Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Missiles & WMDs
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_M1A1_0419a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_1759a.JPG

Nellis_14_2500-1.JPG

Nellis_14_2495-1.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





What does a country need to make Nukes?

This is a discussion on What does a country need to make Nukes? within the Missiles & WMDs forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; If you already have nuclear reactors how far off is actual weapons technology? Is it possible to have nuclear reactors ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old March 26th, 2008   #1
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12
Threads:
What does a country need to make Nukes?

If you already have nuclear reactors how far off is actual weapons technology? Is it possible to have nuclear reactors that can never make weapons grade plutonium?

Even if you have the plutonium is anything else that's hard to obtain needed?
Zechariah is offline  
Old March 26th, 2008   #2
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Khairul Alam's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 134
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zechariah View Post
If you already have nuclear reactors how far off is actual weapons technology? Is it possible to have nuclear reactors that can never make weapons grade plutonium?

Even if you have the plutonium is anything else that's hard to obtain needed?
having nuclear reactors alone wont be sufficient for a country pursuing nuclear weapons. let me explain in layman terms:
the most important component of a nuclear weapon is the fissile (radioactive) material (lets not bring in the hydrogen bomb for the time being, that being dependent on nuclear fusion). now, traditionally two radioactive elements, Uranium-235 and Plutonium have been used. nuclear reactors would help if a country wants to build Plutonium bombs. Now, all nuclear reactors do not produce plutonium. Special heavy water reactors are used to obtain plutonium. So, if u want a uranium bomb instead, u dont need a nuclear reactor to obtain the uranium-235. However, there have been reports that nuclear bombs can also be built out of nuclear waste from reactors. So, having a nuclear reactor is a good option, but not the only option.
Khairul Alam is offline  
Old March 26th, 2008   #3
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12
Threads:
Khairul Alam, thanks, that helps. But what stops every country with Uranium from making atomic weapaons? Is it only international pressure, or is there some scientific component?
Zechariah is offline  
Old March 26th, 2008   #4
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Khairul Alam's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 134
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zechariah View Post
If you already have nuclear reactors how far off is actual weapons technology? Is it possible to have nuclear reactors that can never make weapons grade plutonium?

Even if you have the plutonium is anything else that's hard to obtain needed?
sorry, missed out your last question. well, even if u have tonnes of plutonium, u can go nowhere without a working detonation system (that will actually cause your precious bomb to go off where u want it to). but designs are not hard to obtain (a great deal of designs circulate in the black market). Depending on ur design, u might also need special high-explosives, but i thing developing them isnt very hard for countries.
Khairul Alam is offline  
Old March 26th, 2008   #5
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
Khairul Alam's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 134
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zechariah View Post
Khairul Alam, thanks, that helps. But what stops every country with Uranium from making atomic weapaons? Is it only international pressure, or is there some scientific component?
Did u mean countries with Uranium-235?? You see uranium-235 is really difficult to obtain. Normally, the uranium that is extracted from the earth contains only 0.3% uranium-235. the rest is uranium-238, which cant be used to builb bombs. The technology needed to extract is sophisticated and only a handful of nations can muster it. There are different ways you can extract uranium-235, using diffusion technique, or centrifuge, or even lasers, and all of them are sophisticated.
Khairul Alam is offline  
Old March 26th, 2008   #6
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12
Threads:
Ok got it. Basically to answer my own question, the enrichment process is the hardest part; After that the detonation system.
Zechariah is offline  
Old March 26th, 2008   #7
Banned Member
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 285
Threads:
Enriched uranium alone is useless.

All in all, There are 19 basic steps to produce a nuclear bomb based off enrichment.

First, uranium is enriched through centrifuges upto 90%. After enrichment, uranium has to be converted into metal, then the different high technologies needed for the bomb program have to be developed, like bomb design, trigger mechanism, neutron source, high speed electronics and computers, diagnostic and testing capabilities, ultra high precision chemical and mechancial components for the bomb. Obtaining 50 simlutaneous detonations in the explosive lenses and then producing a high neutron flux in the bomb at the precise moment when the critical mass is obtained, (a very high technological task).

So as you may have realised, it is not easy to produce a nuclear bomb. Even the Indians after being dead ended in their program illegally bought nuclear equipment from the AQ Khan network to achieve a breakthrough in their program.

I hope I answered your question well.
Aliph Ahmed is offline  
Old March 27th, 2008   #8
New Member
Private
militaryman3121's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand, Auckland but now live in whakatane.
Posts: 18
Threads:
really every thing is hard to obtain, find a perioidc table you know all the elements? have a look at the last couple the man made ones i think there is some there that are ingrediants in that, extreamly expensive to make nukes.
militaryman3121 is offline  
Old March 27th, 2008   #9
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12
Threads:
good stuff thanks!
Zechariah is offline  
Old March 27th, 2008   #10
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pattaya
Posts: 242
Threads:
Quote:
Even the Indians after being dead ended in their program illegally bought nuclear equipment from the AQ Khan network to achieve a breakthrough in their program.
Who/What is AQ Khan network ?
Dr Freud is offline  
Old March 27th, 2008   #11
Senior Member
Major
nevidimka's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,002
Threads:
LOL, thats funny, India geting its nuclear tehnology from AQ khan. India had nuclear technology to build the bombs even in the 70's, to say that they got it from AQ Khan network is laughable, also not possible as AQ Khan wouldnt have sold anything related to that to India.
nevidimka is offline  
Old March 27th, 2008   #12
Banned Member
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 285
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevidimka View Post
LOL, thats funny, India geting its nuclear tehnology from AQ khan. India had nuclear technology to build the bombs even in the 70's, to say that they got it from AQ Khan network is laughable, also not possible as AQ Khan wouldnt have sold anything related to that to India.
Only if you have had read the post attentively and sensibly. I was talking about a Centrifuge technology and not the reactor based technology that India experimented with by cheating and lieing to the Canadians by breaking the contract terms to use a civilain reactor CANDU for military purposes and was punished by Canada who ended all engagements.

As for the centrifuge technology, David Albright, who was a UN weapons inspector in Iraq, issued a study blasting India's nuclear procurement practices and trashing India's export control laws and mechanisms. A key allegation in that paper was that state-owned Indian nuclear entities have procured material from elements of the network led by Pakistani proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan and therefore, were able to achieve a breaktrhough in 1997-2003 period !

These are the things you wont get to read on Indian forums. Too much " everything is good and perfect ".
Aliph Ahmed is offline  
Old March 27th, 2008   #13
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
kams's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 647
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevidimka View Post
LOL, thats funny, India geting its nuclear tehnology from AQ khan. India had nuclear technology to build the bombs even in the 70's, to say that they got it from AQ Khan network is laughable, also not possible as AQ Khan wouldnt have sold anything related to that to India.
He is a troll, forget it. He has to drag India in to every topic. It's another matter that Indian weapon program is plutonium based not Uranium based. If you want to know about real Nuclear smuggling, read Adrian Levy and catherine Scott-Clark's book. - Deception.
kams is offline  
Old March 27th, 2008   #14
Banned Member
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 285
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kams View Post
He is a troll, forget it. He has to drag India in to every topic. It's another matter that Indian weapon program is plutonium based not Uranium based. If you want to know about real Nuclear smuggling, read Adrian Levy and catherine Scott-Clark's book. - Deception.
Are you going to dispute what I said ?

Did India not cheated and lied to the Canadians and used Candu reactors (meant for civilian purpose) for military purpose ?

Do India not have an enrichment program despite reactor program being the primary ?

Did India not get punished by Canada where Canada broke all contacts with the Indians when they learnt that India cheated and lied to them?

David Albright's report is wrong? (You cant just pick one report as right and another as wrong) depending on your interests. Whatever.
Aliph Ahmed is offline  
Old March 27th, 2008   #15
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
kams's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 647
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliph Ahmed View Post
Are you going to dispute what I said ?

Did India not cheated and lied to the Canadians and used Candu reactors (meant for civilian purpose) for military purpose ?

Do India not have an enrichment program despite reactor program being the primary ?

Did India not get punished by Canada where Canada broke all contacts with the Indians when they learnt that India cheated and lied to them?

David Albright's report is wrong? (You cant just pick one report as right and another as wrong) depending on your interests. Whatever.
You are 400% right. (Isn't that the favoured expression?). Check out the definition of Troll.

Quote:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]
What you had posted had nothing to do with the topic and the question raised by Zechariah.

Have a great Day/Night.
kams is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:16 PM.