A battle on the exact inner-workings of nuclear warheads. If you are looking for an interesting fight then you have yourself one. Lets hear the explination for the inner workings comparing the gun type to the implosion method. What you got? you started this fight and I will finish it even If you best me, But please give me the respect to an actually decent definition that involves more than three quotes at an average of three words apiece.
Proposal: Me Vs. Dywyddyr- warheads
- Thread starter chaos1956
- Start date
- Status
Step by step following the energy impulses throught the structuce itself at light speed. The exact workings that cause both structures to reach criticiality. In reference to size and average total energy output. It takes a certain speed to bring the gun type to an explosion, and just to add a sting the soviets have us crushed with their Tsar Bomba which affected a larger area was still cleaner than the 15 megaton Castle Bravo the US detonated. Still they used a lead instead of a uranium tamper as opposed to miscalculating the potential of the lithium-7 isotope.
Does sound like an interesting proposition as that usually determines the winner. Just sometimes the winner can still loose if he fools around with his microwave sending the outermost levels of this experiment into fast neutron fission. But I can start a campaign for that, "say no to fast neutron dirty fission, lets find a better way to kill ourselves", send people out there to do it for you as far as most politicians are concerned these days. Which is what you are Dywyddyr a politician, aren't we all. Lets see if you can contain your anger as I loosen your politically correct tongue. There is no such thing as a mechanical crank in any thought that includes different materials being broken down into their initial universal composition as matter. Just cranky people without exact answers. If I'm a crank its only because I throw a monkey wrench into the contraptions you have placed in your head. I respect your thoughts still but the only way I'm going to get anything out of you is if you were to utter more than just three words of pollitically correct yet still inbalance thoughts. Still I'm not going to Nuke you, that would be mean unless I knew you would live through some miracle. Then it would be helarious.
Wrong. I don't do politics.
It would take far more than you to get me angry.
I'm an engineer, hence political correctness has little impact on my life.
No, you're a crank because you spout nonsense.
More inane waffle...
The bit about politics was a rhetorical statement that ended the second after it was said. That usually means it doesn't serve a purpose to be questioned later it is only a statement of my views, which despite you overblown accurate and meaningless drivel about my nonsense say there is no such thing as a "different reality". If there is not a different reality then why do we not share the same views on this subject. The topic is about wareheads and still seeing as that appears to be something you know well you are yet to say a single solitary word in reference to them. Don't get caught up in my sarcasm like so many others do. The one who wins this battle is the one who lasts the longest before becomming angry and giving up. If your not angry then maybe you are scared to utter anything close to a paragraph for fear of me tearing your words appart. Lets hear your side Mr. Strong Force.
So why even make the statement?
It's quite simple: one of is seeing reality (and being correct) the other isn't (and is incorrect).
For the plain reason that so far there is nothing to say about them. You have proposed a debate, and, as James R has pointed out, have yet to define what exactly the debate is going to consist of.
Um, couple of errors here:
1) it's not a "battle".
2) You couldn't "tear my world apart" on your best day and my worst.
To find out what your paying attention to: words, facts, or conditional statements
So, your saying the proven facts made in statement 4 are incorrect? not likely
I am against fast neutron dirty fission, and in favor of combining mass of all elements around a smaller amount of radioactive substances in an effort to make cleaner power producing entities. Your for Chaos which is slightly ironic at this point. You can get any atom to undergo fission its just hard to get them all to stay in the same place without loosing your head.
1) says the guy who started the battle.
2) The word was "word" not "world".
You mean you're rambling in an effort to avoid actually writing anything of substance?
Proven facts? Which?
And this relates to the OP how?
Would this be an assumption on your part?
Oh, yes it would...
What "battle"?
My mistake. Still applies.
Note to mod: since the OP has, (despite it being pointed out TWICE that he has failed to do so) provide any structure for this so-called "debate" please feel free to Cesspool the thread.
Russia has and always will have superior nuclear abilities to America. They also have superior thermoberic weaponry, superior aircraft weapon deployment, and the AK is a much more reliable, powerful weapon than the standards we give our troups. The last one is not a warehead its more of an afterthought of why you might have false beliefs. Why? They used a three layer thermonuclear weapon that was cleaner than we can produce with multiple cores of fast neutron fission and not one of them was a tamper. I'll do them one better.
Off-topic and false.
Really? Source please (and note that it's thermobAric not thermobEric).
Source please.
Source please.
(And if by "AK" you mean, specifically, the AK-47/ AKM then how is this at all relevant?)
You mean why you claim I have false beliefs.
Um, yet another unsubstantiated statement.
Last edited:
russian Bomb bigger than MOAB
"The initial three-stage design was capable of approximately 100 Mt, but would have caused too much radioactive fallout. To limit fallout, the third stage and possibly the second stage had a lead tamper instead of a uranium-238 fusion tamper (which greatly amplifies the reaction by fissioning uranium atoms with fast neutrons from fusion reaction). This eliminated fast fission by the fusion-stage neutrons, so that approximately 97% of the total energy resulted from fusion alone (as such, it was one of the "cleanest" nuclear bombs ever created, generating a very low amount of fallout relative to its yield). There was a strong incentive for this modification since most of the fallout from a test of the bomb would fall on populated Soviet territory."source
I'm glad your paying more attention to the spelling its going to help your tongue.
The bomber you can't catch. Tupolev_Tu-160
"Although the Tu-160 was designed for reduced detectability to both radar and infrared, it is not a stealth aircraft. Nevertheless, on 25 April 2006 Lt. Gen. Igor Khvorov claimed that Tu-160s had managed to penetrate the US sector of the Arctic undetected, leading to a USAF investigation"
So try not to loose your temper while we investigate the innner workings of all this nonsense you hide in the back of your mind. I just said might have false beliefs, try to pay more attention to detail.
"The initial three-stage design was capable of approximately 100 Mt, but would have caused too much radioactive fallout. To limit fallout, the third stage and possibly the second stage had a lead tamper instead of a uranium-238 fusion tamper (which greatly amplifies the reaction by fissioning uranium atoms with fast neutrons from fusion reaction). This eliminated fast fission by the fusion-stage neutrons, so that approximately 97% of the total energy resulted from fusion alone (as such, it was one of the "cleanest" nuclear bombs ever created, generating a very low amount of fallout relative to its yield). There was a strong incentive for this modification since most of the fallout from a test of the bomb would fall on populated Soviet territory."source
I'm glad your paying more attention to the spelling its going to help your tongue.
The bomber you can't catch. Tupolev_Tu-160
"Although the Tu-160 was designed for reduced detectability to both radar and infrared, it is not a stealth aircraft. Nevertheless, on 25 April 2006 Lt. Gen. Igor Khvorov claimed that Tu-160s had managed to penetrate the US sector of the Arctic undetected, leading to a USAF investigation"
So try not to loose your temper while we investigate the innner workings of all this nonsense you hide in the back of your mind. I just said might have false beliefs, try to pay more attention to detail.
Um yeah. One particular weapon does not equate to the generalisation that all of their thermobaric weaponry is superior. Simply being more powerful does NOT equate to "superior".
And once again you pick a single weapon (a one-off at that) and generalise...
So when you said "superior aircraft weapon deployment" you actually meant "superior aircraft"?
And again you pick a single example and generalise it...
Do try to back up your specious claims.
Oh wrong again.
Simply because Tu-160 got through once doesn't mean it could do it again. And the bomb you linked to can't be carried by Blackjack anyway.
So all-round fail.
I note you haven't even bothered trying to support your "AK" comment.
chaos1956,
You clearly haven’t read how the formal debate section works. I suggest you do so by reading the ‘sticky’ threads at the top of the Formal Debate section.
What we want from you is:
1) A precise and succinct statement that will be debated
2) Who will take part in the debate
3) What sides of the debate the various participants will take
4) The rules for the debate (eg. opening statements, word limits, maximum posts, alternate posts, etc)
No further posts in this thread will be allowed until chaos1956 provides these things.
If you cannot provide these things then your proposal is denied and this thread will be closed.
You clearly haven’t read how the formal debate section works. I suggest you do so by reading the ‘sticky’ threads at the top of the Formal Debate section.
What we want from you is:
1) A precise and succinct statement that will be debated
2) Who will take part in the debate
3) What sides of the debate the various participants will take
4) The rules for the debate (eg. opening statements, word limits, maximum posts, alternate posts, etc)
No further posts in this thread will be allowed until chaos1956 provides these things.
If you cannot provide these things then your proposal is denied and this thread will be closed.
The propasal seems quite clear to me. "Are we under a false asumption that America knows more about nuclear capabilities than Russia?"
Seeing As I stand with the Affirmative that Russia does in fact have superior nuclear capabilities, and Dywyddr is on the negative side debating for America I think it is time to start with his introductory post.
Seeing As I stand with the Affirmative that Russia does in fact have superior nuclear capabilities, and Dywyddr is on the negative side debating for America I think it is time to start with his introductory post.
- Status