How many countries around the world would be theoretically capable of developing a fission type nuclear bomb (say within 5 years) if the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was abandoned for some reason.

What level of industrial sophistication would be required?

It’s been over 70 years now since the first simple nuclear weapons were developed, so in some sense it is 70 year old technology. Is the technology now relatively more simple for other nations to pursue?

party_pants said:

How many countries around the world would be theoretically capable of developing a fission type nuclear bomb (say within 5 years) if the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was abandoned for some reason.

What level of industrial sophistication would be required?

It’s been over 70 years now since the first simple nuclear weapons were developed, so in some sense it is 70 year old technology. Is the technology now relatively more simple for other nations to pursue?

Honestly? Almost all of them. The hard part would be obtaining the fissile material.

dv said:

party_pants said:

How many countries around the world would be theoretically capable of developing a fission type nuclear bomb (say within 5 years) if the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was abandoned for some reason.

What level of industrial sophistication would be required?

It’s been over 70 years now since the first simple nuclear weapons were developed, so in some sense it is 70 year old technology. Is the technology now relatively more simple for other nations to pursue?

Honestly? Almost all of them. The hard part would be obtaining the fissile material.

Honestly? The question is so difficult to answer that even the nuclear proliferation experts don’t know.

There are several aspects of fission bomb technology that are difficult.

The first is the production of the fission material, either highly enriched uranium or plutonium.

Highly enriched uranium is generally produced using centrifuges, but these are no ordinary centrifuges. The centrifuges currently in use are of such fine tolerance that a single fingerprint will render the centrifuge permanently useless – I know this because an IAEA inspector admitted to sabotaging a centrifuge in a non-bomb country in just this way. Making such centrifuges impossible for most countries. There is an argument in the non-proliferation community about whether using lower standard centrifuges is impossible for most countries to produce or merely difficult. Is it possible to use a much larger number of centrifuges made to a lower standard? Nobody knows.

Using gaseous diffusion instead of centrifuge for uranium enrichment is extraordinarily slow and expensive – out of the question for most countries.

There is another trick here. Going from natural uranium to slightly enriched uranium is more difficult than going from slightly enriched uranium to highly enriched uranium.

A Pakistani scientist famously released into the public domain for a short time some specifications for making a centrifuge for uranium enrichment. These specs are now out of the public domain. This specification was famously attacked by the virus Stuxnet, so you’d need completely different computer control hardware and software.

Plutonium has its own problems. It has to be the right isotope. Nuclear reactors for nuclear power can be and have been made so that it is impossible to get weapons grade plutonium out, so successfully that China’s first bomb was made from highly enriched uranium not plutonium. The longer a fuel rod is in the reactor, the less useful the plutonium that comes out.

I do not know if it is possible to get plutonium out of a research reactor like Australia’s Opal reactor, or for a Japanese power reactor. It is probably easier to build a a nuclear reactor for plutonium weapons production from scratch, as the UK did. It needs a high neutron flux for a short period of time.

The actual mass of plutonium needed for a fission bomb is something of a secret. I have seen figures that differ by more than a factor of a hundred!

There are three other problems with plutonium fission. None of the three is easy for a country.

• The need for a spherically symmetrical implosion using conventional explosives. You can not buy such devices off the shelf and they have to be made to very high accuracy.
• The need for a reprocessing facility to chemically extract plutonium from the other extremely reactive spent fuel.
• The need for a trigger, a pulse of neutrons that has to be precisely timed to hit the compressed plutonium at the right moment.

Software for designing nuclear weapons is not readily available, and even at best would have to be supplemented by physical testing.

In other words, the production of a fission bomb is so difficult that nobody other than an expert knows how many technologically advanced countries could do it.

But a rather good feature of this difficulty is that for any country to take any steps towards fission bomb production, it would have to do things that are incredibly easy to track, whether it be sourcing steel for centrifuges or obtaining material for making a timed trigger. We would know of any country trying to make an atomic bomb at least several years before they could make one.

Even with access to fissionable material and a serious desire, Iran was unable to build a bomb.

Admittedly, a large part of their inability to succeed was down to US/Israel interference in the project. (re. STUXNET)

I suspect that it would be far easier, and more ‘invisible’, if you wanted to do a lot of damage to a city by the ocean, to simply get an old freighter ship, fill it up with ammonium nitrate, drive it into the port and set it off.
You’d have to be able to get a good 10,000 – 20,000 tonnes into an old ship and that would make for quite a lot of damage. Maybe even an old oil tanker or container ship, which would likely be able to carry quite a lot more again.

It’s a shame that it’s far easier to destroy than to create. :(

Spiny Norman said:

I suspect that it would be far easier, and more ‘invisible’, if you wanted to do a lot of damage to a city by the ocean, to simply get an old freighter ship, fill it up with ammonium nitrate, drive it into the port and set it off.
You’d have to be able to get a good 10,000 – 20,000 tonnes into an old ship and that would make for quite a lot of damage. Maybe even an old oil tanker or container ship, which would likely be able to carry quite a lot more again.

It’s a shame that it’s far easier to destroy than to create. :(

I’ve discussed that possibility numerous times. There are legitimate freighters carrying tens of thousands of tons of that stuff – it just needs the right crew on board at some stage of the journey.

I think Israel will not allow any middle eastern countries to develop a nuclear capability.
The best weapon of mass destruction would be the clandestine release of some sort of extremely contagious virus with a high mortality rate that could kill thousands of people and cripple national economies and industry.

Dark Orange said:

Spiny Norman said:

I suspect that it would be far easier, and more ‘invisible’, if you wanted to do a lot of damage to a city by the ocean, to simply get an old freighter ship, fill it up with ammonium nitrate, drive it into the port and set it off.
You’d have to be able to get a good 10,000 – 20,000 tonnes into an old ship and that would make for quite a lot of damage. Maybe even an old oil tanker or container ship, which would likely be able to carry quite a lot more again.

It’s a shame that it’s far easier to destroy than to create. :(

I’ve discussed that possibility numerous times. There are legitimate freighters carrying tens of thousands of tons of that stuff – it just needs the right crew on board at some stage of the journey.

Kamikaze crew? A spray of diesel and toss a bag of firecrackers in.

roughbarked said:

Dark Orange said:

Spiny Norman said:

I suspect that it would be far easier, and more ‘invisible’, if you wanted to do a lot of damage to a city by the ocean, to simply get an old freighter ship, fill it up with ammonium nitrate, drive it into the port and set it off.
You’d have to be able to get a good 10,000 – 20,000 tonnes into an old ship and that would make for quite a lot of damage. Maybe even an old oil tanker or container ship, which would likely be able to carry quite a lot more again.

It’s a shame that it’s far easier to destroy than to create. :(

I’ve discussed that possibility numerous times. There are legitimate freighters carrying tens of thousands of tons of that stuff – it just needs the right crew on board at some stage of the journey.

Kamikaze crew? A spray of diesel and toss a bag of firecrackers in.

Yeah, kinda. You could destroy the Sydney Harbour Bridge, level North Sydney, Kirribilli, Circular Quay, and do massive damage to the CBD.

Peak Warming Man said:

I think Israel will not allow any middle eastern countries to develop a nuclear capability.
The best weapon of mass destruction would be the clandestine release of some sort of extremely contagious virus with a high mortality rate that could kill thousands of people and cripple national economies and industry.

Ha!

You got that one right.

Is Mr Khan still around?

Think of all the countries in the world with a more developed technological base than North Korea… who managed to do it despite a trade and technology embargo

By far the easiest way to get a fission bomb is to steal it.

My absolutely top concern regarding nuclear war in the near future is that the USA still has all the weapons grade highly enriched uranium that it had at the height of the cold war …
… plus all the weapons grade highly enriched uranium that the USSR had at the height of the cold war, which was more …
… plus nuclear weapons sites with active nuclear weapons all over the world, including three sites in Turkey …
… plus active nuclear weapons submarines with submarine launched ballistic missiles.

And all it takes to get it started is a mistake by Rump.

The USSR highly enriched uranium has been mixed down to a lower enrichment, but in such a way that it can be rapidly re-enriched.

South Africa and Israel managed a nuclear program without anybody noticing. Not until they set off a test in the remote southern ocean.

dv said:

Think of all the countries in the world with a more developed technological base than North Korea… who managed to do it despite a trade and technology embargo

The trade embargo helps. You need a country isolated from the need for external component supply.
It helped with Coronavirus.

> Is Mr Khan still around?

That’s a good question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

He’s still alive and 84 years old according to wikipedia. “Khan remains a popular public figure and served as a symbol of extreme national pride with many in his country sees him as a national hero of Pakistan.”

PS. Not to be confused with “Munir Ahmad Khan”, the father of the Pakistani bomb, who died in 1999 aged 72.

party_pants said:

South Africa and Israel managed a nuclear program without anybody noticing. Not until they set off a test in the remote southern ocean.

Didn’t the USA clandestinely help Israel or MOSSAD borrowed the information

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

South Africa and Israel managed a nuclear program without anybody noticing. Not until they set off a test in the remote southern ocean.

Didn’t the USA clandestinely help Israel or MOSSAD borrowed the information

I don’t know, I was not directly involved in that project.

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

South Africa and Israel managed a nuclear program without anybody noticing. Not until they set off a test in the remote southern ocean.

Didn’t the USA clandestinely help Israel or MOSSAD borrowed the information

I don’t know, I was not directly involved in that project.

Fair enough

“The trade embargo helps. You need a country isolated from the need for external component supply”

No

dv said:

“The trade embargo helps. You need a country isolated from the need for external component supply”

No

They usually help the poor becoming poorer

Would you like to know the status of nuclear proliferation at the present moment?

eg. neither Pakiston nor North Korea have H bombs. Israel has the capacity to make H bombs. India has H bombs. South Africa doesn’t have any nuclear bombs. etc.

If so then I’ll look it up.

dv said:

“The trade embargo helps. You need a country isolated from the need for external component supply”

No

If you have to rely on buying fission bomb components from overseas, you’re not going to make it.
Australia can’t even grow its own roses.

Globalisation means local ossification of manufacturing. North Korea has managed to manufacture everything it needs for itself.

Or to put it another way, multinationals are the greatest force for peace in the world.

mollwollfumble said:

Would you like to know the status of nuclear proliferation at the present moment?

eg. neither Pakiston nor North Korea have H bombs. Israel has the capacity to make H bombs. India has H bombs. South Africa doesn’t have any nuclear bombs. etc.

If so then I’ll look it up.

dv said:

“The trade embargo helps. You need a country isolated from the need for external component supply”

No

If you have to rely on buying fission bomb components from overseas, you’re not going to make it.
Australia can’t even grow its own roses.

Globalisation means local ossification of manufacturing. North Korea has managed to manufacture everything it needs for itself.

Or to put it another way, multinationals are the greatest force for peace in the world.

North Korea may have had some help from nations with similar ideolog, plus I wonder how much it’s cost them in human life due to resource diversion

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Would you like to know the status of nuclear proliferation at the present moment?

eg. neither Pakiston nor North Korea have H bombs. Israel has the capacity to make H bombs. India has H bombs. South Africa doesn’t have any nuclear bombs. etc.

If so then I’ll look it up.

dv said:

“The trade embargo helps. You need a country isolated from the need for external component supply”

No

If you have to rely on buying fission bomb components from overseas, you’re not going to make it.
Australia can’t even grow its own roses.

Globalisation means local ossification of manufacturing. North Korea has managed to manufacture everything it needs for itself.

Or to put it another way, multinationals are the greatest force for peace in the world.

North Korea may have had some help from nations with similar ideolog, plus I wonder how much it’s cost them in human life due to resource diversion

> I wonder how much it’s cost them in human life due to resource diversion

Huh?

Some non-proliferation issues.

“All of the countries that store plutonium must make the best efforts possible to decrease it. Taking this into account, concerns about Japan’s problem of plutonium management have been growing in the international community.”
https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/japannukefuelrecyling_final.pdf
“All of the spent fuel in Japan has been stored as future energy resources. Some spent fuel has been reprocessed at commercial reprocessing plants in Europe and a testing plant in Japan. Consequently, 7.3 tons of separated fissile plutonium (Puf) in Japan and 24.5 tons of Puf in Europe have been accumulated as of the end of 2014. In addition, a commercial reprocessing plant in Japan is under construction and is expected to start operating in 2018.”

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Would you like to know the status of nuclear proliferation at the present moment?

eg. neither Pakiston nor North Korea have H bombs. Israel has the capacity to make H bombs. India has H bombs. South Africa doesn’t have any nuclear bombs. etc.

If so then I’ll look it up.

If you have to rely on buying fission bomb components from overseas, you’re not going to make it.
Australia can’t even grow its own roses.

Globalisation means local ossification of manufacturing. North Korea has managed to manufacture everything it needs for itself.

Or to put it another way, multinationals are the greatest force for peace in the world.

North Korea may have had some help from nations with similar ideolog, plus I wonder how much it’s cost them in human life due to resource diversion

> I wonder how much it’s cost them in human life due to resource diversion

Huh?

Some non-proliferation issues.

“All of the countries that store plutonium must make the best efforts possible to decrease it. Taking this into account, concerns about Japan’s problem of plutonium management have been growing in the international community.”
https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/japannukefuelrecyling_final.pdf
“All of the spent fuel in Japan has been stored as future energy resources. Some spent fuel has been reprocessed at commercial reprocessing plants in Europe and a testing plant in Japan. Consequently, 7.3 tons of separated fissile plutonium (Puf) in Japan and 24.5 tons of Puf in Europe have been accumulated as of the end of 2014. In addition, a commercial reprocessing plant in Japan is under construction and is expected to start operating in 2018.”

How many resources has North Korea diverted to nuclear weapon making instead of looking after its people.
The powers that be are OK but the average person in the street maybe not

There’s a lot of total bullshit out there on top hit sites by Google.

“The famous “Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume 1 is from 1984.
Soviet Forces is from 1989.
Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume V, “Britain, France and China” is from 1994.

Now, we’re getting better. Nuclear Notebook: Worldwide Deployments of Nuclear Weapons, 2009 by Robert S. Norris, Hans M. Kristensen
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/065006010

As of the end of 2009, we estimate that there are approximately 23,360 nuclear weapons located at some 111 sites in 14 countries. Nearly one-half of these weapons are active or operationally deployed.

I still don’t think this is reliable. The USSR transferred all of its nuclear weapons material to the USA shortly after the end of the cold war. To claim that Russia still has a credible fleet of nuclear weapons would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

mollwollfumble said:

There’s a lot of total bullshit out there on top hit sites by Google.

“The famous “Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume 1 is from 1984.
Soviet Forces is from 1989.
Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume V, “Britain, France and China” is from 1994.

Now, we’re getting better. Nuclear Notebook: Worldwide Deployments of Nuclear Weapons, 2009 by Robert S. Norris, Hans M. Kristensen
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/065006010

As of the end of 2009, we estimate that there are approximately 23,360 nuclear weapons located at some 111 sites in 14 countries. Nearly one-half of these weapons are active or operationally deployed.

I still don’t think this is reliable. The USSR transferred all of its nuclear weapons material to the USA shortly after the end of the cold war. To claim that Russia still has a credible fleet of nuclear weapons would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

Why would they do that, transfer weapons material
Supposedly Russia is developing next generation nuclear weapons

Cymek said:

How many resources has North Korea diverted to nuclear weapon making instead of looking after its people.
The powers that be are OK but the average person in the street maybe not

I call that flaw in logic “arguing from ignorance”. Arguing from ignorance is basically saying “I don’t know anything about it” and then trying to draw conclusions from that.

North Korea is the only country in the world directly adjacent to four unfriendly and belligerent superpowers. China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. It has more right to nuclear weapons than the USA has ever had.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

There’s a lot of total bullshit out there on top hit sites by Google.

“The famous “Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume 1 is from 1984.
Soviet Forces is from 1989.
Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume V, “Britain, France and China” is from 1994.

Now, we’re getting better. Nuclear Notebook: Worldwide Deployments of Nuclear Weapons, 2009 by Robert S. Norris, Hans M. Kristensen
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/065006010

As of the end of 2009, we estimate that there are approximately 23,360 nuclear weapons located at some 111 sites in 14 countries. Nearly one-half of these weapons are active or operationally deployed.

I still don’t think this is reliable. The USSR transferred all of its nuclear weapons material to the USA shortly after the end of the cold war. To claim that Russia still has a credible fleet of nuclear weapons would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

Why would they do that, transfer weapons material
Supposedly Russia is developing next generation nuclear weapons

You think they had a choice?

LOL

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

There’s a lot of total bullshit out there on top hit sites by Google.

“The famous “Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume 1 is from 1984.
Soviet Forces is from 1989.
Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume V, “Britain, France and China” is from 1994.

Now, we’re getting better. Nuclear Notebook: Worldwide Deployments of Nuclear Weapons, 2009 by Robert S. Norris, Hans M. Kristensen
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/065006010

As of the end of 2009, we estimate that there are approximately 23,360 nuclear weapons located at some 111 sites in 14 countries. Nearly one-half of these weapons are active or operationally deployed.

I still don’t think this is reliable. The USSR transferred all of its nuclear weapons material to the USA shortly after the end of the cold war. To claim that Russia still has a credible fleet of nuclear weapons would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

Why would they do that, transfer weapons material
Supposedly Russia is developing next generation nuclear weapons

Moll is making stuff up again.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

How many resources has North Korea diverted to nuclear weapon making instead of looking after its people.
The powers that be are OK but the average person in the street maybe not

I call that flaw in logic “arguing from ignorance”. Arguing from ignorance is basically saying “I don’t know anything about it” and then trying to draw conclusions from that.

North Korea is the only country in the world directly adjacent to four unfriendly and belligerent superpowers. China, Russia, Japan and South Korea. It has more right to nuclear weapons than the USA has ever had.

Those that possess can’t really be trusted no, they say they are getting rid of them but who knows how many more they build to replace them

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

There’s a lot of total bullshit out there on top hit sites by Google.

“The famous “Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume 1 is from 1984.
Soviet Forces is from 1989.
Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume V, “Britain, France and China” is from 1994.

Now, we’re getting better. Nuclear Notebook: Worldwide Deployments of Nuclear Weapons, 2009 by Robert S. Norris, Hans M. Kristensen
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/065006010

As of the end of 2009, we estimate that there are approximately 23,360 nuclear weapons located at some 111 sites in 14 countries. Nearly one-half of these weapons are active or operationally deployed.

I still don’t think this is reliable. The USSR transferred all of its nuclear weapons material to the USA shortly after the end of the cold war. To claim that Russia still has a credible fleet of nuclear weapons would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

Why would they do that, transfer weapons material
Supposedly Russia is developing next generation nuclear weapons

You think they had a choice?

LOL

I never read that before though

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Think of all the countries in the world with a more developed technological base than North Korea… who managed to do it despite a trade and technology embargo

The trade embargo helps. You need a country isolated from the need for external component supply.
It helped with Coronavirus.

> Is Mr Khan still around?

That’s a good question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

He’s still alive and 84 years old according to wikipedia. “Khan remains a popular public figure and served as a symbol of extreme national pride with many in his country sees him as a national hero of Pakistan.”

PS. Not to be confused with “Munir Ahmad Khan”, the father of the Pakistani bomb, who died in 1999 aged 72.

Or Imran?

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Think of all the countries in the world with a more developed technological base than North Korea… who managed to do it despite a trade and technology embargo

The trade embargo helps. You need a country isolated from the need for external component supply.
It helped with Coronavirus.

> Is Mr Khan still around?

That’s a good question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

He’s still alive and 84 years old according to wikipedia. “Khan remains a popular public figure and served as a symbol of extreme national pride with many in his country sees him as a national hero of Pakistan.”

PS. Not to be confused with “Munir Ahmad Khan”, the father of the Pakistani bomb, who died in 1999 aged 72.

Or Imran?

He’s the president of Pakistan now, he is the man with his finger on the button.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

The trade embargo helps. You need a country isolated from the need for external component supply.
It helped with Coronavirus.

> Is Mr Khan still around?

That’s a good question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

He’s still alive and 84 years old according to wikipedia. “Khan remains a popular public figure and served as a symbol of extreme national pride with many in his country sees him as a national hero of Pakistan.”

PS. Not to be confused with “Munir Ahmad Khan”, the father of the Pakistani bomb, who died in 1999 aged 72.

Or Imran?

He’s the president of Pakistan now, he is the man with his finger on the button.

It is why I brought him up.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

The trade embargo helps. You need a country isolated from the need for external component supply.
It helped with Coronavirus.

> Is Mr Khan still around?

That’s a good question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

He’s still alive and 84 years old according to wikipedia. “Khan remains a popular public figure and served as a symbol of extreme national pride with many in his country sees him as a national hero of Pakistan.”

PS. Not to be confused with “Munir Ahmad Khan”, the father of the Pakistani bomb, who died in 1999 aged 72.

Or Imran?

He’s the president of Pakistan now, he is the man with his finger on the button.

Oh, I though Imran Kahn was a cricketer.

Abdul Qadeer Khan is the one who published designs that would allow non-nuclear nations to make atomic bombs.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Or Imran?

He’s the president of Pakistan now, he is the man with his finger on the button.

Oh, I though Imran Kahn was a cricketer.

This is the stuff that causes us worry about any of your science.

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Or Imran?

He’s the president of Pakistan now, he is the man with his finger on the button.

Oh, I though Imran Kahn was a cricketer.

Abdul Qadeer Khan is the one who published designs that would allow non-nuclear nations to make atomic bombs.

The same Imran Khan who was a cricketer is now a politician. Except he is the PM of Pakistan rather than the president.

There was also a pPakistani cricketer called Abdul Qadir Khan, who was a leg-spinner. Not to be confused with the Qadeer spelling, but for us westerners pronounced very much the same way.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

party_pants said:

He’s the president of Pakistan now, he is the man with his finger on the button.

Oh, I though Imran Kahn was a cricketer.

This is the stuff that causes us worry about any of your science.

giggles

mollwollfumble said:

By far the easiest way to get a fission bomb is to steal it.

My absolutely top concern regarding nuclear war in the near future is that the USA still has all the weapons grade highly enriched uranium that it had at the height of the cold war …
… plus all the weapons grade highly enriched uranium that the USSR had at the height of the cold war, which was more …
… plus nuclear weapons sites with active nuclear weapons all over the world, including three sites in Turkey …
… plus active nuclear weapons submarines with submarine launched ballistic missiles.

And all it takes to get it started is a mistake by Rump.

The USSR highly enriched uranium has been mixed down to a lower enrichment, but in such a way that it can be rapidly re-enriched.

It won’t be trump

America is most likely to succumb to ideological subversion

Its scientists simply walk back to the motherland and start building bombs for the cause.

Its population votes in a far left wing social woketopia which collapses leaving power vacuums and warlords that might take over control of existing arsenals.

Most likely britain will go down this path much faster. If the far left wing gain control it should be encouraged in the early days for the communist gov to scrap the trident system and dismantle and break up its nuclear deterrent in every form.

Thus, as the communist system slowly becomes more insidious eg people being fed in gas chambers because they said something mean on Facebook. In britain the police are already arresting people for comments on Facebook eg misgendering.

There’s a very good chance that a woketopia won’t have or be able to produce anyone able to build nuclear bombs
Because the system would have already weeded them out for wrongthink ( mathematics is already being declared a Western, white and imperialist subject).

Spiny Norman said:

I suspect that it would be far easier, and more ‘invisible’, if you wanted to do a lot of damage to a city by the ocean, to simply get an old freighter ship, fill it up with ammonium nitrate, drive it into the port and set it off.
You’d have to be able to get a good 10,000 – 20,000 tonnes into an old ship and that would make for quite a lot of damage. Maybe even an old oil tanker or container ship, which would likely be able to carry quite a lot more again.

It’s a shame that it’s far easier to destroy than to create. :(

What if you had more than one ship ?

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

South Africa and Israel managed a nuclear program without anybody noticing. Not until they set off a test in the remote southern ocean.

Didn’t the USA clandestinely help Israel or MOSSAD borrowed the information

Jewish scientists went back to Israel after making the American bomb and built the israeli bomb.

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

There’s a lot of total bullshit out there on top hit sites by Google.

“The famous “Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume 1 is from 1984.
Soviet Forces is from 1989.
Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume V, “Britain, France and China” is from 1994.

Now, we’re getting better. Nuclear Notebook: Worldwide Deployments of Nuclear Weapons, 2009 by Robert S. Norris, Hans M. Kristensen
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/065006010

As of the end of 2009, we estimate that there are approximately 23,360 nuclear weapons located at some 111 sites in 14 countries. Nearly one-half of these weapons are active or operationally deployed.

I still don’t think this is reliable. The USSR transferred all of its nuclear weapons material to the USA shortly after the end of the cold war. To claim that Russia still has a credible fleet of nuclear weapons would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

Why would they do that, transfer weapons material
Supposedly Russia is developing next generation nuclear weapons

Moll is making stuff up again.

I get all my components from the fission warehouse

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

There’s a lot of total bullshit out there on top hit sites by Google.

“The famous “Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume 1 is from 1984.
Soviet Forces is from 1989.
Nuclear Weapons Databook” Volume V, “Britain, France and China” is from 1994.

Now, we’re getting better. Nuclear Notebook: Worldwide Deployments of Nuclear Weapons, 2009 by Robert S. Norris, Hans M. Kristensen
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2968/065006010

As of the end of 2009, we estimate that there are approximately 23,360 nuclear weapons located at some 111 sites in 14 countries. Nearly one-half of these weapons are active or operationally deployed.

I still don’t think this is reliable. The USSR transferred all of its nuclear weapons material to the USA shortly after the end of the cold war. To claim that Russia still has a credible fleet of nuclear weapons would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

Why would they do that, transfer weapons material
Supposedly Russia is developing next generation nuclear weapons

Moll is making stuff up again.

> The USSR transferred all of its nuclear weapons material to the USA shortly after the end of the cold war. To claim that Russia still has a credible fleet of nuclear weapons would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

The US put a positive spin on it of course. “Swords into ploughshares” they called it. “Megatons to Megawatts”.

Do you have any idea how much 500 tons of highly enriched uranium is? It’s more than the entire USA had in nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war. Russia lost the equivalent of 17,000 nuclear warheads.

https://aheadoftheherd.com/Newsletter/2011/Swords-to-Plowshares-Program-Over.html
https://susaneisenhower.com/2013/12/10/swords-into-ploughshares/
https://naturalgas-electric.com/blog/turning-swords-into-plowshares
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program
https://www.npr.org/2013/12/11/250007526/megatons-to-megawatts-russian-warheads-fuel-u-s-power-plants

What’s missing from this is that the downgrading of 500 tons of highly enriched uranium at 90% to 9,000 tons of uranium at 5% is that 5% uranium is easy to re-enrich back to bomb grade material, whereas natural uranium is much more difficult to enrich to 5%.

They bought a humongous amount of weapons grade highly enriched uranium from Russia. The positive spin is that this would be used to supply the USA’s civilian reactors for many years to come and that the money would help to revitalise the Russian economy. The money the USA paid to Russia for this is secret, but it would be nowhere near the full value.

During the twenty year Megatons to Megawatts Program Russia will convert 500 tonnes of highly enriched uranium (HEU – uranium 235 enriched to 90 percent) from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into low enriched uranium (LEU – less than 5 percent uranium 235) for nuclear fuel and sell it to the US. The terms of the Megatons to Megawatts Program also required that the HEU be converted to LEU in Russian nuclear facilities.

The United States established a government corporation – United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to purchase and transport the LEU to the US. Russia designated Tekhsnabeksport (“Tenex”) a commercial subsidiary of its Ministry of Atomic Energy (MinAtom) to implement their side of the program.

The Megatons to Megawatts program had, as of August 2011, down-blended 425 tonnes of HEU – equivalent to 17,000 nuclear warheads. The twenty year program to down-blend 500 tonnes of weapons grade Russian HEU into fuel for nuclear reactors will eliminate the equivalent of 20,000 warheads by the time it comes to an end in 2013.

Truly swords into plowshares, nuclear warheads that were once on Russian ICBMs aimed at American cities are now providing 50% of the electricity produced by America’s nuclear power plants.

“For two decades, one in ten light bulbs in America has been powered by nuclear material from Russian nuclear warheads. The 1993 United States-Russian Federation Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase Agreement has proven to be one of the most successful nuclear nonproliferation partnerships ever undertaken. The completion of this ‘swords to ploughshares’ program represents a major victory both for the United States and Russia.”

“For the past 20 years the United States and its former adversary Russia have been working together in an arrangement called the “Megatons to Megawatts” Program. The program has Russia dismantling its stockpile of nuclear warheads, processing the uranium, and selling the finished product to the U.S.. The program has proven beneficial for both countries, providing revenue for Russia and materials for the United States. The agreement will expire at the end of this year (2019).”

“a 20-year program to convert 500 metric tons of HEU (uranium-235 enriched to 90 percent) taken from Soviet era warheads”.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

Why would they do that, transfer weapons material
Supposedly Russia is developing next generation nuclear weapons

Moll is making stuff up again.

> The USSR transferred all of its nuclear weapons material to the USA shortly after the end of the cold war. To claim that Russia still has a credible fleet of nuclear weapons would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

The US put a positive spin on it of course. “Swords into ploughshares” they called it. “Megatons to Megawatts”.

Do you have any idea how much 500 tons of highly enriched uranium is? It’s more than the entire USA had in nuclear weapons at the height of the cold war. Russia lost the equivalent of 17,000 nuclear warheads.

https://aheadoftheherd.com/Newsletter/2011/Swords-to-Plowshares-Program-Over.html
https://susaneisenhower.com/2013/12/10/swords-into-ploughshares/
https://naturalgas-electric.com/blog/turning-swords-into-plowshares
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program
https://www.npr.org/2013/12/11/250007526/megatons-to-megawatts-russian-warheads-fuel-u-s-power-plants

What’s missing from this is that the downgrading of 500 tons of highly enriched uranium at 90% to 9,000 tons of uranium at 5% is that 5% uranium is easy to re-enrich back to bomb grade material, whereas natural uranium is much more difficult to enrich to 5%.

They bought a humongous amount of weapons grade highly enriched uranium from Russia. The positive spin is that this would be used to supply the USA’s civilian reactors for many years to come and that the money would help to revitalise the Russian economy. The money the USA paid to Russia for this is secret, but it would be nowhere near the full value.

During the twenty year Megatons to Megawatts Program Russia will convert 500 tonnes of highly enriched uranium (HEU – uranium 235 enriched to 90 percent) from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into low enriched uranium (LEU – less than 5 percent uranium 235) for nuclear fuel and sell it to the US. The terms of the Megatons to Megawatts Program also required that the HEU be converted to LEU in Russian nuclear facilities.

The United States established a government corporation – United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to purchase and transport the LEU to the US. Russia designated Tekhsnabeksport (“Tenex”) a commercial subsidiary of its Ministry of Atomic Energy (MinAtom) to implement their side of the program.

The Megatons to Megawatts program had, as of August 2011, down-blended 425 tonnes of HEU – equivalent to 17,000 nuclear warheads. The twenty year program to down-blend 500 tonnes of weapons grade Russian HEU into fuel for nuclear reactors will eliminate the equivalent of 20,000 warheads by the time it comes to an end in 2013.

Truly swords into plowshares, nuclear warheads that were once on Russian ICBMs aimed at American cities are now providing 50% of the electricity produced by America’s nuclear power plants.

“For two decades, one in ten light bulbs in America has been powered by nuclear material from Russian nuclear warheads. The 1993 United States-Russian Federation Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase Agreement has proven to be one of the most successful nuclear nonproliferation partnerships ever undertaken. The completion of this ‘swords to ploughshares’ program represents a major victory both for the United States and Russia.”

“For the past 20 years the United States and its former adversary Russia have been working together in an arrangement called the “Megatons to Megawatts” Program. The program has Russia dismantling its stockpile of nuclear warheads, processing the uranium, and selling the finished product to the U.S.. The program has proven beneficial for both countries, providing revenue for Russia and materials for the United States. The agreement will expire at the end of this year (2019).”

“a 20-year program to convert 500 metric tons of HEU (uranium-235 enriched to 90 percent) taken from Soviet era warheads”.

Thee nuclear disarmament treaties of the 1980s and 1990s whereby the huge arsenals of Russia and the US were decommissioned would have allowed the Russian to be much reduced by the ‘Megatons to Megawatts’ program and still allow Russia to have a nuclear arms which still dwarf the Chinese, French and British programs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

Witty Rejoinder said:

Thee nuclear disarmament treaties of the 1980s and 1990s whereby the huge arsenals of Russia and the US were decommissioned would have allowed the Russian to be much reduced by the ‘Megatons to Megawatts’ program and still allow Russia to have a nuclear arms which still dwarf the Chinese, French and British programs.

Nope. You really don’t know what 500 metric tons of 90% enriched uranium is capable of.

It left Russia virtually without anything other than its plutonium. Which is negligible by comparison.

The USA on the other hand lost none of its fissionable material, and gained Russia’s.

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Thee nuclear disarmament treaties of the 1980s and 1990s whereby the huge arsenals of Russia and the US were decommissioned would have allowed the Russian to be much reduced by the ‘Megatons to Megawatts’ program and still allow Russia to have a nuclear arms which still dwarf the Chinese, French and British programs.

Nope. You really don’t know what 500 metric tons of 90% enriched uranium is capable of.

It left Russia virtually without anything other than its plutonium. Which is negligible by comparison.

The USA on the other hand lost none of its fissionable material, and gained Russia’s.

Who knows the truth of weapon numbers, being a national secret they probably lie and really it only takes one or two to start a full scale war

mollwollfumble said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Thee nuclear disarmament treaties of the 1980s and 1990s whereby the huge arsenals of Russia and the US were decommissioned would have allowed the Russian to be much reduced by the ‘Megatons to Megawatts’ program and still allow Russia to have a nuclear arms which still dwarf the Chinese, French and British programs.

Nope. You really don’t know what 500 metric tons of 90% enriched uranium is capable of.

It left Russia virtually without anything other than its plutonium. Which is negligible by comparison.

The USA on the other hand lost none of its fissionable material, and gained Russia’s.

Are you saying that the wikipedia stats for the current arsenals are wrong? Giving up 500 metric tonnes of 90% enriched uranium matters little if you still have the capability to take us back to the stone-age ten times over.