Index Page | Login Page | Registration Page
PREVIOUS MESSAGE(S)
'I thought a cigarette was more traditional' posted by EofS - 09/10/2007, 22:26:16
'No morning-afterpill, so it can't be that dirty' posted by Sessy - 16/10/2007, 03:54:03
'Yeah well...' posted by NovaFlash - 16/10/2007, 16:31:36

CURRENT MESSAGE

It's highly <a href=
It's highly unelilky that anyone would use enriched uranium in a penetration/incendiary device.The main reason is that it's really expensive - why would you spend a fortune on enrichment and then use it in a kinetic energy weapon, when there is a large amount of cheap depleted uranium available? If one wanted to make a radiological weapon, a gamma emmiter like Cobalt 90 (unchecked) would be much more effective and cheaper.There is also the problem that if you used high-enriched uranium in a non-fission weapon, you'd have the risk of a criticality accident in storage - not to mention that if the aircraft/tank crashed or was captured, your opponents would be able to use the material to build their own nuke.I find it unelilky that they've developed a micro-nuke based on fission. I don't believe it's physically possible to have less than several kilos of U235 and still have an explosion. (I'd be more inclined to believe that someone had made a micro-fusion weapon using a laser to initiate tritium - but would suspect that's in the realm of science fiction).





(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Nordin

MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
20 december 2014, 06:19:24

AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
117.169.1.111




REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE

- no replies yet -



REPLY FORM

name:
email:
title:
message:
Please type the text of the image below into the text box here to confirm that you are human, before posting a comment:

  sign post using your signature    |      no text
    
Index Page | Login Page | Registration Page
















message was viewed 192 time(s).