Crunching the numbers

[djolds1]

Many years ago I read this book:
The Curve of Binding Energy: A Journey into the Awesome and Alarming World of Theodore B. Taylor
http://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Ene ... 0374515980

The entire purpose of the book was showing how easy it would be to make a nuclear weapon and it includes directions down to the chemical steps for converting the chemical forms fissile materials are stored in to extract the metal and how to build a 'gun' type device.

Per Taylor as quoted in the book "Project Orion," the actual critical mass for a fission explosive is "less than a kilogram. Quite a bit less." As compared the the widely cited values of 4kg and 15kg for Pu239 and U235.

[Joseph Chikva]

Adn while on the topic, let us not forget the cargo ship BBC China and its impact on Qaddafi's nuclear weapons program.

Once again demonstrating that nuclear weapons do not grow on trees.

I did not hear that Libyan fact.

But which weapon grows on trees? Conventional grows?
Despite our president’s boasting till 2008 the war showed that our army was dressed like NATO’s army, but equipped and armed like the poor African country. Because the export license for sale of even conventional weapons for Georgia is granted by the governments of very few countries.
Ours created the military-engineering center “Delta” for production of some types of conventional weapons, but because of lack of knowledge and money, generally are engaged in nonsenses.

Concerning to nuclear weapon the talk is about that significant efforts should be done and significant but limited recourses should be spent.
Some countries have not such recourses but have the wish to own the weapon.
While there are some countries owning recourses but not having the wish. E.g. Germany.
And I do not believe only in your analyze (conclusion) that China has small quantity of warheads because of her limited resources. I think that more likely that they do not see the need to own bigger inventory.

[MSimon]

One advantage weapons builders of today would have is the ability to model the device on computers. How far that would take them I couldn't say.

Reminds me of Feynman tending an IBM punch card machine to do the calculations. And how he figured out a way to correct errors without having to restart the whole process.

Let us assume the IBM was really fast and could do 100 multiplications a second. Let us say it took the bomb makers 2 years of calculating. Get a machine that can do 100K multiplications a second and you go from 730 days to .73 days. And if your puny machine can do 1,000,000 multiplies a second? .073 days. About 2 hours to do a complete Manhattan Project worth of calculations.

As you can see - computing power is not a formidable obstacle.

[ladajo]

I did not hear that Libyan fact.

Did you look it up?

But which weapon grows on trees? Conventional grows?

Some do, but it depends on where you live. Nuclear ones certainly do not.

And yes, I do agree that there are a couple of states that could go nuclear if they wished. So far they do not wish. A big part of the reasoning is cost. Especially when you are (as mentioned before) like Germany or Japan, and the US brings all the toys for you for free.

And I do not believe only in your analyze (conclusion) that China has small quantity of warheads because of her limited resources. I think that more likely that they do not see the need to own bigger inventory.

You can have your opinion. It could well be part of it is that the Chinese don't understand the incremental declination of weapons once put into use. As discussed here several times, what is in your storage box, is not what reaches the targets. It will always be something less for may diverse reasons. Planning for this, in nuclear exchange world, quickly leads to the need for higher numbers of weapons. Part of your homework was to look up the types/counts estimates of the Chinese inventory. Then ask yourself if they had an exchange with someone that mattered, how it would go for them? Conflict escalation/de-escalation is an entire world of debate unto itself. More so when you talk nuclear. Ponder on that.
And yes, they are resource constrained.

[ladajo]

Many years ago I read this book:
The Curve of Binding Energy: A Journey into the Awesome and Alarming World of Theodore B. Taylor
http://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Ene ... 0374515980

The entire purpose of the book was showing how easy it would be to make a nuclear weapon and it includes directions down to the chemical steps for converting the chemical forms fissile materials are stored in to extract the metal and how to build a 'gun' type device.

Per Taylor as quoted in the book "Project Orion," the actual critical mass for a fission explosive is "less than a kilogram. Quite a bit less." As compared the the widely cited values of 4kg and 15kg for Pu239 and U235.

And the purity and yield is?

[paperburn1]

And the purity and yield is?

Just throwing my two cents in, Purity and Yield is the 400 pound gorilla sitting in the center of the room. I think even I could make it go bang if given access to the materials and did not care if I got a little hot. But to make the ones that have the big bright flash and loud bang is very very hard to do. and if you want them small add several more levels of difficulty.

[ladajo]

Yup.
Although I do like the idea of using small pops for space propulsion. The only drama I see is having an inertia transfer medium to provide for some higher levels of energy capture and subsequent push.
Just seems like popping in a hard vacuum like space is a waste of potential. Sure you get some flux push, but there is nothing like an atmospheric shockwave...well except maybe a liquid shockwave...

[djolds1]

Per Taylor as quoted in the book "Project Orion," the actual critical mass for a fission explosive is "less than a kilogram. Quite a bit less." As compared the the widely cited values of 4kg and 15kg for Pu239 and U235.

And the purity and yield is?

Purity unstated. Yield unstated, but a Teller-Ulam daisy-chain can start at any scale if Friedwardt Winterberg is to be believed. The man is in lust with micro-scale fission-fusion mixed cycles.

And laser enrichment changes the game wrt what elements and isotopes are separable. Pu239 from reactor grade Pu.

All this ignores the pure fusion pathways, of course.

...I do like the idea of using small pops for space propulsion. The only drama I see is having an inertia transfer medium to provide for some higher levels of energy capture and subsequent push.
Just seems like popping in a hard vacuum like space is a waste of potential. Sure you get some flux push, but there is nothing like an atmospheric shockwave...well except maybe a liquid shockwave...

Google "Mini-Mag Orion." Use of electrical pulse power to drive the magnetic implosion of 'non-weapons grade' fissionables for nuclear pulse propulsion.

[ladajo]

How much plasma do you get popping in a hard vacuum?

[KitemanSA]

Purity unstated. Yield unstated, but a Teller-Ulam daisy-chain can start at any scale if Friedwardt Winterberg is to be believed.

And FW recently wrote that the fission part could be eliminated in favor of magnets and high explosives.
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=18019

[djolds1]

Purity unstated. Yield unstated, but a Teller-Ulam daisy-chain can start at any scale if Friedwardt Winterberg is to be believed.

And FW recently wrote that the fission part could be eliminated in favor of magnets and high explosives.
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=18019

I'm aware. Pure fusion/ 4th generation weapon cycles have been speculated on for quite awhile. The original Project Orion team anticipated them in short order. Their potential seems to scare the crap out of the nonproliferation lobby, and rightly so.

Winterberg also has a number of notional orion-esque rocket design studies reminiscent of the Mini-Mag Orion; he has an affection for electrical pulse power as well as mixed cycles.

[Joseph Chikva]

And yes, they are resource constrained.

You are wrong. They have more than enough resources.

Various observers have noted this week that China's economy will be bigger than that of the United States in 2016. This comes from the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) latest projections, which were made in its semi-annual April world economic outlook database. Since 2016 is just a few years away, and it will be the first time in more than a century that the United States will no longer be the world's largest economy, this development will be the object of some discussion – from various perspectives.

How Much U.S. Debt Does China Really Own?
From Tom Murse

The U.S. debt was more than $14.3 trillion during the so-called debt crisis of 2011, when the level of borrowing reached its statutory limit and the president warned of a potential default if the cap wasn't raised.
..........................................................................
In total, China owns about 8 percent of publicly held U.S. debt. Of all the holders of U.S. debt China is the third-largest, behind only the Social Security Trust Fund's holdings of nearly $3 trillion and the Federal Reserve's nearly $2 trillion holdings in Treasury investments, purchased as part of its quantitative easing program to boost the economy.

[Joseph Chikva]

And yes, I do agree that there are a couple of states that could go nuclear if they wished. So far they do not wish. A big part of the reasoning is cost. Especially when you are (as mentioned before) like Germany or Japan,

May be cost is the reason but may be risks analyze shows inexpediency.

and the US brings all the toys for you for free.

As far as I know US today is not an exporter of weapons to my country. Weapon for free? How you would estimate the cost of Georgian blood in Afghanistan? What goals can have Georgia there? Is that our war?

[paperburn1]

As far as I know US today is not an exporter of weapons to my country. Weapon for free?

Sorry Joesph before 2008 we sold some to you guys and in 2013 Section 1242 calls on the Secretaries of Defense and State to develop a plan within 90 days "for the normalization of United States defense cooperation with the Republic of Georgia, including the sale of defensive arms". It encourages NATO member and candidate countries "to restore and enhance their sales of defensive articles and services to the Republic of Georgia as part of a broader NATO effort to deepen its defense relationship and cooperation with the Republic of Georgia".
That's one reason Puten is pissed at us....I do not know if the arms will resume with you guys but after supporting us so well in afghan war we just might.
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/arti ... si-smiling

[ladajo]

You are wrong. They have more than enough resources.

Well, nope. You can not seem to understand that producing weapons requires infrastructure and time. The Chinese have not developed an infrastructure to mass produce high end weapons and intercontinental delivery systems. It is really expensive to do this. They also know that picking a nuclear fight against someone with thousands of high end weapons and the ability to deliver them is a guaranteed loss. They know it is silly to even try for parity. To much money and effort, and too long to do it. Plus, first they would have to expend the resources to build an infrastructure to support the effort.

As for free weapons. You really need to take a closer look at how international military aide works. In simple terms, country "a" gives country "b" an amount of $$$ as "military aid". Country "b" never actually sees this money as it is used to purchase weapons from country "a"'s defense industry for country "b". These weapons and whatnot are then delivered to country "b" as a "military purchase", when in fact they are free. If you do not think this happens, then you should pay more attention, and for example ask yourself how Egypt is getting a large shipment of F-16 Fighters and M1A1 Tanks courtesy of the US Taxpayers.