is it really that hard do make a nuke?

>>16706798 (OP)
All the conventional explosive lenses have to go off around the stuff within 10 billionths of a second of each other. For me that would be the tricky part, enriching uranium is just a patience game I imagine

>>16706798 (OP)
at this point you probably can make it off parts found in wallmart

>>16706798 (OP)
The main hard part is getting the enriched uranium. The most basic bomb is literally just clapping two small pieces of uranium into one bigger one which then goes boom all on its own because science.

nukes are useful for destroying hardened targets, usually bases that house other nukes. For pure deterrence you just need fentanyl

>>16706804
just make a gun style bomb instead of an implosion style one.

>>16706829
This. Getting 90%+ U-235 is really hard. Building the actual nuke can be done by undergrads in weeks/months. This is for a uranium gun-type fission bomb. A plutonium implosion device, on the other hand, is a lot more complicated to assemble.

>>16706855
This is the deterrence against the fentanyl.

>>16707499
As well as entire opiate trafficking regimes for that matter.

>>16706829
A gas centrifuge is the cheapest way, but ethically speaking, I believe that we should only enrich nuclear materials for generating clean energy. There is no ethical way to use a nuclear weapon. It poisons the land, soil, and air.

>>16706798 (OP)
Yes. It is incredibly hard. The theory is rather simple and a competent team of physicians will have that down after finishing studies.
Putting everything in practice is hard. Starts with the simple things, like how rare 235U and plutonium are and how to seperate them to getting your subcritical mass to go critical and so on. And then you'll need to test your ideas after thinking them through really well. Every such test needs alot of work in the preparation alone, data acquisition and interpretation is hard and so on.
IMO nukes are a spook and developing nukes in current year is not worth it. There's plenty of other means to achieve your goal. The only reason organizations put their mind towards it is the nukes nimbus. They either understand NPCs still fall for the spook or they themselves overestimate the utility of nukes.
Also delivery is incredibly complicated again. Having a nuke doesn't really do much for you if you can't deliver it.

>>16707519
>Also delivery is incredibly complicated again

It’s not that complicated to put it in a container and ship it to its destination.

>>16707543
So it explodes on ground level, if not detected thanks to its tell tale signature? Achieves relatively unimpressive results? And again: Whatever goal you're chasing, you could probably achieve it the same for a fraction of the cost and effort using cobventional means. Ofc unless the way the nuke spooks the NPC is somehow integral to your strategy.

>>16707503
Ethically speaking, nuclear weapons is the best thing that has happened to the human race and the pacifist movement.

>>16707551
I’m thinkin for people who can’t build space ships to launch them and governments who want to false flag themselves etc. a nuke in the back of a truck or hidden on a train is a fantastic weapon for terrorists.

How would this tell tale signature be detected?

>>16707792
Sopreza: Using a detector.

>>16707828
In a shipping container lined with 3 feet of lead? I’m actually curious how the detecting works can you assplain?

>>16707578
personally, i believe you and the disgusting jew that made this comic needs to get tortured by having their kike noses slowly lopped off with a linoleum knife

>>16708021
Anon im pretty sure jews would probably suppress the message this comic is trying to convey
they desperately leverage the nuke spook

>>16707551
>achieves relatively unimpressive results

this is an odd sentiment even if I agree the nuke scare is overblown. a modern nuclear detonation in a densely populated city would millions, megaton yields are pretty abundant at this point

>>16707846
It would take about 67 cubic meters of lead to line a shipping container in such a way.
That would amount to a weight of about 760 000 kg without the bomb included.
For reference, most cargo cranes at port loading areas have a maximum lift weight of about 70 000 to 120 000 kg.
I'm pretty sure they are going to notice that at the docks when they are trying to load the container

>>16708116
>im pretty sure jews would probably suppress the message this comic is trying to convey
That's why there's so many "denuclearize" movements all over the place coincidentally

>>16706798 (OP)
>Logistically
No, we understand the things that make a nuke tick fairly well
>Practically
Very delicate process, not "if you fuck this up it blows up" (though that's an option) so much as "if you fuck it up it's a dud"

>>16708177
Ok then use 1ft

>>16708177
Gpt says we only need 2cm for radiation shielding. We’d still have 15 tons within the weight limit to play with

>>16706798 (OP)
im working on one in my garage

It is dangerously simple to make a non-implosion bomb, which is why enriched uranium cannot be allowed to be in the hands of people willing to use it.