Russian submarine with nuclear warheads headed for the US coast

Reality is not nonsense. We are building unmanned stealth bombers that can fire nuclear-armed stealth cruise missiles at Russia.

We also have plenty of ICBMs and SLBMs to fire at Russia. We're getting ready to design a new SLBM warhead too, our first new nuclear weapon since the end of the Cold War.

About the only downside to our arsenal is that our ICBMs are in silos instead of mobile. But we are still more than capable of eradicating Russia.

 

My claims are not false, and are certainly not demonstrably false.

OK.

Wrong. If a bomb gets most of its yield from fusion there is very little fallout.

Except, I'm completely correct.

Yes I do.

One nuclear device compresses the other.

Wrong. The fission creates the compression that is required to set off the fusion.

Yes.

The existence of fission primaries is hardly a nail.

You are repeating the same untrue claims. I am just answering them.

No it isn't.

No they don't. Almost all thermonuclear bombs get at least half of their yield from fission.

"Mostly fusion" only becomes efficient starting at around 30 to 40 megatons.

That is because they get at least half of their yield from fission.

Wrong. Most hydrogen bombs get at least half of their yield from fission.

You would have to go up to yields of around 30 to 40 megatons before "mostly fusion" becomes attractive.

Untrue claims are not nails.

There are all kinds of falsehoods that I "don't realize".

That is because they get at least half of their yield from fission.

Two thirds of Castle Bravo's yield (ten out of fifteen megatons) came from fission.

I haven't felt any pain.

 

You agree that your claim some of things you claimed were wrong .. but then state "my claims are not false" what kind of dyslexic joke of a statement is this ?

These are your claims
1) The primary does not cause much fallout. Most of the yield comes from the secondary.

The primary is the Fission .. and you agreed to this .. you also agreed that it is the Fission that causes the fallout.

What part of .. Your wrong .. and have admitted you are wrong .. do you not understand .. correct that the yeild comes from the secondary explosion .. the Fusion.


2) Bombs that get almost all of their yield from fusion do not cause very much dangerous fallout at all.

Demonstrably false nonsense .. what part of "All Hydrogen bombs get most of their yeild from Fusion" do you not understand ? There are no Hydrogen bombs that don't get most of their yeild from fusion. You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Castle Bravo - a Hydrogen Bomb - like all hydrogen bombs .. got most of its yeild from Fusion .. but caused a heck of alot dangerous fallout .. over 7000 square miles .. which is a heck of alot of Geography. Wrong

3) then in the last post .. you claimed that the heat from Fission did not produce Fusion - by stating my claim that it did was wrong ..

Wrong .. again ..

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-nuclear-weapons-work

3 Demonstrably false claims .. Crucified is your argument .. although clearly you do not feel any pain .. which is not surprising.

 

No I don't. All of my claims are completely correct.

OK.

I understand that the statement is false given the fact I am in fact completely correct and do not admit that I am wrong.

Indeed. I am correct.

Wrong. My comment is completely correct.

I understand that the statement is false.

Almost all hydrogen bombs get at least half of their yield from fission.

"Mostly fusion" does not become desirable until yields get up to around 30 to 40 megatons.

Wrong. Almost all hydrogen bombs get at least half their yield from fission.

Again, "mostly fusion" doesn't start working really well until yields get up to around 30 to 40 megatons.

Wrong. I know exactly what I am talking about.

Wrong. Castle Bravo got two thirds of its yield (ten out of fifteen megatons) from fission.

That is because it got two thirds of its yield (ten out of fifteen megatons) from fission.

Except I'm not wrong. I am completely correct.

Yes. What the primary does is compress the secondary.

No, I'm still correct.

The summary that you quoted from is badly written.

Actually the entire article is actually badly written. It contains untrue statements.

But if you read the actual article you do get a bit of the truth about the primary compressing the secondary. Note the following from that article:

"Similarly, the secondary doesn't consist purely of fusion fuel; layered within it is a fission 'spark plug,' consisting of either plutonium-239 or uranium-235. As the primary explosion compresses the fuel from the outside, the spark plug material becomes supercritical and fissions, heating the hydrogen from the inside and facilitating further fusion reactions."

That is incorrect. My claims are all true.

Not really. My argument is doing just fine.

 

I'm beginning to think TA is John Bolton

 

No. But you honor me. John Bolton is a big hero to me.

 

I am not surprised. I think John Bolton is one of the biggest buffoons in America and would get us in WW3 if given the chance.

 

What do you have against John Bolton?

 

He's a ****ing idiot. And somebody who constantly advocates for senseless wars is likely on the military industrial complex kickback roll.

 

Prove it.

 

Sometimes war is the least-bad option. I think he would try to avoid WWIII though.

 

For that matter, you should also read the paragraph following the one that I already quoted:

"Fusion releases neutrons. These neutrons hit a layer of uranium surrounding the fusion fuel causing atoms in it to fission; this fissioning generally contributes more than half of the weapon's total explosive yield."

 

LOL .. you have no clue what you are talking about .. We don't even field weapons with 30-40 megatons .. and every hydrogen bomb gets the vast majority of the yeild from Fusion

2) Bombs that get almost all of their yield from fusion do not cause very much dangerous fallout at all.

Name one hydrogen bomb that the Russians would be using that does not get almost all of its yeild from fusion and does not cause very much dangerous fallout at all.

What a joke.

 

Yes I do.

I know. That is why almost all of our hydrogen bombs get at least half of their yield from fission.

Wrong. Almost all hydrogen bombs get at least half of their yield from fission.

All of them.

Since they would all get at least half of their yield from fission, they would cause lots of dangerous fallout.

Fallout is no laughing matter.

 

Halibut.

 

Definitely not.

 

Your losing it .. contradicting your self now ..

Your Claims -- Let us assume for the moment .. that your preposterously falls claim "Almost all hydrogen bombs get at least half their yield from Fission was True This means that all hydrogen bombs are dirty .. as it is fission responsible for the Fallout

1) The primary does not cause much fallout. Most of the yield comes from the secondary.

Above you completely screw up claiming Fission (primary) does not cause much fallout . your second being correct most of the yeild coming from Fusion .. but contradicting your above claim .. that half the yeild comes from Fission

ROFL .. you OK mate .. gotta get these made up stories straight .. hard to keep a falsehood straight from one post to the next aye Maytee.

2) Bombs that get almost all of their yield from fusion do not cause very much dangerous fallout at all.

What a pointless ball of Gibberish given above you claim that almost all hydrogen bombs are dirty.. getting half their yeild from Fission .. so there are none of these bombs in the Russian Stockpile that do not have dangerous fallout

The conversation is about Russian nukes .. and the fallout.. .. you claiming not very much at all .. nothing to see here .. crying "Wrong Wrong Wrong" when I was talking about fallout .. going on about these clean nukes .. with "not much dangerous fallout at all" the fact that none of these nukes exist in the russian arsenal of any significance .. what does that matter to reality.

Crucified .. oh .. and your claim that Fission accounts for half the yeild of a "FUSION BOMB - E=MC2 - .. please .. go google .. or .. hold on . better yet . .. Prove your claim is True .. this is science after all .. we can do such things .. did you miss the part about me taking a 400 level quantum mechanics class .. .. this should be fun..

ahh yes maytee ... Nails just getting warmed up .. .

 

Something to keep in mind while DoI is pounding his... whatever... over Russian military might...

 

I am doing neither.

Reality is not preposterously false. My statement is indeed true.

Almost all of them are. But there are a few that are not. Thermonuclear weapons can be made clean if you really want them that way.

No screw up. The fission primary does not contribute much to the overall yield.

No contradiction. I was referring to specially made bombs where almost all of the yield comes from fusion.

The Obama Administration made some nifty little tactical nukes that can be used to eliminate a Russian invasion of the EU without contaminating Europe with fallout.

The bombs also have unparalleled accuracy so they can land direct hits and take out military targets with low yields.

Reality is neither made up nor a falsehood.

Reality is not gibberish either.

The few hydrogen bombs in the world that are not dirty, are clean.

Likely true. But I am no expert in the Russian stockpile.

Wrong. The conversation is about these new tactical nukes that will allow NATO to eliminate a Russian invasion of the EU without contaminating Europe with fallout.

Beats me.

Why do you keep talking about Russian nukes when the topic is NATO nukes?

Already done. That webpage you posted a link to was poorly written with lots of mistakes, but it still clearly confirms everything that I've said.

Again:
"Fusion releases neutrons. These neutrons hit a layer of uranium surrounding the fusion fuel causing atoms in it to fission; this fissioning generally contributes more than half of the weapon's total explosive yield."

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-nuclear-weapons-work

I'm not in any danger. I have reality on my side.

 

At least it will affect the Ukranian people. I don't see it affecting any of the rest of the world.

 

Bolton and the rest of the neo-cons have been wrong about most things.
They are just not credible.

"John Bolton: Trump’s gone-but-not-forgotten national security adviser has long been an advocate of US military action in the Middle East. He essentially endorsed an Israeli nuclear strike against Iran in 2009. In 2002, as a senior State Department official, he peddled the case for war against Iraq. In one interview, he noted, “We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq,” and he echoed the Bush-Cheney administration lines that the Iraqi people would “welcome the overthrow of a dictatorial regime” and that the US role in a post-invasion Iraq would be “fairly minimal.”
MOJO, With a War Against Iran Brewing, Don’t Listen to the Hawks Who Lied Us Into Iraq, Here we go again., BY DAVID CORN, MATT COHEN, 1/3/20.
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...nt-listen-to-the-hawks-who-lied-us-into-iraq/

 

Are you sure that it was nuclear that he advocated in 2009?

Israel's nukes are for deterrence, and Israel could easily destroy Iran's illegal nuclear program using conventional weapons.

 

As Iraq can attest to...

 

You weren't supposed to see. This is a message to those who understand the consequences.

 

Would that it did. Instead another trillion or so will be diverted from our Infrastructure to Nuclear submarines which will all be scrapped 10 years from now