Debate: Russia knows more about nuclear weapons technology than the USA

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Nov 18, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hercules Rockefeller voltage gated ion channel Moderator

    Messages:
    2,716
    Topic: Russia knows more about nuclear weapons technology than the USA

    Participants: chaos1956 for the affirmative, Dywyddyr for the negative. (Only these participants may post in the debate thread. Commentary from anyone can be added to the associated Discussion thread. Participants may not add to the Discussion thread before the debtae has ended.)

    Format: standard rules (max 1500 words per post)


    Over to chaos1956 for the introductory post for the affirmative…..
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2010
  2. chaos1956 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    238
    First I would like to point out how much more complete Russia's understanding of nuclear forces as opposed to Americas. They have been able to impliment statistics that are present within the Markov Chain to make truly extrordinary measures of development into the precision and size since the Soviet Union transfered its nuclear weapons program into the People's Republic of China. They have made multiple wareheads the size of suitcases. Although they are not as powerful as Tsar Bomba or Castel Bravo, these little buggers still pack a punch. If Russia is ever to find out where the inventory of these cases went without firing all their employees. It is supposed that China might have aquired an American W88 warehead and utilized into their designs, but it is much more likely that the Chineese posessed the potential for miniturizations just by their understanding of the skill that one has to use to put together the multiple stages of fireworks present through their history. This in effect has allowed Russian technology to increase drastically In their projected expectations in increase nuclear power as an efficient source for energy as well as affirmed their superiority in the nuclear race. With the help of China, Russia has been able to make more powerful weaponry using more accurate production methods.
     
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,603
    Is there any chance of you substantiating this claim?

    Or this one. Or maybe even restate it so that it actually means something.

    As has the US.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke
    Yet it also appears that the US has built smaller ones than Russia:
    (Same link).
    A "small refrigerator" is, by my reckoning, somewhat larger than 11 x 16 inches, let alone a 120 mm artillery shell.
    Or how about:
    It is supposed? By whom? Could you support this supposition or is one of your own?

    I see.
    Your argument is that Russia has better nuclear weapons technology because the Chinese have been making fireworks for a long time.
    Could you explain please how you think that being able to make multiple stage fireworks is a technology that transfers across to nuclear physics?
    That's akin to claiming that country X should have the lead in genetic research because they've got a large number of rabbit breeders. :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2010
  4. chaos1956 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    238
    Tsar Bomba is the visibale proof of Russias power with its ingenues three stage design and lead tamper.{Cite} The provisions done to the tamper in their more efficient method of implosion as well as cleaner due to a decrease in the fast neutron fission in the outermost layers of the implosion. The most advanced US Bomb is still an inneficient Tellur-Ulam designed W88. {cite} Sure it uses Lithium as an added boost but in the first runs of the design it was one of the biggest and dirtiest nuclear explosion. In which it is plainly stated the high yeild was an error by our "brilliant" scientists that lead radiation to spread into a fallout incident.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo
    If you used something other than applications of the Markov Chain, you didn't do it like the Russians. Which is evident in the United States best design in terms of fallout because of its trangular shape. It causes more fast fission neutrons to escape from the core. When the russians placed it a nice "Chinese firework type" of circle, you can get more control over its innert elements as the explosion expands over a large volume. Regaurdless of the unanswered question as to If the Chinese helped with the design or not.
    Really what museum did you find that information in. It is surely outdated.
    "The public museum at Russia’s largest nuclear weapon design center, Chelyabinsk-70, displays what it claims is the world’s smallest nuclear weapon, an artillery shell eighteen inches long and six inches in diameter."http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/660/nuclear_terrorism.html

    I suppose it is one of my own assumptions that is really obvious. Would you make friends with a country that has that many people, without giving them your nuclear designs to update. Doesn't sound like much of a friendship... especially when Russia is miplacing nukes left and right. Which could answer how China got them. Still America has one in the waters at Tybee Island as well as a couple of other places thay weren't "supposed" to be.

    Nope fail... type 2 error. That is not the arguement. It is a fact in the arguement. Russia has better nuclear weapons technology period. And now China also has the potential because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. These are just trivial facts of history most people know.


     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2010
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,603
    So once again you cite a single one-off instance of a weapon as typical. Yet you ignore this from your source:
    Do you often equate impracticality with superiority?
    And I would like you to note that the the Tsar Bomba (as stated by you) uses a three stage design. Following the link on Teller-Ulam designs (from your source) we find this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller–Ulam_design
    In other words the so-called Russian "superiority" in using a three stage design was nothing more than actually continuing to use an American design.
    (Same link).
    Which also indicates that the Tsar Bomba was also inefficient. Presumably we can add "inefficiency" to "impracticality" as a criterion for "superiority".

    I refer you to my above comments: Tsar Bomba also used Teller-Ulam, which is also [from your own links] stated to be the most efficient method.

    And once more you're citing a one-off as an example of typical practice?

    The link was given.

    I see. Does this validate your claim about suitcase nukes?
    Or is 6 inches (152.4 mm) smaller than 127mm?
    Source.

    Supposition.

    So what exactly does "Chinese miniaturisation" have to with Russian nuclear weapons?

    Yet to be shown.

    In other words you're supposing again.

    Your multiple references to the Markov Chain have yet to be clarified. Are you somehow under the impression that the US doesn't use this tool?
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2010
  6. chaos1956 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    238
    18in*6in = 108 Russia

    11in*16in= 178 America

    Your sources only confirm Russian nukes the size of refrigerators. My sources had it in a museum and confirmed it smaller.
    No, but I don't go around looking for impractically large bunnies either. I just figure if one shows up we might have a problem. Impracticly large would have been using a uranium tamper instead of a lead one to "test" a bomb. They made the change after they did the measurements. I'm sure that after this amount of time they have made revisions for getting them even cleaner which is present in their current superiority in nuclear energy. Just for facts that reflect their knowledge of nuclear weaopns and the nuclear processes here are some of their statistics.

    "The Russian energy strategy of 2003 set a policy priority for reduction in natural gas based power supply, aiming to achieve this through a doubling of nuclear power generation by 2020. In 2006 the Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) announced targets for future nuclear power generation; providing 23% of electricity needs by 2020 and 25% by 2030.[1]
    Russia has made plans to increase the number of reactors in operation from 31 to 59. Old reactors will be maintained and upgraded, including RBMK units similar to the reactors at Chernobyl. China and Russia agreed on further cooperation in the construction of nuclear power stations in October 2005."cite

    So by 2020 they will have have passes the 19% that America currently employes over less of an area than the country of Russia has to contend with. Still they are ahead of America's knowledge in nuclear design which is present within their space program. At a cost less than that of which America pays annually to keep people from smoking weed Russia is exploring the universe instead.

    "Anatolij Perminov, head of Russian Space Agency announced that RKA is going to develop a nuclear powered spacecraft for deep space travel. Design will be done by 2012, and 9 more years for development (in space assembly). The price is set to 17 billion rubles (600 million dollars)."cite

    This only adds to the confirmation of Russia over America for superiority in knowledge of nuclear weapons and praises them for being able to keep it clean energy. The cold war is over but the race to space is just getting started.
     
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,603
    So you're ignoring the reference to the 127mm shells?

    YOU may be "sure" but you haven't provided any sources...
    And their "current superiority" is still, so far, only in your mind.

    Could you explain how a fluff piece on natural gas and power stations backs up your claim on nuclear weapons?

    You persist in claiming this yet have, so far, failed to substantiate it.

    Yep. A claim on what they plan to do about spacecraft propulsion does NOT, unfortunately, validate YOUR claim about their weapons technology.

    While, at a push, a spacecraft can be used as weapon (kamikaze, anyone?), it is not, in and of itself, a weapon, especially not a nuclear weapon. And most especially a spacecraft that has not yet been designed, let alone built.
    I'm afraid it confirms nothing.
     
  8. chaos1956 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    238
    No. but I can substantiate most of the reason you just won this debate is because you picked weapons as opposed to the exact inner workings to lead out Russias stand toward space flight. Do you want to know what makes them think they can accomplish space flight with nuclear forces? Or do you already know. Either way I'm certain Russia knows more about technology that came from the enhancement of nuclear weapons.

    If someone in the Russian Government speaks without loosing their job we can probably assume it is true and or valid information. They know we are watching them. They wouldn't have said it if they didn't think we were. That's the point of a "race"... to actually let the other side know who is ahead so America can catch up or exploit another countries resources.

    Ba-damp-chi. History jokes...
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,603
    In point of fact I didn't pick the topic.
    You did, here: the thread title was "warheads" and you consistently referred to weapons technology.

    I already know.

    The same way you were "certain" that Russia has superior weapons capabilities?

    Or you can assume that it's deliberate misinformation.

    That would be why there's a proposal to make this nuclear-powered spacecraft a joint US/ Russian effort? Riiight. :rolleyes:
     
  10. Hercules Rockefeller voltage gated ion channel Moderator

    Messages:
    2,716
    Debate finished and closed as per standard rules.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page