Dirty nukes

Just use Ganges river water

Attached: Concern.jpg (600x659, 52.41K)

OP, are you actually suggesting crafting literally millions of tons of blackpowder? There's so much wrong with this whole plan I don't even know where to begin. You'd probably have an easier time stealing enriched uranium than with this.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (259x194, 117.44K)

Are you retarded?

Attached: c01889254151ee1c533058de50667b7672ed8a8415e7cb4be73648769b203490.png (1009x714, 685.18K)

Jesus Christ, man. We're trying to make a massive black powder bomb, not erase a quarter of the galaxy.

Let him work. At this point the only way I'll ever be impressed again is if some retard actually does something with a million ton blackpowder bomb

Attached: 1466831645915.gif (320x213, 1.63M)

Well your rocket would be the size of manhattan, the warhead would be the size of a half dozen cargo ships. Just lifting off it would create so much soot that it would block out the sun and turn the planet into an ice ball.

Why not just use liquified methane, a fuel air bomb can be as much as 40x more powerful on a weight basis than TNT. That way you only need to get ~1 million tonnes of methane instead of like 500 million tonnes of blackpowder.

Actually im running some calculations and I dont think a sugar rocket would be able to lift off. It doesnt have the energy density to even reach suborbital or high atmosphere flight.

You only need 7kg of uranium to make a dirty bomb but it'll only be the size of a large fountain. Frankly chemical weapons or just plain old regular bombs are more efficient than nukes. Remember you're trying to make a heat-resistant ceramic have a heat-based reaction in most nuclear reactions (Thorium aside, but then because of that Thorium is a pain to work with/can't really explode). Nuclear bombs just flat out suck for explosives and are only made by governments because it's less resource-intensive (not cheaper, resource-intensive) than a bomb of equivalent size. It takes much longer to procure the materials and contractors to build traditional explosives of comparable size as compared to a nuke.

Attached: f647793dd61b9cf52bf12621d1c9f6a604fe74d46fca2fd6dcf2fdd4140e1807.png (365x243, 106.88K)

Also something like this would be more efficient. Really shoving powderized any nuclear material and governments/civilians will consider it a "dirty nuke" even if the residue is cleared out by rain in a day.

Nevermind, you're just retarded.

In a reactor? Yes. In a bomb? No. Bomb cores are slugs of the particular metal so you don't have something else like oxygen interfering with the compression.

Metallic Plutonium is so difficult to work with because it can spontaneously ignite and burn in air, so it needs to be handled only in glove boxes with no oxygen. It goes through several distinct crystal structures as it cools, and the only way to keep it in a stable workable state is to alloy it with Gallium, which eats through things like Aluminum and Steel. If Uranium were easier to enrich, Plutonium would never have been made in any significant quantity.

How much for a little boy/fat man sized bomb? We would be working with a lot less then, since a little boy is the equivalent of about 15 kilotons of TNT and a fat man is worth 23 kilotons if TNT.

That's the most sensible part of his idea because the amount of BP needed to equal a nuke would be too much for any submarine, or maybe even cargo ship to carry.

A cargo ship can comfortably carry 100,000 tonnes. Or 100kt of your explosive, which isn't a large amount of explosive. Cargo ships regularly carry that amount of fertilizer from Chinese factories to South America, it would cost very little to mix the fertilizer with fuel oil.
Or an LNG carrier which carries 30,000 tonnes of liquid natural gas, which is about four times more effective as regular TNT, so a 30,000 ton LNG carrier can produce similar results to a 100,000 ton bulk TNT carrier.

About 100kt blast, which is equivalent to the majority of warheads in active service.

The problem with OP post was:
1. Demanding a 50MT blast, which is five hundred times larger than a 100kt blast, and would thus require five hundred cargo ships of explosives to work.
2. Demanding that those five hundred cargo ships of explosives be put on a rocket. I can't even imagine what kind of propellant you would need to launch that into orbit.

Ironically you might be able to do it with an orion drive but using a nuke to launch conventional explosives is pants on head retarded

As long as you abandon these two notions and are fine with sailing a ship loaded with explosives into an enemy harbor or next to an enemy city, you can easily replicate the effect of a nuke.

It's not a nuclear weapon if the warhead is not nuclear, therefore it makes sense if you want to avoid a nuclear war :^)

Kilotons not megatons sorry.

Also this you could make a cargo ship IED as powerful as the Hiroshima's bomb with relatively little work (for a government).

Attached: ff95425fb18d3492a68a6ab00d4d2f841cd288fbcedde6945667f079d58ca3fd.jpeg (333x333, 16.91K)

Has anyone ever tried using nukes to spread nerve agents over a wide area?

Speaking of nukes, could nuclear power plants be used for a similar effect? Allegedly, if you melt down all the reactors, it should create enough of a stink to fuck up everyone's shit on the continent. So why not use it for MAD? "Nuke me and I'll crash this continent with no survivors"

That's not how reactors work. Bombs require a very specific configuration of fissile material. Fissile material is material that is not just radioactive, but very radioactive. U-238 has a half-life of over 4.4 billion years. Pu-239 has a half-life of around 25,000 years, over 100,000 times more radioactive than U-238. Now you don't need to go to that extreme to make a weapon, isotopes about 50 times more radioactive will do, but weapons require those specific isotopes that can sustain a chain reaction without the aid of a moderator.

Power reactors are designed in such a way so that they can't blow up like a nuclear bomb, the configuration of the fuel in the core is almost always in long, thin rods that make a run-away reaction impossible. In the event of a meltdown too much non-fissile material will get mixed in with the already low-concentration fissile material, and the reaction will eventually stop.

And before you ask, because I know you will, what happened at Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion. It was a steam explosion cause by a pressure spike when the core started to melt at the bottom where the water inlet pipes were. That blocked the pipes and flash boiled the water in the core, and because the plant had been built without any containment structure, or pressure relief system, and all of the automatic safety systems were disabled, and the plant computer that told the operators to stop was ignored, and because the test parameters were not being followed, and because there was no battery system to keep the pumps going until the diesel generators could be brought online, the steam pressure inside the core popped the lid off the top and blew out the roof. With the core exposed the graphite was free to burn, and the smoke carried tiny flecks of fission products and uranium up into the air.

If all of that makes it seem like the commies didn't know how to design or operate a reactor - well, they didn't. But there was never any danger of a multi-megaton blast or any steam explosions happening after the core was open, because any steam produced would have only vented out through the open core. To get a steam explosion you need a closed container for the pressure to build up, otherwise it just vents to the open air and you get a geyser.

Attached is a diagram of a CANDU. You can see that it has multiple safety systems in the core, and all CANDU plants have multiple containment and accident mitigation systems that can operate automatically without power. In the capitalist west safety was more important than saving a buck.

Attached: Isometric-cut-out-view-of-a-pressure-tube-heavywater-reactor-4_W640.jpg (600x856, 123.71K)

I wasn't talking about a nuclear explosion. I was talking about the Chrnobyl scenario, only bigger. Lately, I hear this meme that had all of Chernobyl's reactors went into meltdown, it'd kill half of europe. So I thought, if that is true (and I heavily doubt that), why has nobody weaponised it yet?

What would happen if the Koeberg NPP were to melt down right now?

There is no truth to that at all, it's just a bunch of panic-mongering from ill-informed fans of the HBO miniseries, anti-nuclear activists, and communist party officials who managed the cleanup trying to make themselves and their underlings look heroic. What you're describing would have just made the immediate region around the plant 4x more radioactive. Even badly designed plants do not make good weapons or good targets for terrorists who want to actually kill a lot of people.

hes saying
if a government wanted to could it rig its own nuvlear reactors as a suicide machine, scorched earth policy

answer is yes

same is also true for coal powered plants and oil wells, which would produce almost as much radioactives and far more horrible pollution.

black powder nukes have completely ruined warfare. Wars are meant to be fought by men, blood and guts covering the battlefield. Instead it's going to be a million faggots pissing nonstop so they have enough saltpeter to make a black powder nuke. What a shame.

He asked if deliberate sabotage of a nuclear power reactor could fuck up a whole continent. The answer to that is no. While there would be enough material that if it were all dispersed from an open reactor it would be detectable by sensitive instruments even a few of miles away, no reactor actually has enough material in it to poison a whole continent. Scale is something that most people struggle with, especially with the size of the major geographic features and radiation. While Chernobyl was detectable in Finland and Germany and elsewhere, it didn't actually pose any risk to the people living there. It didn't even pose a serious risk to the people living in most of eastern Europe, only within about 300-500 km of the accident and only until the fire was out and the core was buried in sand. And that risk was for developing cancer later in life, not acute radiation poisoning. ARS only happened to the plant workers, firefighters, and liquidators.

Several medical studies have shown that in every major nuclear disaster, other than the two bombs dropped on Japan and the Kyshtym disaster, panic about radiation has caused more casualties than radiation itself. Fewer than 60 people died at Chernobyl, and only 4,000-10,000 either have or will die of cancer, almost all from thyroid cancer which is one of the most easily treated cancers there is with a 98% survival rate. The fact that that many people died from thyroid cancer is an indictment of the piss poor healthcare system in the Soviet republics.

Attached: f8a0de714630d1cc3ec4d224da7262d7ec1ae2a7dd196e71ec93a928eae6e9e1.jpg (2048x1536, 633.41K)

Attached: 1452636668659-1.png (830x900, 504.85K)

I swear I've fucked up here, because as retarded as 4 airborne shipping containers is, that doesn't seem like much for 1 billion tons of low atomic weight powder. Can a mathfag check that?
Kikepedia says the density of black powder is 1.65g/ml.

Actually no, you misunderstood him and I'm trying to help you understand him, because you lack reading comprehension.

Those are plurals, you're focusing on a single reactor failure.

Also
Intentional release by a state.

There's enough dangerous material in, for example, Russian nuclear reactors to cover the entire planet if they engineered the reactors into large squirt guns throwing the isotopes into the upper atmosphere. The jetstream would circulate it pretty evenly, and kill everyone but countries below the equator.

Why bother when you can drive a truck into a crowd? If you feel like blowing up people then I guess target the public transportation is mid sized cities of the midwest to scare people who would have thought that they're invulnerable because they're not living in NYC.

Maybe blow up school buses, how you would get a bomb onto school buses if you're not a student is beyond me. I wouldn't be surprised if some non-whites blew up 5 school buses of a single school it would be quickly forgotten about because narrative.

detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2019/06/06/detroit-man-charged-triple-lgbtq-killings/1373342001/

nypost.com/2019/06/07/lesbian-couple-beaten-on-london-bus-after-refusing-to-kiss-for-men/

———————

vox.com/2019/2/17/18228444/jussie-smollett-attack-hate-crime-arrest-hoax-empire

Attached: ynte78M.jpg (768x1024, 103.14K)

No I'm not. Even if all 4 reactors at Chernobyl failed in the same way simultaneously it would NOT have poisoned all of Europe. There just isn't enough material in those reactors to do what is being suggested.

No, there really isn't. Remember that this material was extracted from the Earth. It's only dangerous when it's refined and concentrated. The more it spreads out, the less dangerous it becomes, until the increase in radiation is measured in microsieverts.

You're talking about a few thousand or tens of thousand tons of Uranium and products spread through over 2 billion cubic KILOMETERS of air. That's not enough material to have a significant health impact on anyone except those in the immediate vicinity around the (deliberately) compromised plants.

There are not now, nor have there ever been enough nuclear weapons to destroy more than 1/10 of this planet's surface. And there are not enough nuclear reactors in any one place or enough material in those reactors to poison an entire continent. You would just create exclusion zones, thousand square mile bubbles, of land that would be uninhabitable for a few decades to maybe a century depending on how fearful the population is.

It would be an environmental catastrophe of unprecedented proportions, but it would not be the end of the world. Remember that nuclear landmines were not supposed to stop Soviet advances in Europe, only slow them down until America could deploy a significant ground force.

I like the fact that somewhere, some group of glow in the darks will have run OP's idea through their threat matrix despite how completely retarded it is.

Retard he's not talking about a single POWER PLANT either, he's talking about using all the reactors of a major country as a part of MAD. He very clearly says that.

How can you be this stupid?

I know that. It still wouldn't make a difference. Continents are big areas. Even if you sabotaged every nuclear power plant in the world to go up like Unit 4 at Chernobyl, it still wouldn't be enough to kill any continent. There just isn't enough material in all of those plants put together to have that kind of impact. The material would spread out until the concentration is so low that it would be basically harmless except to persons very near the epicenters and people with pre-existing health problems that make them extra vulnerable.

I've included a map. Have a look-see at how there is a YUGE amount of uranium in the western states, Ohio, and the southern Atlantic states. There's more Uranium in the environment in the US alone than in all of the Nuclear power reactors all around the world. And yet, somehow, the entirety of the United States has not turned into a radioactive hellscape populated by rad roaches and super mutants. And it's not all buried deep underground either. If you go into the desert parts of Utah or California or Nevada with a Geiger counter and a geology textbook you will find uranium rocks just lying out in the open. There is uranium dust mixed in with the sand in some places. That's where it comes from, you find it in the environment. It's not produced in a lab, only chemically isolated.

Dose makes the poison. Even if every nuclear power plant in the world were cracked open and the juicy insides were dispersed in a jetstream, it still would not be enough to kill even one continent. Each dead reactor would get its own exclusion zone, but not much else would happen. There would not be a massive die off, and anyone who claims that there would be either doesn't understand how radiation works or where radioisotopes come from, or they're an anti-nuclear activist trying to gin up fear.

Let me be clear: even if you deliberately sabotaged every nuclear power plant in a country so that they all exploded like what happened at Chernobyl, it would NOT poison a whole continent. It would NOT be an effective means of mutually assured destruction. It would NOT stop an invading force. It would NOT kill millions unless those millions lived right next to a blown reactor and did not evacuate or take any precautions against exposure to radioactive material. Radiation is something to be respected, but not feared. Panic over radiation has caused more deaths and injuries than exposure to radiation. Just because you can detect a slight elevation in radiation relative to the normal background doesn't mean you're in any danger.

Attached: usaeu.gif (659x498, 75.64K)

The danger from NPP meltdowns isnt due to the U-238 in them, as you probably know. It's because of the fission products such as caesium which are both more radioactive as well as having higher bioavailability getting spread all over the place.

And they're very short lived. Iodine-131 for example has a half-life of just 8 days. The more radioactive it is, the less time it will be dangerous to be around. And several of those products can be blocked from ingestion or inhalation by minimal masks and coverings, or by saturating an organ or tissue with an inert form of that particular substance.

NPP meltdowns are only dangerous if you're right next to one when it happens. Even a few dozen miles is enough to protect you from most ill effects.

you do realize that you can MAKE nitric acid from sulfur water and potassium nitrate right?? then you only need paint stripper to make tnt.

also RDX ?? where in the ever living fuck are you gonna get large quantity's of Hexamethylenetetramine Dinitrate ?

Why are you talking about chernobyl constantly, that was an accident not a premeditated release. It is piss easy to turn any reactor into a weapon let alone dozens of them.

You have done nothing but move goalposts with your first response, nigger isnt it more fun to stay with the original premise and continue it? Do you have a religious stricture against fun or something?

You have done nothing but move goalposts

Let me be perfectly clear: you could take every fuel rod out of every core in every reactor in a country, grind up their contents, put it on a Being 747 converted into an improvised crop duster of death, and use it to spread that shit over your entire country, and still only manage to kill the pilots and ground crew who handled that shit. Nuclear reactors don't contain enough material to kill people unless those people are poking around inside. If you spread that material around over a large area, the amount that any one person would be exposed to is so small that it would have basically zero health effects even long-term. This is why Las Vegas doesn't look like Fallout: New Vegas. There is enough radioactive material in the soil to kill a person, but only if they ate a few tons of that soil.

No, it really isn't. That material is only dangerous if it is very concentrated, and there isn't enough material to work with to make enough fallout to be dangerous over a large geographic area. youtu.be/y5dV3IuNWvU?t=1083

Also, nerve gas isn't that dangerous either. It really only kills if you're right next to the source or in a confined space like a train car or apartment building.

Bottom line: you can't turn nuclear power plants into weapons. Even if you blew up every single one in a country it wouldn't do shit except kill anyone poking around inside. Even if you took all of that material out, ground it up and spread it around with planes, all you would do is get a lot of angry phone calls from neighboring leaders demanding an apology. The only way, and I do mean the ONLY WAY to make a NPP into a weapon is either to pull the fuel rods to make a real nuke (which you can do, but it takes some chemistry and time), or remove the fuel rods and put it out in the open with half cylinder reflectors directing the majority of the radiation toward the enemy and place them along your border like radioactive hedgehogs but for infantry instead of tanks.

If you try to spread the material around to kill a lot of people you'll make it too dilute to actually kill anyone. Dose makes the poison.

If nuclear reactors aren't good enough, what about strategic oil spills mixed in with radioactive material and/or chemical weapons?
Come to think of it, why haven't the US done something like that in the Strait of Hormuz?
Why not impale a few turks on the rods for good measure?

Attached: ce91f3eb860c3257764e806973e6c448791ebec43d392519ec0864b7d89935e8.png (700x900, 573.32K)

I fucking knew it had to be bullshit. The meme from the Chernobyl show is thus completely false, and meant for alarmism. Fucking kikes

Because they love the Saudis

Friendly reminder that if the BOP fails on a rig, it'll blow out a firebomb the size of Hiroshima. We only drill to roughly 22,000 feet right now, but when we use up the 22,000 feet reserves, we'll start tapping into the 30,000+ feet reserves and then Deepwater Horizon will look like a joke when some fucking drill team fucks shit up hoping to go an extra 5 feet an hour of depth to get their bonus from Chesapeake or Shell or whoever.

Reminder that most rig crews are getting replaced by inbred saudis, they keep liquidating themselves on high pressure pipes. It's only a matter of time

Nuclear reactors are good enough, this guy is just retarded. Preload tgem with dangerous isotopes, and use the reactor to geyser steam explosively from it 24/7

Professors at my university in physics, chemistry, biology, mechanical engineering, and nuclear engineering disagree with you. That linked video was produced by Dr. Phil Mason, a chemist and physicist, and he disagrees with you. All of the experts versus an anonymous leaf that hasn't backed up his claims with anything.

I'm not saying you're wrong because you're a non-expert with an unsupported position, but you are more likely to be wrong because you're not trained in any relevant field and you have provided no evidence to support your claim.

I was told that you can't even work on offshore rigs any more unless you're the driller or toolpusher. They won't even hire Mexicans because Mexicans are too expensive, the rig crew is made up of random east Asians they can pay literal pennies.

This is just top-tier b8, I salute you.

This guy spoke to all his professors about a Zig Forums thread.

I wonder if you explained what we actually mean or if you strawmanned it, because it seems you don't actually understand what WEAPONIZING ALL THE NUCLEAR REACTORS IN AN ENTIRE NATION would do.

Reminder that inflation and taxation in the west is what causes us to have higher wage requirements than chinkos.

On oil:

1.65 g/ml is 1.65 tons/m3
So that makes 60 million cubic meters (1km x 1 km x 60m for example) for 100 million tons.
Good luck moving that

Holy shit, is this true?

You must be pretty ignorant.
All supermarket and mom&pop stores have to charge you extra 21% (19% in Germany) here for personal sales and consumption. Put that on the already between at least 30%-45% taxes and (((insurance))) and you easily pass the 50% mark.
Thank you huwhite brothers of america and soviet unions for liberating us. Based huwhite (((capitalist))) (((democracy))).

Oh wait, it is (((social))) (((democracy))), or is it?

Attached: I miss Onkel Adi.jpg (599x600, 53.4K)

In the west your boss gets taxed on any materials or products he ships into the country, he gets taxed on making profit or on losing money, he also gets taxed on having employees. Long story shart your boss is taxed so he can give you less money.
Then you get taxed so you can have less money, then this small amount of money is inflated so it will be worth less, and if you have the temerity to want to buy something with it you will be punished with another kind of tax on the product itself, and the price of the product is already inflated because anyone dumb enough to import it (or make it here) gets taxed and forced to hire people for $15/hr to do a job that is worth only $14/hr.

Basically its a miracle that we are still around.

>(((insurance)))
Dont forget the fees, fines and LICENSES to fucking exist. I have to pay $140 for my air conditioning unit license every month. This is not counting the AC itself, or the power it consumes. Its just a fucking license.

Also our government added a tax on fuel and heating in the middle of winter, collected $400+ per person, and gave people a $154 carbon tax credit that some retards actually applauded.

lol letting the government know you have an AC or six.