nuclear bomb theory - Page 3

Everay · 2004-09-12, 01:07 AM

there is more power in a "unconsentrated" protion of the sun than there is in one of our nukes.

then again i think our nukes hit 1 million degrees, F i guess, i dunno, i know parts of the sun, like the core, hits higher than that, but i know other parts of the sun are less hot.

MrPaul · 2004-09-12, 04:47 AM

Doesn't the sun burn the equivalent of something like 1x10^10 truckloads of petroleum (gasoline) every hour (but in nuclear form)? So that means that a nuke would do fuck all...

And back on topic: Yes, they have saved lives, and will save many more. But with the invention of more localised, but still huge weapons (Daisy Cutter?) I think that they are less of a deterrent that said other weapons. Why? Because a nuke screws us all over, whereas these new(er) weapons simply wipe out the target and besides leaving nothing, there is no long term damage.

Spee · 2004-09-12, 09:50 AM

If we launched our most powerful bomb at the sun and somehow managed to get into the the core and detonate, the sun would MAYBE flinch.

You dont fuck with a giant nuclear power plant floating in space.

Jekz · 2004-09-12, 10:28 AM

I'm sure Doc Ock's tentacles could cook up something supernova-ish.

Mr1337Duck · 2004-09-12, 11:09 AM

I personally believe that no weapon is inherently good or evil, it is in the hands of the user that the tool picks up that association. A gun can be used by a bank robber to kill people at the place he's sticking up, but somebody could pull a gun on the robber and shoot him, saving the lives that would have been lost. The weapons weren't good or evil, it was the users that dictated what was done.

Nobody is interested in nuclear war. NOBODY. Well, maybe Harris and Klebold liked the concept, but they were fuckups.

_-Gunslinger-_ · 2004-09-12, 11:37 AM

Yes nuclear bombs have saved lives. I think that, while they pose IMO the single greates threat to world stability, they arent going to just go away. Especially when you can find out how to make one in like 10 min.

We could easily take out the moon, it would just kill us all

. The moon ALREADY is in a desabalized orbit around earth, and in a very long time (5000+ years) it will slam into earth. We could just accelerate that that process.

The sun uses fusion while most nuclear bombs use fission. The difference being that one smashes atoms togather while the other splits them apart. Fusion requires extreamly high temeratures and preasures, they are needed to overcome the natural repulsion of like-charged atoms. When the two atoms collide thier kenetic energy is released.

A fission reaction is the opposite. It splits atoms and that energy is released.

The question is that if you introduced unstable plutonium into the sun would it A) Cause a nuclear FISSION reaction? and B) Would the ensuing explosion desabalise the suns carfully balanced fusion?

The answer to A is yes it would. The sun has the heat and required pressure to cause plutonium to go into super-critical mass. B is still up to speculation as no one has ever been able (or even tried to my knowledge) to get plutonium into the sun. I would think that the sun WOULD go into supernova. Seeing as fusion reactions are very volitile, my guess would be that it would destabalyze the reaction. Proof of how unstable the fusion reaction is would be solar flares, and sun spots. Solarflares are an excess of energy and sun spots are the lack there of.

I did a google search and found little on what would happen if you introduced plutonium into the sun, anyone else find some info?

Sputty · 2004-09-12, 12:06 PM

Nuclear weapons are necessary, but problematic. The creation of low yield nuclear weapons could blur the lines, and allow for a far too potent/problematic weapon to be used, and obviously MAD doesn't work when the leader doesn't care about the loss of life, but just getting revenge
Nuclear weapons have allowed the created of power plants though, which are relatively cheap and effective way of getting power, while remaining clean to the environment.
Nukes are something that are stuck in this world, and cannot be rid of, so they must be used only when absolutely necessary, or to help society, as in with power

Rbstr · 2004-09-12, 12:50 PM

launching a nuke(a-bomb not H) into the sun would do absolutly nothing, as even if you could get it to the surface, it would be like a bactietium falling from 200,000 feet in the sky and landing on your head, nothing.

now a hydrogen bomb uses fission and acts like a mini-sun(just withought the gravity to hold it together) so that would do even less.

the surface of he sun is like 10^1,000,000,000(in reality more probably) Hbombs going off all the time so one more is not going to make any difference

Sputty · 2004-09-12, 12:51 PM

Haven't you watched Superman? Nuclear weapons into the sun would do nothing
It's like throwing a match into a blazing, gas fed, fire. It won't add to it, or subtract from it

SDM · 2004-09-12, 12:57 PM

An H-bomb on the sun is like wasting a perfectly good H-bomb. Just like drinking beer while on acid is a waste of beer.

Jekz · 2004-09-12, 01:01 PM

Wouldn't you rather H-bomb Luna and watch the subsequent fatal meteor shower?

Everay · 2004-09-12, 01:10 PM

hmmm, the moon is in a orbit that leads it further away from the earth at a rate of 2 inches a year.

MrPaul · 2004-09-12, 01:39 PM

Especially when you can find out how to make one in like 10 min.

Yeah, if you happen to have an explicit knowledge of electronics, nuclear physics and the likes... I'd be much more worried about anything from this site..

Even more of a trouble is getting the ingredients..

Re: the moon. Save the moon! We need our tides.

Mr1337Duck · 2004-09-12, 02:14 PM

What a bunch of freaks, teaching people how to create explosives, drugs, firearms, how to kill hand-to-hand, etc. The narco-terrorist's handbook, if you ask me.

MrPaul · 2004-09-12, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Mr1337Duck

The narco-terrorist's handbook, if you ask me.

Close. Anarchists Cookbook.