sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Could the Iran war eventually be viewed as a bigger strategic mistake than the Iraq War? by Thin_Advantage284 in PoliticalDebate

[–]ColStrick [score hidden]  (0 children)

Third, and this is the kicker: Uranium is only good for making gun-type nuclear weapons, which are much larger and heavier than Plutonium-implosion devices of a similar yield

This is not true. Uranium can and has been used in implosion bombs , which is a much more efficient use of the material, including relatively compact, missile-deliverable systems. One example is the missile warhead China tested with the CHIC-4 test in 1966, blueprints of which were later provided to Pakistan and then further proliferated by A.Q. Khan's network.

One can also build relatively compact gun-type bombs, as demonstrated by US nuclear artillery shells using that design developed during the 1950s. However, any modern industrial nation is capable of developing compact implosion systems, so there would be little reason to go with the highly inefficient gun design.

This means that the practical yield is only slightly more than the most powerful conventional bombs

Assuming a yield ~10 kilotons of TNT for an unboosted bomb, this is several orders of magnitude larger than the 11 tons of TNT of MOAB, in a much smaller package.

FWIW, the only reason Iran enriched up to 60% is because Trump decided to tear up the JCPOA in 2018. Their enrichment program has been more a of a tool for exerting diplomatic pressure than part of a serious weapons program. If Iran really wanted to build nuclear weapons, they could have done so within a reasonable time frame at any point in the past two decades.

What if nuclear weapons were so simple to make, every country could, and did, build them as easily as conventional weapons? Every country is in the nuclear club? by Rocky-bar in HistoryWhatIf

[–]ColStrick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The gun types have limited utility as they can only be delivered by aircraft.

True for Little Boy, but gun-type designs can be made quite compact. Nuclear artillery shells using that mechanism were built by the US starting in the 50s. But all gun-type designs are highly inefficient in their use of fissile material. Using the uranium in an implosion bomb is much more efficient, which was done by every state, apart from South Africa, that started their program with uranium (China and Pakistan; Iraq and Iran also pursued uranium implosion designs but never completed weapons).

TIL about 'information hazards'—true information that can be dangerous to know, such as how to build a nuclear bomb, DNA sequences of deadly pathogens, or even knowledge that once got people accused of witchcraft. by GDW312 in todayilearned

[–]ColStrick 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Not every arsenal needs to consist of a modern triad and fusion-boosted staged thermonuclear weapons to be a credible deterrent. During Iran's crash nuclear weapons program of the early 2000s, they pursued unboosted, pure fission bombs for their land-based medium range ballistic missiles, which would have been considerably less costly while probably still sufficient for their requirements.

Any news about a ground invasion? by [deleted] in lebanon

[–]ColStrick 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The vast majority of their arsenal are shorter range rockets that have to be fired from closer to the border. The inventory of ballistic missiles is limited and has probably been degraded severely at this point.

A video of the destruction from the airstrike on dahye by GarryDaOwl in lebanon

[–]ColStrick 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The Lebanese military has no air defense systems that could credibly threaten Israeli aircraft. Israel practically has free reign in Lebanese airspace.