Putin's headache - Page 3




 
--
 
May 2nd, 2007  
Gator
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon
I'm sorry if my knowledge acquired in upper division nuclear chemistry and mechanical engineering classes aren't up to par as your vast and infinite wisdom on all that is true. I guess American universities just don't teach us young 'uns the same thing they taught the older generations huh?
I really do not care how old you are, I've seen the insides of Nuclear Weapons, did your School bring some in for show and tell so you could brush up on them for your final?
Tell me what School that would be?.....
I'll check back.
May 2nd, 2007  
KJ
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Englander2
I just now wonder why various areas in Serbia are suffering radio active pollution, although the shells used did not cause an atomic explosion.

Depleted uranium armorpiercing shells?
May 2nd, 2007  
Big_Z
 
 
Have the A-10s been at it again? Brrrrrrrrrp
--
May 3rd, 2007  
perseus
 
 
Quote:
IN FACT, the only way a nuclear bomb becomes toxic is when to the two pieces of radio active material (i.e. uranium or plutonium) crash together, as one is shot towards the other with a precise speed at a precise moment. In order for this to happen, the trigger has to be activated, and this cannot happen from the weapon being hit or even destroyed.
Since a trigger for a fusion bomb usually consists of a implosion fission device containing plutonium which is highly toxic in itself (and the fusion bomb may contain a plutonium rod as well) surely this means that a high speed collision could compromise the integrity of the warhead and in a worst case scenario distribute fragments of this material over a wide area. There may also be U238 tamper which isn't a particularly pleasant substance either. I expect most Europeans would prefer a nuclear device (not directed at them) not to be intercepted over their territory at all!
May 3rd, 2007  
LCPLSMITH
 
 
What is worse, a nuclear detonation, or nuclear contamination?
May 3rd, 2007  
perseus
 
 
A Nuclear detonation over someone else if I know the average European! that is why I added
Quote:
I expect most Europeans would prefer a nuclear device (not directed at them) not to be intercepted over their territory at all!
Another problem is the defence missiles then become targets.
May 3rd, 2007  
Damien435
 
 
You guys over on the other side of the Atlantic need to test your water.

We are ALLIES! Whether you like the current President or not, it still doesn't change the fact that for damn near seventy years in some cases we have been allied to and fighting a war on the same side as most of Western Europe, whether it be France, the UK, West Germany, Italy, etc. The rest of the world knows this. Do you think Al Qaeda would be satisfied with the complete destruction of the United States? NO! Next they would target Europe, which they are already doing. Same goes with a lot of other terrorist organizations and "rogue states". Consider this, Russia is the only nation in the world we aren't allied to with the ability to hit the United States with an ICBM, China can hit Hawaii, maybe the West Coast, North Korea can hit South Korea and Japan, Pakistan and India can hit each, France and the United Kingdom have no desire to nuke us and Israel's survival is dependent on the United States. As I already said, any full-scale attack on the United States will likely target Europe also and if a nation like Iran does somehow acquire the means to hit the United States they would have to fire their missiles over Europe if their target is the East Coast, which it most likely would be, and therefore the best chance to intercept said missile would be over Europe. Well, the best chance would be over Iran, but I don't see them letting us build a missile defense system in their nation.
May 4th, 2007  
ASTRALdragon
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gator
I really do not care how old you are, I've seen the insides of Nuclear Weapons, did your School bring some in for show and tell so you could brush up on them for your final?
Tell me what School that would be?.....
I'll check back.
Whoa whoa and I don't really care if you've seen the insides of every nuke the Russians have ever built. I just didn't like how you pranced in here discrediting what most of us had to say about nukes and the way they work. Were any of the info posted about nukes in this thread wrong? If so, then please by all means point it out. To my knowledge, people were just explaining how the process of nukes work, which can be learned in high school if you took the right classes.

Last time I checked, it was the school-types that designed these nukes not to mention the FIRST nuke! I don't remember Fermi, Einstein, or Oppenheimer with titles of General, Lt., or Col. but rather Doctor. Let it be clear that you as a military personell was taught how to use that nuke and fix it by a school-type. So, you may have seen the inside of a nuke, but I'm willing to bet it looked no different than the inside of a clock radio to you huh?
May 4th, 2007  
perseus
 
 
Quote:
As I already said, any full-scale attack on the United States will likely target Europe also and if a nation like Iran does somehow acquire the means to hit the United States they would have to fire their missiles over Europe if their target is the East Coast, which it most likely would be, and therefore the best chance to intercept said missile would be over Europe. Well, the best chance would be over Iran, but I don't see them letting us build a missile defense system in their nation.
The UK is almost as hated as much as the US in the Middle East and is far nearer. However why should the likes of France or Germany and many other European countries get embroilled in a defence sheild against Iran to protect the UK and US after they have kept there hands largely clean of Middle Eastern controversy? It is not in Iran's interest to target these countries, better to divide their loyalties from the UK and US.

With regards to Russia who is going to be supplying most of Europe's energy? Putin hardly requires missiles he can use energy as a weapon.
May 4th, 2007  
Gator
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTRALdragon
Whoa whoa and I don't really care if you've seen the insides of every nuke the Russians have ever built. I just didn't like how you pranced in here discrediting what most of us had to say about nukes and the way they work. Were any of the info posted about nukes in this thread wrong? If so, then please by all means point it out. To my knowledge, people were just explaining how the process of nukes work, which can be learned in high school if you took the right classes.

Last time I checked, it was the school-types that designed these nukes not to mention the FIRST nuke! I don't remember Fermi, Einstein, or Oppenheimer with titles of General, Lt., or Col. but rather Doctor. Let it be clear that you as a military personell was taught how to use that nuke and fix it by a school-type. So, you may have seen the inside of a nuke, but I'm willing to bet it looked no different than the inside of a clock radio to you huh?
You will now be placed on Ignore, you are, in my own opinion, not worthy of any discussion, on any topic.
 


Similar Topics
Putin's Gangster State
Putin's Russia is center stage for G8 summit
Putin's New History