some wack job or religious fanatic. Purely selfish I know, but that's just how I am. troll |
|
21 Jan 06 - 03:17 PM (#1652967) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Peace A Canticle for Leibowitz |
|
21 Jan 06 - 04:51 PM (#1653038) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Peace The one positive I have about nukes: the explosion occurs so quickly that it is faster than the human nervous system's ability to tell your body you are in pain. However, ya have to be real close to ground zero. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 05:37 PM (#1653063) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Rapparee For all but a few months of my life I, like most who read this, have lived with these weapons. They fascinate me, much like facing a rattler that's ready to strike. To the extent I'm capable of it I've studied them and think I have a better-than-average understanding. Remember that it's not the bombs, warheads, artilllery shells and land mines that are dangerous. Left to themselves they'd eventually decompose into lead and other thins. It's the people with the triggers, the launch codes, and the fuze settings. See this. Don't forget "Alas, Babylon" by Pat Frank. ("A Canticle for Liebowitz" is one of my very favorite books. There's a copy in my office; it's an underground classic with librarians.) |
|
21 Jan 06 - 05:59 PM (#1653081) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Raedwulf As Hawk said, The best thing would be if nobody had nuclear weapons, but it's too late for that therefore "we" try to prevent anyone else joining the club. So far no-one has used one since Nagasaki, but the more people have one, the more likely it is some idiot will use one. Nuclear weapons are to a nations defense what guns are to personal defense. You cannot defend yourself with a gun, all you can do is shoot the other guy (something the NRA is fundamentally unable to grasp & would resolutely refuse to understand anyway). Nuclear weapons ditto & ten thousand-fold the effects! We can't unmake the bloody things, unfortunately. All that can done is to try to restrict their spread. And if Iran is so concerned about its future energy generation then... I've just emailed the following to the UK Iranian embassy. I expect I'll get a pro forma reply, but if anything interesting results, I'll let you know. R Good day, I have followed, with interest, the news reports concerning the development of nuclear energy in your country. Obviously, as I am British, what I see in the news is unlikely to be without some bias. I am sure you would agree, as would your president, that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is undesirable; and, (as your president has made clear) the acquisition of weapons is not your intention. It is unfortunate that the technology you need for more efficient energy generation is the same that will also create more efficient weapons. Rhetoric aside, it is, then, understandable that many (especially Western) countries are nervous about Iran's aims. But there is one question, above all, that puzzles me. Iran has, as I understand it, large reserves of oil. Of course, these are finite resources & will run out one day. An alternative source of energy is desirable (not just for Iran, of course, but for every nation!). But nuclear energy is enormously costly, both in the short term (developing & building the plants & technology), & in the long term (managing waste, decomissioning, security, etc). Your country is surely in the fortunate position of being able to develop solar energy, in a way that few other nations can. I am curious to know what the the position of your nation is on renewable energy. Wouldn't the resources that Iran is prepared to devote to an energy source that is costly, dangerous, & globally controversial be better spent on developing alternative & 'clean ' power? I am interested to know what the opinion of your government is on these matters. Thanking you for your kind attention |
|
21 Jan 06 - 06:17 PM (#1653099) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Little Hawk That's quite a website, Rapaire. Note the melodramatic orchestral music blaring in the background of the 50's videoclips as we watch atomic fireballs go off and mushroom clouds writhe skyward. Note the bombastic commentary of the nasal-voiced American narrators as they portentously remind us of the mightiness and awful power of these weapons. My, they were proud of themselves, weren't they? "I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds." How they gloried in their ability to commit mass murder, to cowe and utterly terrorize those unfortunate enough to be judged "enemies of America". Such a civilization has a way of bringing monsters upon itself, in time. Monsters like Bin Laden, for one. I lived under the fear of those weapons all my life, and I'm not impressed. Somebody is going to pay a terrible price eventually. I hope I'm not here when it happens. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 06:23 PM (#1653103) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: GUEST Good point, Raedwulf. Thats why its important for Western countries to lead the way in developing alternate energy strategies. As long as we continue to use non-renewable energy and develop nuclear energy, the rest of the world will demand equal rights. Its up to us to lead the way. Only by example will the rest of the world consider viable alternatives. Its a bit arrogant to expect other nations to do what we ourselves are unwilling to do. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 06:30 PM (#1653117) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Little Hawk "Its a bit arrogant to expect other nations to do what we ourselves are unwilling to do." THAT is the crux of the matter right there. That is why the USA, and Russia, and China, and the UK, and all great powers have been and are deeply resented in this world. They are unwilling to live up to their own rhetoric when it comes right down to it. They do NOT believe in equality. They believe in supremacy. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 09:27 PM (#1653165) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Keef As an ageing "Boomer" I grew up with the ever present threat of nuclear war..Cuban missile crisis and all. Used to get pretty depressed about it all. Like many of us, I found the best way to deal with it was to forget about it and live for the moment (did that particularly well in the sixties). With all the other threats that the planet faces, the nuclear issue has sort of faded into the background. With the original nuclear club members it was more likely that a nuclear exchange would happen by accident than by a suicidal first strike (MAD) I suppose Iran, North Korea, Scotland and Tasmania have equal rights to join the club but I think it would make the world an even more dangerous place. I'm with Raedwulf here. Solar and other renewables are better value. Nuclear power is mainly a spin off from the weapons program. If you really do the math(s) and include an allowance for the still unsolved problem of waste disposal then it makes no sense. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 10:24 PM (#1653196) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Troll Raedwulf, please define "defense" for me. Keef, I was told just today by someone whose information I trust, that it would take 6,000 sq.ft. of solar panels to run a 2,00 sq. ft. house. Even if you cut it down to lights and refrigeration, it would be a tremendous expense both in cash and in energy. Right now, it takes 1.2 kilowatts to produce 1 kw. of energy using Hydrogen. Nuke power makes the most sense dollar for dollar but, as you said, the waste disposal problem remains. Wind power is not feasible for a large part of the world, so the only answer seems to me to be for everyone in the world to cut back on their energy usage. And that's about as probable as Jonah and the Whale. troll |
|
21 Jan 06 - 10:26 PM (#1653198) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Little Hawk We could start by all turning off our computers... ;-) |
|
21 Jan 06 - 10:41 PM (#1653203) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Bobert Wes Ginny Algebra: % of nukes you have = % of world's resources you consume.. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 10:48 PM (#1653207) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Once Famous This discussion has had zero impact on anything, I believe. |
|
21 Jan 06 - 10:57 PM (#1653211) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Little Hawk True. So has your choice in clothing, and the way I brush my hair, but are we going to stop now? ;-) |
|
22 Jan 06 - 12:23 AM (#1653244) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Peace "Bhabha argued that "atomic weapons give a State possessing them in adequate numbers a deterrent power against attack from a much stronger State". He further claimed that such weapons were remarkably cheap citing cost estimates provided by the U.S. AEC for projected Plowshare (peaceful nuclear explosive) devices - $350,000 for a 10 kt device, and $600,000 for a 2 Mt device. From this he estimated that "a stockpile of some 50 atomic bombs would cost under $21 million and a stockpile of 50 two-megaton hydrogen bombs something of the order of $31.5 million " [Perkovich 1999; pg. 67]" From here. OK. Let's use the figure $500,000 per device (but that doesn't include the cost of developing the technology to actually make the things). There have been approximately 50,000 devices built over the years. That is $25,000,000,000. Man, if people keep building those things, it's gonna start adding up to real money. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 07:17 AM (#1653340) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: GUEST,Zach Houston Harold hope the above has helped, I agree with you this subject has many asking the same question as you did. By the way ignore Martin Gibson, he is unwell and suffers from depression since his wife left him for a guy fron Boston aged 22 and he developed a hate the world attitude since this. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 07:21 AM (#1653345) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: GUEST,Motown Mojo Actually it's Fort Independence near Castle Island just outside Boston !And they in heaven without the creep. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 12:12 PM (#1653494) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Teribus Harold read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, its conditions and how they apply to the signatories. While neither Pakistan, India or Israel were signatories of the Nuclear NPT, both Iran and North Korea were. North Korea pulled out and is currently threatening to develope weapons, it is possible that Iran has just started out on the same journey. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 12:25 PM (#1653503) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: GUEST All the more reason that Iran believes it needs to defend itself. Until everyone disarms, there will be nations that feel threatened. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 12:45 PM (#1653521) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: JohnInKansas A complicating factor here is that the mere threat that a small(er) nation intends to build nuclear weapons gives them "political leverage" much beyond what they might otherwise have. Since the consequences of treating such threats as "political posturing" and simply ignoring them could be disastrous(?), it's an effective form of blackmail, and dirt cheap unless someone really believes them and decides to do something about it. But how do you tell if they're serious? And if their threats don't work, would they get serious? John |
|
22 Jan 06 - 12:45 PM (#1653522) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Once Famous Wow, a moron who defends a madman who runs Iran. Could only be found on Mudcat. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 12:47 PM (#1653524) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: number 6 He He .... interesting point MG ! sIx |
|
22 Jan 06 - 01:38 PM (#1653572) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Amos I think your numbers are way off in terms of efficiency of current solar panels, Troll. But I don't have my notes here. I'll look it up on Monday. A |
|
22 Jan 06 - 01:44 PM (#1653580) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Peace "North Korea pulled out and is currently threatening to develope weapons" North Korea HAS nukes. About a dozen. According to Washington. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 01:53 PM (#1653601) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: GUEST,Harold Dynes Thanks guys for your help in understanding this. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 02:38 PM (#1653650) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Little Hawk Yes, North Korea probably has nukes. There was some suspicion recently that they tested one in a remote area. Given their level of paranoia, I think they would have moved heaven and earth to arm themselves with atomic weapons by this time (rather like Israel). Where there's a will, there's a way. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 02:41 PM (#1653655) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Peace I think Israel has every reason to be paranoid. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 02:51 PM (#1653669) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Once Famous Like I said in another thread, Peace: "Never again." |
|
22 Jan 06 - 03:25 PM (#1653690) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: GUEST Oh please! Do you really believe that little plaque that reads "Never again" in several languages? What a cliche. Its just another way of making you believe that it isn't happening right now. Maybe its not happening to Jews this time, but to other people of other nations, it continues to happen. I spit on that plaque because I knew it was a lie. Never again, my ass! |
|
22 Jan 06 - 04:06 PM (#1653718) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Little Hawk Oh, they do, Peace, they do. And so do their neighbours. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 04:33 PM (#1653734) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: robomatic Here's anothe intersting nuclear website: children of the manhattan project If you like good and big books which capture aspects of the nuclear issues I recommend by far at the top of the list the two books by Richard Rhodes: 1) The Making of the Atomic Bomb 2) Dark Sun Other good books: Now It Can Be Told by Gen. Leslie Groves The Manhattan Project by Stephane Groueff My take: The use of the atomic bomb by the US on Japan ended the most costly war in history. It also created by its existence and use the notion that humankind has arrived at a stocktaking time in its existence, whether or not (major) war should be used to settle its affairs any more. There have been no major wars since WWII and the UN has managed to stay in existence and somewhat relevant ever since. I'm re-reading "Dark Sun" right now at the point in which, post-War, a commission of American leaders actually tried to recommend internationalizing information about nuclear science, weaponry included, in order to forestall an arms race. The idea was that openness destroyed the need for military competition and would enhance trust over time. The people on the panel inclueded Robert Oppenheimer and Dean Acheson. This proposal never made it to the UN, but the author made the interesting point that nuclear proliferation has achieved a comparable, though unstable and much more expensive, result. Other members of this forum have correctly remembered the great fear of the cold war, that of nuclear annihilation. I submit that it takes this kind of fear to make us pause in our use of organized violence on the scale we committed and endured in World War II. There seems to have been a pause since that time, where we may have forgotten the basic lesson of Trinity, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and seem willing to consider that these weapons are capable of use and that defense against these weapons may be possible. |
|
22 Jan 06 - 05:02 PM (#1653753) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: robomatic I meant to mention in my last post how much A Canticle For Leibowitz meant to me. It's one of the three very deeply Christian works that has really influenced me, along with Brideshead Revisited and Brothers Karamazov. New Hampshire Public Radio once aired a radio version of Canticle which was pretty good. |
|
23 Jan 06 - 01:35 AM (#1653978) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Teribus I do not believe that North Korea has ever carried out any nuclear weapon testing. I can remember sometime last year satellite pictures showed evidence of a site, up near the Chinese border, that indicated possible preparations for such a test, but as yet no test has taken place. |
|
23 Jan 06 - 05:21 AM (#1654019) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Pied Piper The complete quote from Oppeniemer. "A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. There floated through my mind a line from the "Bhagavad-Gita" in which Krishna is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty: "I am become death: the destroyer of worlds." Do you think this is an arrogant statement LH? PP |
|
23 Jan 06 - 06:00 AM (#1654031) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Keef Delayed response here but....Mr Troll...year average insolation is 5.25 WHours per day per sq metre at my latitude. Go here to check for wherever you live NASA website http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/sse/grid.cgi?uid=3030 that gives about 3000 KWHours per day falling on your 6000 sq ft roof. Present day solar efficiency is still fairly low (could be much higher if we were serious about it) see this link for a simple idea that improves cost effectiveness hugely http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/ Even at a low 20% conversion efficiency 600KW hours per day oughta be enough for even the greediest energy hog. Imagine how much cheaper and more efficient solar energy could be if a tiny fraction of the money spent on nuclear research was spent on alternative energy instead. |
|
23 Jan 06 - 08:40 AM (#1654102) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: GUEST,redhorse at work If Iraq had had nuclear weapons, the USA would not have been prepared to risk invading them. This is why: a) US doesn't want anyone else to have them b) North Korea, Iran etc want to have them Duh! nick |
|
23 Jan 06 - 09:47 AM (#1654138) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Strollin' Johnny Keef, Scotland (as a consituent part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) already has nuclear weapons. Just on a point of order. By the way, don't you colonials call them 'nucular'? |
|
23 Jan 06 - 09:59 AM (#1654145) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
23 Jan 06 - 02:55 PM (#1654256) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Peace "By the way, don't you colonials call them 'nucular'?" Only the President of the United States of America. |
|
24 Jan 06 - 08:33 AM (#1654714) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Strollin' Johnny LOL!! :-) :-) |
|
24 Jan 06 - 11:42 AM (#1654881) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
24 Jan 06 - 12:26 PM (#1654905) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Kaleea "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." |
|
24 Jan 06 - 12:45 PM (#1654917) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: TheBigPinkLad 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. |
|
25 Jan 06 - 12:30 AM (#1655217) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Teribus 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. |
|
25 Jan 06 - 01:50 AM (#1655233) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Peace Then there's this. |
|
26 Jan 06 - 03:29 PM (#1656100) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: GUEST,P-35 Growing up under the shadow of the Bomb |
|
26 Jan 06 - 06:54 PM (#1656239) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: GUEST,Nukes For All 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: nonukes@thisplace.gov Free Webpages This page created using the webpage creation facilities of Webspawner. Copyright © 2002 . All Rights Reserved |
|
27 Jan 06 - 06:57 PM (#1656728) Subject: RE: BS: Nuclear Weapons From: Raedwulf 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! |