Weapon of mass destruction and its myths.

Hi there, my Friends.

Let's start from nuclear ones. What exactly makes us believe the're a lot of real bombs & rockets to incinerate our world in the fiery of nuclear hell??? Actually, a little research shows those bombs have existed only in minor numbers to be lab toys. I offer you to make this little research on your own. Then I'll share my cards.

a reply to: SarK0Y

What exactly makes us believe the're a lot of real bombs & rockets to incinerate our world in the fiery of nuclear hell???

Watch and learn...






Look and learn...

a reply to: SarK0Y

My friend was a marine stationed at camp Lejeune.
He got to pull security and transport for the arsenal that wasn't there according to the military.
Let's just say that don't have quite the same strict security on conventional explosives.

Also my father in law was a jet engine mechanic on b52's in Michigan during the Vietnam war.
Nuke ready for instant deployment b52's.

a reply to: SarK0Y

Radiation is no big deal. This guy eats some in this video.


I had looked into this idea before too.

It seems they keep us looking to a big phallic shaped boogie man to kill us all. Problem is it would kill them too. The goal is not mass destruction but mass control.

Controlled demolition, so they can rebuild us however they want.

a reply to: Observationalist

Radiation is an extremely big deal.
It's very misunderstood though.

Refined to 90% purity makes a hell of a bomb.

a reply to: SarK0Y

Just give us a link to the evidence you have to support your claims. LoL

a reply to: Bluntone22

Not saying nuclear bombs are not dangerous. Just not as dangerous as we are lead to believe.

There are alternate perspective on the dangers of Nuclear activity.


There might be more to look into about the fear and profit aspect in regards to regulatory manipulation.
Galen Winsor asks – Who owns the plutonium? How much is it worth?

One vignette in radiation fear campaign

The radiation fear campaign has been going on in earnest since June 13, 1969. That was the date when the New York Times ran a front page headline stating that “SCIENTISTS TERM RADIATION A PERIL TO THE FUTURE OF MAN.”

I’m willing to consider there may be some manipulation. Especially with the track record of profit driven governments.

a reply to: SarK0Y

I did see a video about how Nuclear bombs were supposed to be a hoax to control the mass.

One example shows the camera filming that classic explosion, blowing down trees, houses, etc... A giant concussion wave rolls across the lifting landscape ... Everything is shifting in the field of view, everything except the camera. It stays rock solid. Not even a shudder... I supposed it is not too far fetched to believe they could build a stationary object in a atomic explosion, but I'd imagine it would have to be a rather significant structure.

Another example shows the the russian 'atomic' explosion is just superimposed videos of a sunrise in the background.

I'm not saying nuclear bombs don't exist, but the video did have some interesting points that might fit in with what your discussing here.

Kinda like flat earth theory stuff. If you don't know enough, it kinda sounds plausible... Not that I'm saying the Earth is flat mind you... or that there are no atomic weapons of mass destruction. Just look at Iraq... er, well, bad example maybe...

You get the idea.

a reply to: ByteChanger

Flat Earth theory does not sound plausible through.

The spherical/oblate spheroid shape of Earth is what we like to call around these here parts "settled science".

The problem being nowadays, pit even a 2500-year-old truism against the evangelism of Internet algorithms, and you got yourself an actual debate, no matter how inane.

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: SarK0Y

Radiation is no big deal. This guy eats some in this video.

Have you ever seen someone eat a banana? Bananas are radioactive, but the dose is small.

Dosage matters. If you wanted to test the lethality of radioactivity, you could play an alternate version of "Russian Roulette". Instead of filling half the revolver chambers with bullets (which has a 50% chance of death when fired at the head), you could expose yourself to 450 rad of radiation. Half the people exposed to that live, the other half die, that's why they call it the "LD50" dose. But the revolver death would be much quicker and less painful. That man in the video, Galen Winsor, never exposed himself to anywhere near 450 rad. Even if he had he would have had a 50% chance of living through that. It takes about double that to kill everyone exposed to it, maybe 800-900 rad.

studies-of-impact-of-ionizing-radiatio n-on-the-human-body

By the way, I'm a former radiation worker who worked with radioactive materials as part of my job, so I'm not scared of small doses, or I wouldn't have taken a job working with radioactive materials. Probably the most susceptible to small radiation doses are developing fetuses so I wouldn't recommend a pregnant woman to get even the exposure levels I got even though I thought it was relatively safe for me. It's the higher doses that are lethal, no doubt.

Scientists have died getting high doses. This 2.5 minute movie clip is a re-creation of the demon core accident in which a room full of scientists got exposed to radiation in an accident. All of them lived except the man closest to it and he knew he would die, which he did, nine days later. Some of the other scientists had problems later, some didn't.

The Demon Core 1945

The actual men in the room at the time: Louis Slotin (died nine days later), Alvin Graves (died 19 years later of a suspected radiation-caused heart attack, had cataracts and severe thyroid problems - he was three feet away), Stanley Kline (died of natural causes 55 years later - eight feet away), Dwight Young - (died 29 years later from a blood disorder that stunts development of white and red blood cells and an infection of the lining of the heart - six feet away), Guard Pat Cleary (KIA in Korea), Raemer Schreiber (died of natural causes at age 88 - 16 feet away), Theodore Perlman (Alive and in good health as of 1978 - 16 feet away), Marion Cieslicki (died of Leukemia, and his liver and spleen were abnormally large at autopsy - he was eight feet away). The bottom line, Louis Slotin (portrayed in this scene) really endangered his co-workers. The biggest mistake? Removing the shims (supports) and using a screwdriver instead - which slipped.

The scientist who died didn't think nuclear experiments were dangerous, and he had removed some of the safety protocols in the test accident which killed him by exposing him to about 1000 rad. (There were supposed to be some shims in place to prevent the upper half from getting too low...he didn't use them). Ironically the death of one of the guys who didn't think it was dangerous is one of the reasons we have the safety culture we do about radiation.

Thx 4 replies, my Friends.

here we go then. let's see some statistics...

the US dropped more than 270 million bombs in Laos as part of a CIA-run, top-secret operation aimed at destroying the North Vietnamese supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh trail and wiping out its local communist allies. One-third of the bombs failed to explode on impact
www.theguardian.com...

so, even chemical explosives haven't had fail-proof fuses. Nuclear charge provides significantly another story == there needs geometrically ideal shock wave to ignite chain reaction + radioactive decay spoils geometry of fissile material, its chemical purity & radiation makes toll upon chemical detonators too. In short, the're no way to keep all-ready arsenals for long time.

a reply to: Observationalist

i prefer my radiation with some saltines, pistachios and a chilled glass of chardonnay.

a reply to: SarK0Y

That would be why they undergo periodic life extension programs. They include replacing the chemical explosives and more vulnerable components.

originally posted by: SarK0Y
Thx 4 replies, my Friends.

here we go then. let's see some statistics...

the US dropped more than 270 million bombs in Laos as part of a CIA-run, top-secret operation aimed at destroying the North Vietnamese supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh trail and wiping out its local communist allies. One-third of the bombs failed to explode on impact
www.theguardian.com...

so, even chemical explosives haven't had fail-proof fuses. Nuclear charge provides significantly another story == there needs geometrically ideal shock wave to ignite chain reaction + radioactive decay spoils geometry of fissile material, its chemical purity & radiation makes toll upon chemical detonators too. In short, the're no way to keep all-ready arsenals for long time.

Nuclear weapons have a shelf life. I think that most nukes after 30 years would need to be replaced. The radioactivity is an active process and weapons grade fissile materials are constantly transmuting to other elements through radioactive decay.

The materials used must be disassembled and replaced periodically for a nuclear weapon to remain viable, however, the actinides are still dangerous for a longer time, even if the nuke wouldn't detonate.

Also, you don't have to have 'perfect geometry' for the shock wave to work. Implosion weapons can have significant physical deformation and still work. There are also other things, that I won't mention, that assure a super-criticality will 'fire' on cue.

The death tolls and radiation damage from Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and a number of nuclear incidents such as Chernobyl prove the danger is real.

And despite the radiation damage, the explosive force of nuclear weapons is higher than with conventional explosives. Any physicist can calculate the amount of energy that is theoretically possible to be released, were the conditions correct.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Needless to mention, fissile material needs lifelong cooling, so any bomb & rocket must be connected to tricky refrigerator

a reply to: Bluntone22

longest duty station i ever had while in the Corps. we also escorted them Mayport to be loaded on the carriers.
take the picture tour.

Yellow Water Special ( Nuclear) Weapons Storage Facility Magazine

a reply to: SarK0Y

No it doesn't. Fissile material that's reacting requires cooling, such as in a nuclear reactor. A nuclear weapon core isn't generating heat, until detonation.

a reply to: chr0naut

The tritium used in thermonuclear bombs has a shelf life of 12 years (iirc), so they replace even sooner (4 years??). The hat is boost that makes “fusion” happen in nukes.

And, no, the nukes (either kind) is not “dangerous” as an explosion. It is the gamma rays (ionizing radiation) that irradiates everything in its radius. That is all the dust and crap in the mushroom cloud.

That stuff contains a toxic mixture of elements mainly salts like strontium, iodine, and cesium, are readily uptakes by your body and accumulates. When it decays, you get cancer.

It lasts for years. You can’t just “wait it out” and yes, like any dust, it spreads everywhere.

So, not so bad or a lie... uh, no. It never was. We have so many around the globe, er, flat earth, both sides, that we won’t even launch them at someone else but make our land not valuable to anyone else, Ever.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: SarK0Y

No it doesn't. Fissile material that's reacting requires cooling, such as in a nuclear reactor.

Correct. Nuclear reactor fuel still needs cooling for some time after the reactor is turned off. The Fukushima accident shows what can happen if that cooling isn't provided.

A nuclear weapon core isn't generating heat, until detonation.

Maybe it produces a little bit of heat, but not enough to require any cooling. If it didn't produce a little heat, the earth might be an ice ball. We get half our Earth heat from naturally decaying Uranium and other elements.

Radioactive decay is key ingredient behind Earth's heat

research has shown that Earth's total heat output is about 44 terawatts, or 44 trillion watts. The KamLAND researchers found roughly half of that -- 29 terawatts -- comes from radioactive decay of uranium, thorium and other materials

29 sounds closer to 2/3 of 44 than 1/2 of 44 to me, but whatever the exact amount, radioactive decay produces some heat, even from unrefined natural Uranium in the Earth.

a reply to: Zaphod58
wrong...

The maximum temperature of the spent fuel bundles decreases significantly between two and four years, and less from four to six years. The fuel pool water is continuously cooled to remove the heat produced by the spent fuel assemblies. Pumps circulate water from the spent fuel pool to heat exchangers, then back to the spent fuel pool. The water temperature in normal operating conditions is held below 50 °C (120 °F).[7] Radiolysis, the dissociation of molecules by radiation, is of particular concern in wet storage, as water may be split by residual radiation and hydrogen gas may accumulate increasing the risk of explosions. For this reason the air in the room of the pools, as well as the water, must be continually monitored and treated.
en.wikipedia.org...

bombs need high-enriched material + the're minimal space to prevent parasitic chain reaction == there runs damn meltdown