frightening declassified images

Per Savageduck:
Active use of the current global nuclear weapon inventory is certainly going
to accelerate global warming.

It's the opposite: each nuclear explosion sends particulate matter high
into the atmosphere where it circulates for a very long time, blocking
solar radiation.

The result would be what they call "Nuclear Winter":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

I think the estimate is something like 60 weapon detonations in, for
instance, a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:41:57 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 1:00 PM, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 12:28:39 UTC-5, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/2016 12:08 PM, PeterN wrote:

These declassified images recall what I think should be our biggest
real concern

http://www.alternatewars.com/Bomb_Loading/Bomb_Guide.htm
I thought global warming is supposed to be our biggest concern.


Active use of the current global nuclear weapon inventory is certainly going
to accelerate global warming.

Until it brings on global cooling, aka, "nuclear winter." Though the envirokooks never did say why thousands of tests they did never had that effect.


Wrong again. But, why bother with an explanation. You can check for
yourself what people you call "kooks," say about the use of nuclear
power to generate electricity.

The biggest problem we have with current nuclear power is that it is
based on technology aimed at the production of weapons-grade
plutonium. The waste products are nasty and so is the problem of
disposing of them.

The more benign Thorium cycle was discarded for political reasons by
Nixon and the information gained about it in the early days has been
lost. In the meantime the chinese have been working on the Thorium
cycle for several years. See
http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-ch...clear-reactor/
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 1/22/2016 6:53 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:41:57 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 1:00 PM, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 12:28:39 UTC-5, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/2016 12:08 PM, PeterN wrote:

These declassified images recall what I think should be our biggest
real concern

http://www.alternatewars.com/Bomb_Loading/Bomb_Guide.htm
I thought global warming is supposed to be our biggest concern.


Active use of the current global nuclear weapon inventory is certainly going
to accelerate global warming.

Until it brings on global cooling, aka, "nuclear winter." Though the envirokooks never did say why thousands of tests they did never had that effect.


Wrong again. But, why bother with an explanation. You can check for
yourself what people you call "kooks," say about the use of nuclear
power to generate electricity.

The biggest problem we have with current nuclear power is that it is
based on technology aimed at the production of weapons-grade
plutonium. The waste products are nasty and so is the problem of
disposing of them.

The more benign Thorium cycle was discarded for political reasons by
Nixon and the information gained about it in the early days has been
lost. In the meantime the chinese have been working on the Thorium
cycle for several years. See
http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-ch...clear-reactor/


I was referring to the technology as currently being used. Not what
might happen in the future.

One day we might even discover that cold fusion is possible.


--
PeterN

On 1/22/16 PDT 9:28 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/2016 12:08 PM, PeterN wrote:

These declassified images recall what I think should be our biggest
real concern

http://www.alternatewars.com/Bomb_Loading/Bomb_Guide.htm
I thought global warming is supposed to be our biggest concern.


Active use of the current global nuclear weapon inventory is certainly going
to accelerate global warming.

Coal and other fossil fuel generated power is just a tad slower.


So, who, when and where was the switch made from the fat white bomb to
the cylindrical black one?

On 1/22/2016 8:10 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 1/22/16 PDT 9:28 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/2016 12:08 PM, PeterN wrote:

These declassified images recall what I think should be our biggest
real concern

http://www.alternatewars.com/Bomb_Loading/Bomb_Guide.htm
I thought global warming is supposed to be our biggest concern.


Active use of the current global nuclear weapon inventory is certainly
going
to accelerate global warming.

Coal and other fossil fuel generated power is just a tad slower.


So, who, when and where was the switch made from the fat white bomb to
the cylindrical black one?


IIRC they were developed simultaneously, because we did not have enough
uranium.

--
PeterN

John McWilliams:
So, who, when and where was the switch made from the fat white bomb to
the cylindrical black one?

A bit confusing. They are different bombs. "Fat Man" (the second bomb
to be dropped, Nagasaki) had a diameter of 1.5 meters. "Little Boy" had
a diameter of 71 cm. Fat Man was a plutonium bomb, Little Boy used
U-235 as its fissile material. Fat Man was a more advanced design, with
considerably more energy released than Little Boy.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Jan 22, 2016, John McWilliams wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/16 PDT 9:28 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/2016 12:08 PM, PeterN wrote:

These declassified images recall what I think should be our biggest
real concern

http://www.alternatewars.com/Bomb_Loading/Bomb_Guide.htm
I thought global warming is supposed to be our biggest concern.


Active use of the current global nuclear weapon inventory is certainly
going
to accelerate global warming.

Coal and other fossil fuel generated power is just a tad slower.
So, who, when and where was the switch made from the fat white bomb to
the cylindrical black one?

“Fatman" first tested at Alamogordo, NM July 16, 1945. Used in the Nagasaki
bombing August 9, 1945. Two more were detonated in the “Crossroads� test
at Bikini Atoll. A total of 120 were built. It was retired from the US
nuclear weapons inventory 1950.

“Little Boy� dropped on Hiroshima August 6, 1945. A total of 32 “Little
Boy assemblies were built and all were withdrawn from service by January
1951, without any other detonations.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Jan 22, 2016, rickman wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/2016 8:46 PM, Davoud wrote:
John McWilliams:
So, who, when and where was the switch made from the fat white bomb to
the cylindrical black one?

A bit confusing. They are different bombs. "Fat Man" (the second bomb
to be dropped, Nagasaki) had a diameter of 1.5 meters. "Little Boy" had
a diameter of 71 cm. Fat Man was a plutonium bomb, Little Boy used
U-235 as its fissile material. Fat Man was a more advanced design, with
considerably more energy released than Little Boy.

I see one in a photo called "Thin Man" and they talk about a bomb with
that name in the show "Manhattan". I've only heard of the two above.
Was "Thin Man" an alternate gun type bomb? In the show they talk about
"Fat Man" working with a lot less fissile material. Is that the reason
"Thin Man" was dropped in favor of "Fat Man"?

“Thin Man� was never dropped. It only existed as a trigger mechanism.

“Thin Man� was the trigger gun mechanism not the bomb and never reached
fruition as a bomb. A converted “Thin Man� trigger gun mechanism was used
in the “Little Boy� bomb. Only one “Little Boy� bomb, with the
“Thin Man� trigger substituting uranium for plutonium was ever detonated,
that was the Hiroshima bomb.

During the Manhattan Project there was a “Thin Man� bomb developed, never
completed, which used a plutonium gun trigger. This proved to be unstable and
dangerous because of high concentrations of plutonium-240 resulting in
spontaneous fission in the triggers. It was abandoned in July 1944 and the
engineering of the “Thin Man� triggers was converted for use in the
“Little Boy� bomb using enriched uranium.

“Fat Man� was a complicated implosion detonated device with a
plutonium-240 core. The triggering was trickier so regardless of being the
type used for the first atomic blast in New Mexico, it was deemed best to use
the simpler“Little Boy� uranium-235 bomb with the “Thin Man� heritage
gun for the first war time atomic detonation, with “Fat Man� playing the
follow up role at Nagasaki.

....and Fat Man with a 14Lb plutonium core had a 20 kiloton yield, compared
with the “Little Boy� yield of 15 kilotons with a 140 Lb uranium-235
core.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

rickman:
Thanks for the clarification. I thought the yield of these weapons were
higher than that, more than 100 ktons. Very scary to know of the
destruction these bombs caused in the context of many megaton bombs we
now have. I can't picture the result if we had a nuclear war. I really
can't imagine it.

It's the airburst that causes such widespread destruction from a
relatively small warhead. As for picturing the result of a nuclear war,
you have seen it in photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So has the rest
of the world, and that's why we haven't had a nuclear war.

I wonder why we haven't reduced our stocks of nuclear weapons further?
Wouldn't that still be in the interest of all parties involved or have
we already reduced them to a point where further reductions might make
us seem weak to the countries other than the Russians?

Unless a way is found to rid the world of all nuclear weapons we need
to maintain an adequate stockpile of deterrent nuclear weapons. If the
leadership of a ****-ant DPRK or Iran should go nuts and lob a nuke or
two our way they need to know that whatever we suffer they will suffer
a hundredfold. If a U.S. regime goes nuts under the influence of
apocalyptic "Christian" fundamentalists who want to bring on their
imagined god's apocalypse, then all bets are off and everybody loses.

To date only two countries have developed nuclear weapons and then
abandoned them: South Africa and Taiwan.

Best case is that we have warning via SIGINT or HUMINT, or both, that a
nutso regime is planning an attack. We could tell them what we know and
warn them of the dire consequences. If that doesn't produce an
immediate reversal we should not rule out a first strike in such an
instance. A few people, including me, believed that during the Iran
hostage crisis in the 70's we should have detonated a small nuke in a
remote part of Iran and told the Iranians that they had 48 hours to
release the hostages or we would write off the hostages as lost anyway
and burn Iran to the ground. I believe that would have gotten their
attention and they would have complied. In the same way that the
bombing of Japan was really meant as a warning to the Soviet Union, the
nut cases of the world would take a lesson from such an action.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:36:13 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 22 January 2016 18:53:20 UTC-5, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:41:57 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 1:00 PM, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 12:28:39 UTC-5, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 1/22/2016 12:08 PM, PeterN wrote:

These declassified images recall what I think should be our biggest
real concern

http://www.alternatewars.com/Bomb_Loading/Bomb_Guide.htm
I thought global warming is supposed to be our biggest concern.


Active use of the current global nuclear weapon inventory is certainly going
to accelerate global warming.

Until it brings on global cooling, aka, "nuclear winter." Though the envirokooks never did say why thousands of tests they did never had that effect.


Wrong again. But, why bother with an explanation. You can check for
yourself what people you call "kooks," say about the use of nuclear
power to generate electricity.

The biggest problem we have with current nuclear power is that it is
based on technology aimed at the production of weapons-grade
plutonium. The waste products are nasty and so is the problem of
disposing of them.

Only because pussy politicians are too timid to PICK places TO store it. The "not in my backyard" syndrome pervades, even though the ungrateful *******s LIVE in electrical bliss because of nuclear power.

I bet you will have the NIMBY attitude if they ever want to store the
stuff in your neighbourhood. You would be nuts if you didn't.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens