|
Nebakenezzer posted:
It would be trivial for Japan to produce a nuclear weapon were it to decide it wanted one. It's got plenty of plutonium from reprocessing spent fuel, and while it does use it for creating MOX fuel, it could easily stop doing so and instead use it for bombs. Also, they make their own uranium fuel in the first place, they have their own enrichment facilities, and if they really felt like it they could produce HEU for a bomb.
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I'm going to discount the first two, and ask about Japan. According to the article, Japan has a large stockpile of weapons grade plutonium, and a space launch vehicle that is a copy of an American ICBM. So, if they decided to go nuclear, they could do it in very short order. My question is: is this true, or is this some weird leftover yellow peril talk?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Yeah, Japan could do it in theory. But as far as I know a huge majority of the population is very much against nuclear weapons. Now I don't really know how exactly the Japanese government operates and how closely they pay attention to their people, if at all, but assuming they're like a western democracy I don't think this would fly. Same thing goes for Germany. Over here there's a huge stigma attached to anything resembling a buildup of offensive military capacities. So this would definitely never get funded or in the unlikely event that it did, there would be a huge outcry. Though if we were building them for export, that I could sort of see. Nobody seems to have any real problems with us exporting all kinds of weaponry to god knows who.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
grover posted:Nuclear weapons are 40s/50s technology; the only hurdle for any advanced nation to build a weapon is material, which Japan (and pretty much any other nation with nuclear power) has; otherwise, it takes a very large scale operation to enrich enough uranium for a uranium weapon or create enough plutonium for a compact implosion weapon. Japan would easily be able to make a fission device if they chose to do so. They would have to do additional testing for a compact multi-stage fusion device, but the physics is well-known and if they embarked on a crash course, I have no doubt they could do this in 2 years as well. Another thing to note is that basic fission weapons are pretty straightforward to produce nowadays so long as you have money and preferably some native precision engineering and manufacturing capability. Thermonuclear weapons on the other hand are still very difficult to achieve. There are much greater requirements for the shape and timing of the explosives used, and the actual mechanism for getting the secondary phase to ignite is still a closely held secret. Perfecting the 'fusion bomb' is one of the reasons why everyone was blowing up so many nukes back in the 50s and 60s - it takes a great deal of real-world trial and error to get them to work correctly.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
ruebennase posted:Though if we were building them for export, that I could sort of see. Nobody seems to have any real problems with us exporting all kinds of weaponry to god knows who. Who the hell would you sell them to that wouldn't create a massive international shitstorm?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Who the hell would you sell them to that wouldn't create a massive international shitstorm? As far as I know we sold equipment and raw materials to produce chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, tanks to Turkey, land mines (and mine-clearing equipment) to both Serbians AND Bosnians, submarines to Pakistan (and Israel) and pretty much everything we inherited from the East German army to anybody who wanted it, so I would guess international shitstorms are not really a concern.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
/\ Nukes != chem, bio, or anything else. Not only are the precursors for those items a lot more deniable than nukes (No, these are totally for health care/pesticide/whatever research or production, not to develop chemical or biological weapons vs No, we just gave them knowledge and equipment to highly enrich Uranium because...) but nukes are just different. Period.Nebakenezzer posted:Good question. South Africa? Israel? South Africa yes, Israel not so much. Look at the Lavi for an example of them at their absolute worst, and the only reason they appear as good as they do is the insane amounts of money their defense industry gets from the U.S. Their defense industry might be in better shape than the U.S.'s, but that's really not saying anything. To expand on the "insane amounts of money" bit, not only does it allow them to throw money at a problem to a degree unrivaled by anyone except the U.S., the vast majority of their equipment (particularly in the air regime) is foreign equipment (used to be French, now it's U.S.) modified/improved upon by IAI or whoever. There's a BIG difference between taking a fighter (that you got for a steal due to U.S. military aid policies) that someone else researched, designed, and built and then putting some of your own avionics and/or weapons on it vs designing a fighter from scratch. ruebennase posted:Yeah, Japan could do it in theory. But as far as I know a huge majority of the population is very much against nuclear weapons. Combine a withdrawal of the U.S. military umbrella (conventional and otherwise) along with an increasingly aggressive China and see what happens (I'm obviously talking theoretical 25-30 years down the road, here). wdarkk posted:Who the hell would you sell them to that wouldn't create a massive international shitstorm? And yes, exporting nuclear weapons these days would create an international (and domestic) shitstorm of epic proportions. The only way we get away with the facade of NATO Nuclear Sharing is because a) it started during the height of the Cold War (and was kept secret for several years after its implementation) and b) it technically doesn't violate the NPT. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 19:14 on May 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
Are the Japanese even allowed by their constitution to make nuclear weapons?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:Are the Japanese even allowed by their constitution to make nuclear weapons? The Constitution only precludes the possession of "offensive" weapon capabilities...the definition of "defensive" has been stretched in recent years to include a "helicopter destroyer" that is an amphibious assault ship with half the displacement of a Wasp-class vessel. Those who favor a nuclearized Japanese
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:South Africa yes Ha ha ha ha.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
I was more looking at it from the angle of "can provide indigenously developed hardware on spec, on time, and at an affordable cost." I've got no doubt that the South Africa defense industry is corrupt as gently caress...in addition to the standard corruption factor of "it's the arms industry" you have the apartheid angle as well as the fact that they provide arms to lots of countries in Africa, which as we all know is generally a paragon of openness and transparency in government. \/ Good point. I guess I just assume that the question regarding corruption in the arms industry isn't "is there?" but rather "how much?" so that's kind of a blind spot for me. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 22:34 on May 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I was more looking at it from the angle of "can provide indigenously developed hardware on spec, on time, and at an affordable cost." I've got no doubt that the South Africa defense industry is corrupt as gently caress...in addition to the standard corruption factor of "it's the arms industry" you have the apartheid angle as well as the fact that they provide arms to lots of countries in Africa, which as we all know is generally a paragon of openness and transparency in government. Well the question was "does *any* government have a military procurement process that isn't an utter Mongolian cluster gently caress?" so I guess that's a resounding no on South Africa's part. I wouldn't know how their indigenous industry is doing but after hearing some very negative first hand accounts about what the the last couple of ANC years have done to farming I'm skeptical.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Nuclear weapons, in design engineering, materials and fabrication, are significantly different from (particularly civilian) nuclear power plants. Building a working prototype bomb is a significant endeavour even for a modernized industrial nation, and building one reliable and compact enough for actual delivery is a whole 'nother order of magnitude. North Korea, which contrary to propaganda is not full of imbeciles, has had at least three dud detonations; India and Pakistan have both (probably) popped duds. We're not talking the trial-and-error goofs the US had with our testing, by now the science is fairly well known and computer modelling plenty capable. Realistically any country that wants to join the nuke-capable cool kids club is going to do it by licensing existing designs AND fabrication, stealing same via espionage, or they'll need a significantly non-trivial development program and a very healthy chunk of time before they have a viable weapon. That kind of commitment generally requires existential panic (Cold War / Israel / India-Pak) or boundless megalomania, which I think is why so far the South Americans, the Turks, and the Japs haven't pushed for the Bomb hard yet. The US has sold designs, materials (if not complete warheads) and delivery systems to England in the past, I imagine we would supply Japan or Australia with existing stockpile warheads if they needed them, rather than have them develop their own. There's already some (very loose) speculation about selling Virginia-class SSNs to Australia to fattened up Westpac boat population, in theory any of those would be nuclear deterrent capable. Also while googling around I saw that India has a nuclear-powered SSBN, didn't know this
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
While NK isn't necessarily filled with idiots, I also imagine they really have a hard time getting even semi-modern equipment. Even China doesn't really like North Korea and they are the closest thing to a friend they have. I'm loving sure they would try to avoid giving them stuff that easily converts to nuclear work.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Building a working prototype bomb is a significant endeavour even for a modernized industrial nation, and building one reliable and compact enough for actual delivery is a whole 'nother order of magnitude. North Korea, which contrary to propaganda is not full of imbeciles, has had at least three dud detonations; India and Pakistan have both (probably) popped duds. We're not talking the trial-and-error goofs the US had with our testing, by now the science is fairly well known and computer modelling plenty capable. Realistically any country that wants to join the nuke-capable cool kids club is going to do it by licensing existing designs AND fabrication, stealing same via espionage, or they'll need a significantly non-trivial development program and a very healthy chunk of time before they have a viable weapon. As you say, the science is fairly well-known and computer modelling plenty capable. The gun-type uranium bomb is so simple that the US didn't even feel it necessary to test it before dropping the first one ever built onto a city. Other than the basic science necessary to determine the parameters of the device, the major issue was producing the several dozen kilograms of highly enriched uranium to make it go boom and Japan already has its own enrichment facilities so they sure as hell wouldn't be starting from scratch.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:which I think is why so far the South Americans, the Turks, and the Japs haven't pushed for the Bomb hard yet. Both Brazil and Argentina had a nuclear program at one time. Brazil was more advanced with actual work towards a bomb, while I think Argentina was more or less bluffing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
East German Mig 21 at the Canadian air force museum in Trenton http://i.imgur.com/JGbXc.jpg
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It would be trivial for Japan to produce a nuclear weapon were it to decide it wanted one. It's got plenty of plutonium from reprocessing spent fuel, and while it does use it for creating MOX fuel, it could easily stop doing so and instead use it for bombs. Also, they make their own uranium fuel in the first place, they have their own enrichment facilities, and if they really felt like it they could produce HEU for a bomb. This is absolutely false. Plutonium from reprocessing light-water reactor fuel (Japan's reactors) is far too isotopically impure (Pu-241 develops over time and causes premature criticality) to be used in weapons. Reprocessing specially burned uranium-238 targets in reactors that can be fueled online is the way to make plutonium. Japan on the other hand has tons of uranium enrichment capacity, so why would it need plutonium?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
Methods aside, I think we can all agree that Japan has plenty of technological know how, money, and precision capability to complete such a project. Sure, the need for an enrichment process adds a certain fixed timeline to the progression towards a working bomb, but I don't think anyone is going to imply the Japanese lack the science or manufacturing know how.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
 Apparently the extinguisher system prematurely ejaculated.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
Memento1979 posted:
Is someone going to get yelled at for this?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is someone going to get yelled at for this? If they can find him.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
Memento1979 posted:
This is amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:Is someone going to get yelled at for this? I have a feeling if he just got yelled at he's probably really lucky.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
AFFF is a motherfucker
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
What's up with the three different types of aircraft in a single hangar, is this a Hollywood set?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
Memento1979 posted:Best game of marco polo.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:AFFF is a motherfucker Wouldn't that be High Expansion foam, or whatever that's called? I remember AFFF as that filmy, stinky stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
How far out of the building did that stuff go? Also, A10, F15 and F16? Edit: uh, something seems to be a little off at the F15's tail.
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Also, A10, F15 and F16? Yup
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
The fact that the level of "white stuff" seems to be consistent both inside and outside the hangar makes me think snow, personally. Either that or the USAF over-engineered the poo poo out of their hangar fire suppressant. "better coat the entire tarmac, you can never be sure."
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
It doesn't look like snow at all. The only time I ever dealt with a fixed foam hangar system, it was designed to fill the entire volume of the (Very small) hangar, so I'm guessing that's where all that extra foam outside came from.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRW-uD6n0vE
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:How far out of the building did that stuff go? I guess they took that rudder off  Looks like they are working on it, as the ailerons are missing their skin as well. (or there is a panel off the wing).
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
Wibbleman posted:I guess they took that rudder off
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 02:32
|
|
grover posted:It's almost like they were in the hanger for maintenance! Sarcasm: the only weapon that your average air force member will actually get to use.
|
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Where is this bubble bath, Nellis?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
This is from Eglin AFB, it happened a few weeks ago...I've got a friend in mx that sent me pictures of it from the outside. I never got the complete story as for what caused it, but it was definitely an inadvertent activation (as you can tell by the opened panels on the Eagle.) The different types of jets are due to the fact that one of the wings at Eglin is a test wing (observe the OT and ET tail flashes) so they have a bunch of different types of jets between a couple of AMUs in the MXG. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 03:34 on May 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 03:31
|
|
|
Psion posted:Either that or the USAF over-engineered the poo poo out of their hangar fire suppressant. Well, I've learned something today.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 05:41 |
|
|
Thanks for the background info iyaayas, I just pulled the pic off another forum and thought you gents would find it interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 04:54
|
|