US Air Force successfully test drops NUCLEAR gravity bomb

[GennGreymane]

So if I pick up a nuke and throw it out a window, is it a gravity bomb ?

[yetgdhfgh]

So if I pick up a nuke and throw it out a window, is it a gravity bomb ?

Depends if you live on earth or outer space

[GennGreymane]

Depends if you live on earth or outer space

i live on mars.

[yetgdhfgh]

i live on mars.

Well i guess it would be 38% of a gravity bomb

[GennGreymane]

Well i guess it would be 38% of a gravity bomb

thats pretty sick

[Barnabas]

No horses were injured or killed during this test.

[Sneezeburger]

No horses were injured or killed during this test.

Physically hurt.

[Zeta333]

Calling for the death of everyone who disagrees with you is not acceptable.

are you offended?

[Kellhound]

So if I pick up a nuke and throw it out a window, is it a gravity bomb ?

Only if it is designed to arm itself and detonate from such an action.

[Gaaz]

The introduction of tritium has a significant impact on the yield, both in fission and as the primary fuel for fusion. Controlling the amount of tritium available controls the yield.

Look, you have 2 options here. You either utilise ALL fuel in an explosion or a part of it. The choice is binary. There is no maybe in a yes-no scenario. If you use all of tritium / Lithium 6, you create a maximum yield "clean" explosion. Or I should probably say "cleaner" as reaction is never fully 100%. If for some reason you do not use all of it in a chain reaction in order to limit the explosion, leftovers do not dissapear. They are scatered all over the place. And you are left with tritium / uranium / plutonium / lithium etc... poisoning of the area. Let me be clear, you CAN limit the explosion power of a thermonuclear device. One way would be to limit x-ray intensity from the primary core by not making it detonate 100% efficiently and not use all of the Plutonium and Uranium in a chain reaction. But doing so makes it dirty. The other is to dump lithium 6 from the secondary core. But I am not sure that is possible without compromising device integrity. It can certainly be done to sabotage the device, and it will result in a less than a 100% reaction of the Uranium 238 shell and plutonium center core. And again, that will make the device dirty. Lithium 6 and tritium are just catalysts for the reaction. If you remove these catalysts, the explosion will simply not utilise 100% material and you will have a dirty bomb North Korea style. More so, tritium itself is radioactive. So if you have it in pure form, unless it is used in the reaction, it is dispersed over the area.
Well, that is my understanding of all that from the words of my father. He does not really like to talk about his service years in the nuclear unit, and I am not going to press it further.

[Hooked]

I don't like this, the reason being is that they are making nukes smaller and easier to lose them. Plus they are going to put these in places like turkey that probably shouldn't have access to them because I don't think turkey will be part of nato much longer.

[Gorgodeus]

I thought there was an international treaty forbidding above ground nuke testing. Guess not. Anyhow, whats the big deal about a gravity bomb, that's as low tech as it gets right?

The one tested had no nuclear components. An adjustable, variable yield tactical nuclear bomb, that is accurate to within 30 meters, and can be carried by fighter aircraft, is not what I would call low-tech.

[Kellhound]

Look, you have 2 options here. You either utilise ALL fuel in an explosion or a part of it. The choice is binary. There is no maybe in a yes-no scenario. If you use all of tritium / Lithium 6, you create a maximum yield "clean" explosion. Or I should probably say "cleaner" as reaction is never fully 100%. If for some reason you do not use all of it in a chain reaction in order to limit the explosion, leftovers do not dissapear. They are scatered all over the place. And you are left with tritium poisoning of the area. Let me be clear, you CAN limit the explosion power of a thermonuclear device. One way would be to limit x-ray intensity from the primary core by not making it detonate 100% efficiently and not use all of the Plutonium and Uranium in a chain reaction. But doing so makes it dirty. The other is to dump lithium 6 from the secondary core. But I am not sure that is possible without compromising device integrity. It can certainly be done to sabotage the device, and it will result in a less than a 100% reaction of the Uranium 238 shell and plutonium center core. And again, that will make the device dirty. Lithium 6 and tritium are just catalysts for the reaction. If you remove these catalysts, the explosion will simply not utilise 100% material and you will have a dirty bomb North Korea style. More so, tritium itself is radioactive. So if you have it in pure form, unless it is used in the reaction, it is dispersed over the area.
Well, that is my understanding of all that from the words of my father. He does not really like to talk about his service years in the nuclear unit, and I am not going to press it further.

I cannot and will not discuss the inner workings of nuclear weapons beyond what is freely available and widely quoted. I have reached the end of that.

[Zabatakis]

The one tested had no nuclear components. An adjustable, variable yield tactical nuclear bomb, that is accurate to within 30 meters, and can be carried by fighter aircraft, is not what I would call low-tech.

Well besides blowing up the death star I can't see a huge need for accuracy of that degree on a nuke.

[Gorgodeus]

Well besides blowing up the death star I can't see a huge need for accuracy of that degree on a nuke.

When using tactical nuclear weapons, the more accurate the weapon, the lower the yield needed.

[Kellhound]

I don't like this, the reason being is that they are making nukes smaller and easier to lose them. Plus they are going to put these in places like turkey that probably shouldn't have access to them because I don't think turkey will be part of nato much longer.

The B-61 has been in service for decades, and is much larger than the W58 used in the Davy Crockett, AIM-26, or SADM. Plus, the B-61 has been deployed to Turkey in the nuclear sharing program for some time.

[Deleted]

Wow nice.
Since NK is posing threat I hope US tests their new toy on them, poor Kim, flexing his muscles and failing miserably.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...t-Range-Nevada

“non-nuclear test assembly"
Read your sources

[Kellhound]

I promise not to tell. You can trust me.

In God I trust, all others I monitor.

[Leih]

Today the US revealed they are able to drop bombs from planes. Next in other things people have been doing for 100 years...

[Kuntantee]

USA is more likely to nuke someone than NK. They are the real danger when it comes to nuclear threat.