Non-Weapon Nukes

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Postby GreatCarouser » Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:33 am

Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Mark Twain
GreatCarouser
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:01 am
Location: Semi-permanent Vacation CA

Postby jamiebk » Sun Jun 18, 2006 6:45 pm

Unfortunately, the US does not have the financial wherewithall to "buy-off" all of the interests that bring this problem to its present level. The Ruskies are broke and happy to sell their technology and hardware to Iran. Iran is intent on negotiating for everything it can get using the scare tactics of getting the nukes. We don't have enough money to fund all of the "deals", just to (maybe) stop what will inevitably happen anyway.

My thought is that if they ever attempted to use them (nukes) the world, (not just the US) would retaliate in masse and blast them off the face of the earth...the country would look like one giant glass mirror from space. Do they want to risk that? Probably not considering the still limited capability they would have.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Postby DavidS » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:11 am

Jamie you are probably right.
As I have pointed out several times about "a barking dog never bites" - you know that and I know that, but does the dog know that?
I mean the sane and civilised world is facing threats wielded by people whose minds do not operate in a lucid and rational fashion.
DavidS
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Originally London, now near Tel-Aviv

Postby Shapley » Mon May 14, 2007 9:49 am

Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Postby analog » Sun May 20, 2007 11:46 am

Japan was separating uranium in small quantities early in WW2.
How far they got is a matter of speculation.
One of the old Japanese scientists recently interviewed on TV said he thought it was for power production, as we had their oil pretty well cut off. Their physicists however were well aware of fast fission.

http://39th.org/39TH/hc/hc_japan_a_bomb.html

http://www.cabotia.com/atlanta-constitution.html
(This 1946 story is dismissed as exaggeration by most sources I can find)

On the brighter side, Looks like the Russians are setting up a "Uranium Depot" commercial enrichment operation to make reactor fuel for the world.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070518/65708455.html
Image
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Tatyana Sinitsyna) - Russia and Kazakhstan have signed an agreement to set up the International Uranium Enrichment Center. The document formalized the two countries' uranium processing cycle, from the production of uranium ore to its refining into low enriched uranium.


This could work.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Postby Haggis@wk » Sun May 20, 2007 12:45 pm

jamiebk wrote:My thought is that if they ever attempted to use them (nukes) the world, (not just the US) would retaliate in masse and blast them off the face of the earth...the country would look like one giant glass mirror from space. Do they want to risk that? Probably not considering the still limited capability they would have.


I think 9/11, 7/7, 7/11, and Bali have pretty much established that the rest of the world won't do anything other than protest. The only difference between those bombings and a nuke is the body count. You have world leaders basically saying that losing a few bodies to terrorism is inevitable so why fight it?

I fear most of the world (and I sadly include the U.S.) will stand by wringing their hands while Israel and Iran go at each other in an exchange that might not result in a "nuclear winter" but certainly in a "nuclear fall."

Iran's leaders have clearly stated their intentions for decades and in every instance have either tried or failed in the attempts to achieve those intentions but that they tried is not in doubt.

What possible reason can you infer that they won't carry out their threats?

No one will stand up to them now when they don't have nukes so what could possibly prevent them from following through with their threats when they finally do get nukes?

I personally became convinced early last year that a nuclear/biological attack somewhere in the world in the next 10 or so years is inevitable

the world is about to endure the unimaginable; nuclear/biological terrorism and the only observable reaction appears to be no more than tuning the fiddle.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Non-Weapon Nukes

Postby BigJon@Work » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:45 pm

Could these meet the criteria on non-weapon nukes, capable of being helicoptered out if the area becomes belligerent?
"I am a 12 foot lizard." GCR Jan 31, 2006
BigJon@Work
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 2252
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 12:01 am
Location: work. Duh!

Re: Non-Weapon Nukes

Postby dai bread » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:28 pm

Those things look good. You'd never helicopter them out of a belligerent area, though. The helicopters would be shot down at the first thud of a rotor blade. You'd need a serious task force to do the job.
We have no money; we must use our brains. -Ernest Rutherford.
dai bread
1st Chair
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand

Re: Non-Weapon Nukes

Postby analog » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:35 pm

Fascinating post, B'Jon......

That is an interesting prospect. Neighborhood nukes.

The shielding (typically concrete, maybe some lead) would be too heavy to move by helicopter, but the plant itself might well be portable. It could be set underground. Assuming they're fission reactors, they'll build an inventory of radioactive waste. Were one sabotaged it could create a bit of a mess.

As power plants go It is very small. Definitely neighborhood or village sized.
The article didn't say if 200kw is electric or thermal output. (Electric output will be roughly 1/3 thermal.) The place I worked, a medium sized central station, was 2,200,000 kilowatts thermal - some 11,000 times more than the little Toshiba.

I am told that back in the fifties, the US Army made some portable nuke power plants about that Toshiba's size, mounted them on semi trailers. They would provide field power without having to constantly truck in diesel fuel which is probably a handy feature in a war. One was used at the Antarctic research station as well. I don't know how they shielded the people, probably with distance.

The US military once built a reactor to heat air for jet engines thinking it'd make for a VERY long range bomber. The reactor was trial fitted into a B-36 but I've never heard of it's being flown. I think they decided the plane couldn't carry enough shielding to protect the crew.

Little nukes - maybe they'll work out.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Re: Non-Weapon Nukes

Postby jamiebk » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:07 pm

analog wrote:Fascinating post, B'Jon......

That is an interesting prospect. Neighborhood nukes.

The shielding (typically concrete, maybe some lead) would be too heavy to move by helicopter, but the plant itself might well be portable. It could be set underground. Assuming they're fission reactors, they'll build an inventory of radioactive waste. Were one sabotaged it could create a bit of a mess.

As power plants go It is very small. Definitely neighborhood or village sized.
The article didn't say if 200kw is electric or thermal output. (Electric output will be roughly 1/3 thermal.) The place I worked, a medium sized central station, was 2,200,000 kilowatts thermal - some 11,000 times more than the little Toshiba.

I am told that back in the fifties, the US Army made some portable nuke power plants about that Toshiba's size, mounted them on semi trailers. They would provide field power without having to constantly truck in diesel fuel which is probably a handy feature in a war. One was used at the Antarctic research station as well. I don't know how they shielded the people, probably with distance.

The US military once built a reactor to heat air for jet engines thinking it'd make for a VERY long range bomber. The reactor was trial fitted into a B-36 but I've never heard of it's being flown. I think they decided the plane couldn't carry enough shielding to protect the crew.

Little nukes - maybe they'll work out.


It would be a disaster if one of them crashed or was blown up in mid-air. While it would not cause a nuke explosion, it would result in the equivilent of a dirty bomb.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Previous

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]

cron