USA accidentaly sells nuke components

In the real world
mwhittington
Commander
Commander
Posts: 1313
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:49 pm
Location: Gridley, CA.

Post by mwhittington »

Now go outside and do the MUAHAHAHA thing. Don't worry its just a... rain cloud, yeah, thats it, just a little brown and green rain.
EEEWWWWWWW!!!! Ever see the movie RV, with Robin Williams? It's called "The Shower of Sadness". "What happened to you, dad?" "Oh, he was covered in turd!" :lol:
And how do you confuse a helicopter battery, which I'm guessing is rectangular, similar to a car battery, with a cone-shaped nuclear fuse? I just hope they don't confuse them with suppositories.
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -Benjamin Franklin-
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

mwhittington wrote:And how do you confuse a helicopter battery, which I'm guessing is rectangular, similar to a car battery, with a cone-shaped nuclear fuse? I just hope they don't confuse them with suppositories.
One of two possibilities:

1) the boxes they're stored in are very similar.

or, more likely:

2) the blokes responsible for shifting the stuff were simply told "put item number ############# on that ship/aeroplane", rather than "put helocopter batteries on the ship/aeroplane".
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Cpl Kendall wrote:And this somehow changes the technical challenge of timing?
It demonstrates that the timing system for an implosion type bomb was within the technological capabilities of the US in the 1940s.
The US had the full resources of a nation involved in the construction. A nation that's industry wasn't even operating at full production. As well as the backing of installations in Canada and the UK, it took four years to even detonate a bomb.
And was a great portion of that effort devoted to building the fuses? I would guess not.

Contrast that with Iran, North Korea or Pakistan. The first two have barely enough resources to get two sticks to make fire with and Pakistan was simply incompetant. As well as the fact that this information is not just simply out there to take. Nuclear fuses and triggers are highly classified and restricted information and technology. Unless someone shares it with you, you have to develop it yourself. That involves a fair bit of trial and error, see North Korea with it's duds (they were dumb enough to buy the plans from Pakistan whose first bomb failed in the same manner).
But Pakistan did in fact build a functional nuclear weapon, did it not? So by your own argument, these fuses are within the capability of even an "incompetent" nation today.

I'm not suggesting that nuclear fuses are something that you could pop down to your local hardware store and buy. But nor are they the one great super-sophisticated gadget that is the stumbling block stopping everybody in the world from building nukes. It just seems to me that the way some people talk about this, it's as if they think North Korea has completed nuclear bombs sitting there, useless because they just can't build those darned fuses.

Fuses are just an element, and given that they were within the capabilities of the US sixty years ago I'd bet that they are far from being the most difficult element at that.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Post by Aaron »

GrahamKennedy wrote:
But Pakistan did in fact build a functional nuclear weapon, did it not? So by your own argument, these fuses are within the capability of even an "incompetent" nation today.
They did but they fucked it up for years.
I'm not suggesting that nuclear fuses are something that you could pop down to your local hardware store and buy. But nor are they the one great super-sophisticated gadget that is the stumbling block stopping everybody in the world from building nukes. It just seems to me that the way some people talk about this, it's as if they think North Korea has completed nuclear bombs sitting there, useless because they just can't build those darned fuses.


Fuses are just an element, and given that they were within the capabilities of the US sixty years ago I'd bet that they are far from being the most difficult element at that.
This I can only chalk up tp the sheer ignorance of military matters displayed by numerous people on the internet.
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Cpl Kendall wrote:This I can only chalk up tp the sheer ignorance of military matters displayed by numerous people on the internet.
My all time favourite quote on military matters was during the build up to Gulf War 1, when reporters commented that there was so much hardware around that even their own helicopter was inspected by a fighter at one point. They showed footage of an F-15 alongside, which they described as "an F-111 from the nearby carrier..."
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Post by Mikey »

Wouldn't you be able to tell an F-111 by the pivots on the wing roots? Besides, I think the last time they saw action was when Reagan sent them to Tripoli.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Blackstar the Chakat
Banned
Posts: 5594
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:53 pm

Post by Blackstar the Chakat »

And I don't think F-15's can serve on a carrier. Not without extensive modifications. F-111's are so old, I don't even know if they were carrier based, which is saying something considering my knowledge on US fighters.
Blackstar the Chakat
Banned
Posts: 5594
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:53 pm

Post by Blackstar the Chakat »

And I don't think F-15's can serve on a carrier. Not without extensive modifications. F-111's are so old, I don't even know if they were carrier based, which is saying something considering my knowledge on US fighters.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Post by Mikey »

I think F-111's could be carrier-based, due to their variable geometry, but I'm not positive. I am almost positive that F-15's can't, due to those amazingly powerful dual Pratt & Whitney's
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Enkidu
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:52 pm

Post by Enkidu »

GrahamKennedy wrote:
Cpl Kendall wrote:This I can only chalk up tp the sheer ignorance of military matters displayed by numerous people on the internet.
My all time favourite quote on military matters was during the build up to Gulf War 1, when reporters commented that there was so much hardware around that even their own helicopter was inspected by a fighter at one point. They showed footage of an F-15 alongside, which they described as "an F-111 from the nearby carrier..."
My all time favourite is from ITN during the first morning of land operations in Gulf War II:
They where doing rolling news coverage (the nadir of reporting IMO) and had a "trio of experts to provide you with analysis of the pictures as they received them". First footage arrives, minus sound. A pair of soldiers, frisking surrendering Iraqi troops. Ah yes, says one, British soldiers, dealing with prisoners. The reporter pipes in, saying there's no sound, and they don't know where the pictures came from: "Are you sure they are British?" The "experts" confer and announce that they are unidentified Allied troops somewhere in Iraq. The soldiers where wearing British helmets, British desert camouflage, British style webbing and were armed with SA80's. I'd stick my neck out and say they where British.....
Aaron
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10988
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Timepire Mobile Command Centre
Contact:

Post by Aaron »

ChakatBlackstar wrote:And I don't think F-15's can serve on a carrier. Not without extensive modifications. F-111's are so old, I don't even know if they were carrier based, which is saying something considering my knowledge on US fighters.
The F-15 was never designed to be a carrier based fighter, it lacks the arresting hook and reinforced landing gear that carreir fighters require just for a start.

The F-111 was originally designed for both the AF and the Navy as an interceptor but proved to heavy for the role and wound up as an AF bomber.
My all time favourite is from ITN during the first morning of land operations in Gulf War II:
They where doing rolling news coverage (the nadir of reporting IMO) and had a "trio of experts to provide you with analysis of the pictures as they received them". First footage arrives, minus sound. A pair of soldiers, frisking surrendering Iraqi troops. Ah yes, says one, British soldiers, dealing with prisoners. The reporter pipes in, saying there's no sound, and they don't know where the pictures came from: "Are you sure they are British?" The "experts" confer and announce that they are unidentified Allied troops somewhere in Iraq. The soldiers where wearing British helmets, British desert camouflage, British style webbing and were armed with SA80's. I'd stick my neck out and say they where British.....
But...but, they couldn't see the shoulder flag! Seriously though, there are countries that use British gear. Your best bet is to look at their AFV's if your in doubt.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

Cpl Kendall wrote:But...but, they couldn't see the shoulder flag! Seriously though, there are countries that use British gear. Your best bet is to look at their AFV's if your in doubt.
There's also their weapons. Who in their right mind would use an SA80A1 unless there was nothing else available?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Post by Mikey »

Captain Seafort wrote:
Cpl Kendall wrote:But...but, they couldn't see the shoulder flag! Seriously though, there are countries that use British gear. Your best bet is to look at their AFV's if your in doubt.
There's also their weapons. Who in their right mind would use an SA80A1 unless there was nothing else available?
Maybe anyone whose only alternative was an M4?
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

Mikey wrote:Maybe anyone whose only alternative was an M4?
The M4 has had serious problems with stoppages, but the original SA80 had similar problems, and I haven't heard of any cases of the M4 falling apart. Nor of it being nigh-on impossible to get the bloody magazine to lock. :x

If there have been such cases, then it's a lot closer, but still makes the M4 a slightly better weapon because firing it left-handed won't rip your face off.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Post by Mikey »

I knew of the asymmetrical nature of the SA80, but I didn't know about the magazine-locking or falling-apart problems. I was referring to the pea-shooter nature of the 5.56mm round.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Post Reply