Aren't pure fusion bombs hypotheticals? I think it's turning more into a game of use the NORKs words against them. This sounds like they themselves wrote it
Yes, but they have never been tested on a human population to my knowledge. I know for an absolute fact that the US military has carefully tracked the outcomes for all of the people who suffered illnesses from the Hiroshima bombing. I imagine that they want the same type of data for the hydrogen bomb.
I respectfully disagree. Developed 60 years ago and they finally decide now is the time to see what they do? There is plenty of ways to test the effects of ionized radiation on people, looking at you Fukushima. Fall out radiation is mostly a fission by product. Our weapons are fission to fusion, for the hydrogen bomb. Hydrogen bombs produce less fallout because of this 2nd fusion stage. But increased likely hood of fizzles and more radioactive material, so scientists like Teller jumped at the difficulty of designing the more challenging to perfect hydrogen bomb
But I digress, the weaponization of nuclear bombs is wholly dedicated towards miniaturization and has been some time. It's not a pissing contest of who has a bigger bomb anymore.
I think you probably saw me talking in the same thread the other day about this topic. If the allied plan was intended, hiroshima was the hq of the 2nd general army, which was tasked with defending southern Japan. The operation saw the alles taking southern Japan first. It tend have strategic intentions.
And that's kinding implying the first nuclear explosion was the atomic bombings, which would be discrediting the proof of concept with the Trinity test..
Strictly speaking, I don't think that you need to. But, they might want a field test to confirm their models. Then, there is always the scaring the Chinese/Russians aspect of it.
Sounds almost biblical. Are 'fire and fury' used together in the Book of Revelation? Or is he just trying out for a Game of Thrones cameo, like Ed Sheeran?
32 comments
1 rimper 2017-08-09
/r/angsty
1 jdotg 2017-08-09
Aren't pure fusion bombs hypotheticals? I think it's turning more into a game of use the NORKs words against them. This sounds like they themselves wrote it
1 WisperingPenis 2017-08-09
I am not talking about pure fusion bombs. I mean the regular hydrogen bombs that we had in the 80s.
1 jdotg 2017-08-09
But we've already seen those and those were developed in the 50s
1 codaclouds 2017-08-09
too bad none of them work. don't tell nk...
1 jdotg 2017-08-09
You aren't one of those nukes aren't real people, right. I saw that floating around here yesterday.
1 codaclouds 2017-08-09
particle physics is a joke and if you aren't in on it....
1 jdotg 2017-08-09
How so? I'm still making up my mind. It'd help a lot more if you could provide something more substantial to flesh out your opinion.
It's hard to argue the science when I've seen it in action peacefully, and videos of it used with the intent of aggression
1 WisperingPenis 2017-08-09
Yes, but they have never been tested on a human population to my knowledge. I know for an absolute fact that the US military has carefully tracked the outcomes for all of the people who suffered illnesses from the Hiroshima bombing. I imagine that they want the same type of data for the hydrogen bomb.
1 jdotg 2017-08-09
I respectfully disagree. Developed 60 years ago and they finally decide now is the time to see what they do? There is plenty of ways to test the effects of ionized radiation on people, looking at you Fukushima. Fall out radiation is mostly a fission by product. Our weapons are fission to fusion, for the hydrogen bomb. Hydrogen bombs produce less fallout because of this 2nd fusion stage. But increased likely hood of fizzles and more radioactive material, so scientists like Teller jumped at the difficulty of designing the more challenging to perfect hydrogen bomb
But I digress, the weaponization of nuclear bombs is wholly dedicated towards miniaturization and has been some time. It's not a pissing contest of who has a bigger bomb anymore.
1 WisperingPenis 2017-08-09
I am just trying to read the meaning of Trump's statement.
It might be more political than medical, but that is not what I originally thought.
I never said anything about size.
1 jdotg 2017-08-09
Just playing devil's advocate here
1 Antifactist 2017-08-09
Nuclear Weapons were hypothetical until we dropped them on two Japanese Civilian cities which didnt have any air defended.
1 jdotg 2017-08-09
I think you probably saw me talking in the same thread the other day about this topic. If the allied plan was intended, hiroshima was the hq of the 2nd general army, which was tasked with defending southern Japan. The operation saw the alles taking southern Japan first. It tend have strategic intentions.
And that's kinding implying the first nuclear explosion was the atomic bombings, which would be discrediting the proof of concept with the Trinity test..
1 Terex80 2017-08-09
Don't need them. The bombs we had in 80s were far far more powerful than the ones used on Japan
1 WisperingPenis 2017-08-09
Those are what I am talking about.
1 Terex80 2017-08-09
Hydrogen bombs have been tested before I'm pretty sure
1 WisperingPenis 2017-08-09
on humans?
1 Terex80 2017-08-09
Why do you need to? We know how they work
1 WisperingPenis 2017-08-09
Strictly speaking, I don't think that you need to. But, they might want a field test to confirm their models. Then, there is always the scaring the Chinese/Russians aspect of it.
1 Terex80 2017-08-09
No. We know the effects on humans of nuclear explosions. We also know the rough size of the explosion
Scaring them into nuclear war?
You're grasping at straws
1 WisperingPenis 2017-08-09
Ok. So, I overreached.
1 Terex80 2017-08-09
Right... and?
1 EricCarver 2017-08-09
I wonder if he is talking in hyperbole in a way that will be relatable to the NK leads.
1 WisperingPenis 2017-08-09
I thought he was talking very clearly to convey information about the type of bomb.....
1 EricCarver 2017-08-09
He is a mystery to me. I don't get the 17 day vacation thing, I don't get why he is talking so warlike, I just don't know.
Seems like shit is about to hit the fan, any way you shake it.
1 WisperingPenis 2017-08-09
Even if they are just barking, it seems like it could go wrong easily.
1 EricCarver 2017-08-09
agreed. Even if NK has nothing to back up their own claims, the country is in China's back yard. It really should be up to China to get them in line.
1 WTCMolybdenum4753 2017-08-09
The military in general brings fire and fury
1 EricCarver 2017-08-09
and 'shock and awe'.
1 The_All_Golden 2017-08-09
We're just going to do what we do best, slaughter third world peasants en masse!
1 Pologrounds 2017-08-09
Sounds almost biblical. Are 'fire and fury' used together in the Book of Revelation? Or is he just trying out for a Game of Thrones cameo, like Ed Sheeran?
1 jdotg 2017-08-09
How so? I'm still making up my mind. It'd help a lot more if you could provide something more substantial to flesh out your opinion.
It's hard to argue the science when I've seen it in action peacefully, and videos of it used with the intent of aggression
1 Terex80 2017-08-09
No. We know the effects on humans of nuclear explosions. We also know the rough size of the explosion
Scaring them into nuclear war?
You're grasping at straws