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

[Hercules Rockefeller]

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…..

 

[chaos1956]

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.

 

[Dywyddyr]

First I would like to point out how much more complete Russia's understanding of nuclear forces as opposed to Americas.

Is there any chance of you substantiating this claim?

They have been able to impliment statistics that are present within the Markov Chain

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

They have made multiple wareheads the size of suitcases.

As has the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke
Yet it also appears that the US has built smaller ones than Russia:

Declassified Russian sources indicate that the smallest Soviet miniaturized nuclear weapon was also small in dimensions, and its size was compared to a "small refrigerator."

The lightest nuclear warhead ever acknowledged to have been manufactured by the U.S. is the W54, which was used in both the Davy Crockett 120 mm recoilless rifle–launched warhead, and the backpack-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition). The bare warhead package was an 11 in by 16 in (28 cm by 41 cm) cylinder that weighed 51 lbs (23 kg)

(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:

However, the Russian government immediately rejected Lebed's claims. Russia's Ministry for Atomic Energy went so far as to dispute that suitcase nuclear weapons had even ever been developed by the Soviet Union.

It is supposed that China might have aquired an American W88 warehead and utilized into their designs

It is supposed? By whom? Could you support this supposition or is one of your own?

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.

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.

 

[chaos1956]

Is there any chance of you substantiating this claim?

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

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

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.

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:

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

It is supposed? By whom? Could you support this supposition or is one of your own?

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.

I see.
Your argument is that Russia has better nuclear weapons technology because the Chinese have been making fireworks for a long time.

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.

"Could you explain please how you think that being able to make multiple stage fireworks is a technology that transfers across to nuclear physics?"[\quote]


In the History of a country that has been been making things go boom for centuries im sure it doesn't hurt. But yes I see your point which appears to be "who cares if they don't know how to design it right." Which is the exact sentiments felt by the Russians at the current point in time.

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.

Sure and If I was a genetic researcher of bunnies I would know where the best breeders were located. I might also state that they would know bit about research of bunny genetics. The United States might be breeders but they are clearly not the best.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Tsar Bomba is the visibale proof of Russias power with its ingenues three stage design and lead tamper.{Cite}

So once again you cite a single one-off instance of a weapon as typical. Yet you ignore this from your source:

Hence, the Tsar Bomba was an impractically powerful weapon.

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:

1) separation of stages into a triggering "primary" explosive and a much more powerful "secondary" explosive, 2) compression of the secondary by X-rays coming from nuclear fission in the primary, a process called the "radiation implosion" of the secondary, and 3) heating of the secondary, after cold compression, by a second fission explosion inside the secondary

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.

As it is also the most efficient design concept for small nuclear weapons, today virtually all the nuclear weapons deployed by the five major nuclear-armed nations use the Teller–Ulam 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".

The most advanced US Bomb is still an inneficient Tellur-Ulam designed W88. {cite}

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.

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

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

Really what museum did you find that information in. It is surely outdated.

The link was given.

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

Other developments also continued. In 1958 a fusion warhead was developed and tested, the UCRL Swift. It was 622 mm long, 127 mm diameter, and weighed 43.5 kg. ... There are unconfirmed reports that work on similar concepts continued into the 1970s and resulted in a one-kiloton warhead design for 5-inch (127 mm) naval gun rounds;

Source.

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.

Supposition.

Nope fail... type 2 error. That is not the arguement.

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

Russia has better nuclear weapons technology period.

Yet to be shown.

In the History of a country that has been been making things go boom for centuries im sure it doesn't hurt. But yes I see your point which appears to be "who cares if they don't know how to design it right." Which is the exact sentiments felt by the Russians at the current point in time.
Sure and If I was a genetic researcher of bunnies I would know where the best breeders were located. I might also state that they would know bit about research of bunny genetics. The United States might be breeders but they are clearly not the best.

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?

 

[chaos1956]

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.

Do you often equate impracticality with superiority?

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.

 

[Dywyddyr]

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.

So you're ignoring the reference to the 127mm shells?

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.

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

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

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

Still they are ahead of America's knowledge in nuclear design which is present within their space program.

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

"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

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

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.

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.

 

[chaos1956]

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...

 

[Dywyddyr]

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.

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.

Do you want to know what makes them think they can accomplish space flight with nuclear forces? Or do you already know.

I already know.

Either way I'm certain Russia knows more about technology that came from the enhancement of nuclear weapons.

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

If someone in the Russian Government speaks without loosing their job we can probably assume it is true and or valid information.

Or you can assume that it's deliberate misinformation.

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.

That would be why there's a proposal to make this nuclear-powered spacecraft a joint US/ Russian effort? Riiight.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Debate finished and closed as per standard rules.