Clean Fusion Bombs: Possibility of "Clean" Explosions

[SkepticJ]

How high is high amounts - thousands of anti-protons? For bomb purposes, it may not be enough. There are no fusion power plants!

You are correct there are none, now. If you read any number of my threads you'll see I ask questions about future possibilities a lot. Doesn't matter to me if it won't be possible for decades, or even centuries.

 

[russ_watters]

Small expansion because I don't want this to become too political...

The logic isn't weird.

The logic of MAD seems weird at first, but really its just a standard risk-reward analysis. Nuclear weapons make the risk so high that no reward is worth the risk of using them.

What makes the current situation different is that framing the problem in risk-reward terms requires the involved parties to be rational. The enemies that we are worried about today (terrorists and rogue nations) are not necessarily rational.

Have you ever played poker? In order to keep peace through the use of nuclear weapons there must be the threat that they will actually be used. If nobody believes that they will be used then they lose their effectiveness in forcing nations to be peaceful. Eventually someone will call the bluff intentionally because they have nothing to lose and the potential for much to gain afterwards. The person with the fewest chips is most likely to make that call.

The poker analogy is a good one, but you get it wrong at the end: there is never a point at which you have so few chips that you're willing to throw them away on a virtual guaranteed losing hand. And that's what MAD is.

You are correct there are none, now. If you read any number of my threads you'll see I ask questions about future possibilities a lot. Doesn't matter to me if it won't be possible for decades, or even centuries.

The reason scientists and engineers don't generally look that far into the future is that for the purposes of science and engineering, a 30 year time horizon and "never" are essentially the same thing.

 

[Huckleberry]

Have you ever played poker? In order to keep peace through the use of nuclear weapons there must be the threat that they will actually be used. If nobody believes that they will be used then they lose their effectiveness in forcing nations to be peaceful. Eventually someone will call the bluff intentionally because they have nothing to lose and the potential for much to gain afterwards. The person with the fewest chips is most likely to make that call.

The poker analogy is a good one, but you get it wrong at the end: there is never a point at which you have so few chips that you're willing to throw them away on a virtual guaranteed losing hand. And that's what MAD is.

The person with fewer chips in a poker game is in a weaker position. A loss of fewer chips is a more signifigant loss to that player. If one player has a vastly superior number of chips they can force the other out of the game entirely buy going all in. So in the example the person with the fewest chips either forfeits or calls the bluff. It is a rational decision to call the bluff.
Even if it wasn't rational people spend millions of dollars every day in casinos and lotteries when the games are designed to earn more money than they pay. It is not a rational decision to gamble and yet people do it, albeit for entertainment and not under the threat of nuclear death. It's not a perfect scenario.
There are circumstances where nations or terrorist organizations would initiate a nuclear exchange. My point for the scenario is if a nation, or a secular leader of a nation or organization, that has nuclear capability is desperate and their options are limited to give up autonomy or die, then they are actually very likely to try to hurt their opponent as best they can before they are forced out. What would have happened if Stalin or Hitler had nuclear weapons during the Cold War period? Or if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons how that would affect the politics of the Middle East and our involvement in the war in Iraq. How long will it be before a terrorist organization obtains a nuclear weapon? Is it feasible that we can keep them out of their hands forever? The power vacuum created by the chaos could be beneficial to them.

I apologize for my comments in this forum. Been here a few days and I'm still learning the ropes. I realize now the subject matter of my posts here do not belong in this thread. Again, I apologize.

Huck

 

[Morbius]

There are circumstances where nations or terrorist organizations would initiate a nuclear exchange. My point for the scenario is if a nation, or a secular leader of a nation or organization, that has nuclear capability is desperate and their options are limited to give up autonomy or die, then they are actually very likely to try to hurt their opponent as best they can before they are forced out. What would have happened if Stalin or Hitler had nuclear weapons during the Cold War period?

Huck,

Good Grief - go study some history!

Stalin DID have nuclear weapons during the Cold War! The U.S.S.R.
exploded their first nuclear weapon in 1949. Stalin was still the
leader of the Soviet Union when they developed nuclear weapons.

Even someone like Stalin - who was bent on the expansion of the Soviet
empire did not attack the USA; even when he had nuclear weapons. The
reason not is that the USA had a superior nuclear force. That deterred
any attack by Stalin.

Or if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons how that would affect the politics of the Middle East and our involvement in the war in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein came very close to having nuclear weapons - which is
why the USA put a stop to his ambitions. In January 2004, the chief
nuclear weapons inspector, Dr. David Kay had this exchange with
Senator Cornyn while Dr. Kay was testifying before the Senate Armed
Services Committee:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KAY401A.html

"CORNYN: You said something during your opening statement that
intrigues me, and something that I'm afraid may be overlooked in all of
this back and forth; and that has to do with proliferation...

But do you consider that to have been a real risk in terms of Saddam's
activities and these programs -- the risk of proliferation?

KAY: Actually, I consider it a bigger risk. And that's why I paused on the
preceding questions. I consider that a bigger risk than the restart of his
programs being successful.

KAY: I think the way the society was going, and the number of willing
buyers in the market, that that probably was a risk that if we did avoid,
we barely avoided."

Dr. Kay stated that we "barely avoided" having a nuclear armed Iraq.
That is why it is important to shutdown the nuclear programs of rogue
nations so that they can't become a nuclear threat; and why, as former
President Clinton stated in his proclamation of August 11, 1995:

http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/npt/polsta4.htm
http://www.inesap.org/bulletin22/bul22art06.htm

"As part of our national security strategy, the Unitied States must and
will retain strategic nuclear forces sufficient to deter any future
foreign leadership with access to strategic nuclear forces from acting
against our vital interests and to convice it that seeking a nuclear
advantage would be futile. In this regard, I consider the maintenance of
a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile to be a supreme national interest
of the United States."
-President Bill Clinton, August 11, 1995

it is important that the USA retain its nuclear weapons.

In November 1997, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision
Directive 60. Before that date, it was the policy of the USA to someday
get rid of its nuclear weapons. President Clinton changed that policy
to one where the USA would rely on nuclear weapons for its protection
for the "INDEFINITE FUTURE". See:

http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/npt/polsta4.htm

How long will it be before a terrorist organization obtains a nuclear weapon? Is it feasible that we can keep them out of their hands forever?

The production of nuclear weapons is a very large scale process that is
beyond what a terrorist organization could muster. Only a nation will
have the resources to produce these weapons. The only way a terrorist
organization can get their hands on a nuclear weapon is if it is provided
by a nation that supports terrorism. That is why it is imperitive to
deny nuclear weapons to such nations. [ like Iraq, Iran, Libya...]

However, as Russ correctly points out - we are straying from science
and into politics.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[russ_watters]

The person with fewer chips in a poker game is in a weaker position. A loss of fewer chips is a more signifigant loss to that player. If one player has a vastly superior number of chips they can force the other out of the game entirely buy going all in. So in the example the person with the fewest chips either forfeits or calls the bluff. It is a rational decision to call the bluff.

Have you played poker? I don't care if you have $5 in the pot and $5 in your stack, you don't bet that $5 in your stack on a guaranteed loser (say, a 2-7). Its throwing your money away.

And this isn't the way you apply the analogy anyway: Remember, in the nuclear deterrence game, no one has any chips in the pot yet. Everyone has their cards and their stack, but hasn't risked anything yet and has nothing to gain yet. If you haven't put any chips into the pot yet and you're guaranteed to lose if you do, you don't bet. Simple as that.

Even if it wasn't rational people spend millions of dollars every day in casinos and lotteries when the games are designed to earn more money than they pay. It is not a rational decision to gamble and yet people do it, albeit for entertainment and not under the threat of nuclear death. It's not a perfect scenario.

In poker, the house isn't playing: you're playing against other people.

Morbius handled the rest just fine - it seems your biggest misunderstanding here is the history of the situation (which could be why you're applying the poker analogy wrong): Hitler wasn't alive during the Cold War and Stalin did have nuclear weapons.

 

[sid_galt]

Thank you for the replies Dr. Greenman and Dr. Astronuc.

the compound nucleus is more likely to form (fuse) in the case of DT rather than scatter in DD.

What is DD scattering? Does it mean that the DD nuclei simply bounce of each other instead of fusing?
If that is so, what are its causes?


Additionally, I read in a physics text that in the sun, most of the protons simply bounce of each other instead of fusing. Is this true and if it is, then is it because of excess kinetic energy of the particles so that the nuclear force can't hold them together after collision?


Is there an optimum KE at which DT fusion occurs?

 

[Morbius]

Thank you for the replies Dr. Greenman and Dr. Astronuc.

What is DD scattering? Does it mean that the DD nuclei simply bounce of each other instead of fusing?
If that is so, what are its causes?

Although it is only one component or cause of scattering - the simplest
to explain is "potential scatter".

You have to remember that in the nuclear regime, we're in the realm of
quantum mechanics [ also called "wave mechanics" ] where particles are
described by their wave functions.

The nuclear attractive force can be represented as a "potential well" -
a dip in the potential energy. [ A ball that has fallen down an old well,
of the familiar kind, is in a gravitational potential well. ]

The well has an edge. Any time there is a discontinuity in the space
through which a wave travels - you get reflections. When light goes
from air to glass - the light partially reflects from the surface of the
glass because the speed of light in the material changes [ they have
different index of refraction ].

So too in the nuclear realm - the boundary of the potential well is a
discontinuity as far as the wave function of the particles [ nuclei ] are
concerned - and the wave can reflect. That reflection is scatter -
in this case, it is called "potential scatter" since you are scattering off
the potential well boundary.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Astronuc]

What is DD scattering? Does it mean that the DD nuclei simply bounce of each other instead of fusing?
If that is so, what are its causes?

In a confined plasma the ions (nuclei) and electrons are colliding. There are ion-ion interactions, electron-electron and ion-electrons. The electrons scatter off one another - energy is too low for any transformation, the electrons are trying to recombine with the ions to form atoms (lower energy state), and the ions scatter or collide and combine. Basically if two ions collide and but do not fuse, they then scatter as describe by Morbius. One can demonstrate experimentally, that DT is more likely than DD at a given energy, as Morbius has discussed elsewhere.

Additionally, I read in a physics text that in the sun, most of the protons simply bounce of each other instead of fusing. Is this true and if it is, then is it because of excess kinetic energy of the particles so that the nuclear force can't hold them together after collision?

Most likely someone has demonstrated that the cross-section (probability) for fusion of protons (p + p) is much lower than the cross-section for scattering, i.e. in an interaction between protons, there is a higher probability of scattering than fusing. Obviously, the sun is there, so it works.

I don't know if it is excess kinetic energy necessarily that is limiting the fusion reaction rate, but beyond some energy, yes the excess kinetic energy would reduce the probability of fusion. I think however, it is simply that scattering is more likely than fusion.

Is there an optimum KE at which DT fusion occurs?

If you go to the thread on Nuclear fusion reactions, I provided a figure with reaction rate parameters for the various fusion reactions. The DT parameter peaks around 80 keV which would be the optimum temperature (kinetic energy) for a reaction. Actually it is pretty broad so between 50-80 keV would be good, but the lower the better since is means less energy input/recycled.

 

[Morbius]

In a confined plasma the ions (nuclei) and electrons are colliding. There are ion-ion interactions, electron-electron and ion-electrons. The electrons scatter off one another - energy is too low for any transformation, the electrons are trying to recombine with the ions to form atoms (lower energy state), and the ions scatter or collide and combine. Basically if two ions collide and but do not fuse, they then scatter as describe by Morbius. One can demonstrate experimentally, that DT is more likely than DD at a given energy, as Morbius has discussed elsewhere.

Exactly - when nuclear particles collide there are multiple possible
outcomes - "channels" as they are called. The probability of each of
these outcomes or channels is dictated by the laws of quantum
mechanics.

The collisions between nuclear particles are stochastic - that is you
don't know exactly what will happen - you only know what the various
probabilities are. Even Mother Nature doesn't know what is going to
happen - the "choice" is made at the time of the collision.

That's how quantum mechanics works. For example, let's take the
example of the Stern-Gerlach experiment. You send a stream of
electrons or other particles with spin = 1/2 through a magnetic field
with a gradient in the vertical direction. Particles with spin = 1/2
can have one of two states - spin up or spin down. In the magnetic
field gradient, the spin up particles are deflected upwards, the spin
down particles are deflected downward. However, a given electron
doesn't know if it is spin up or spin down until it is forced to make
the "choice" when going through the magnetic field.

In quantum mechanical terms, the particle can be thought to be
represented by both a spin up and a spin down wave function. When you
make a measurement - you "collapse the wave function" - you force the
particle to choose one path or the other.

Likewise, a given ion doesn't know whether it will fuse or scatter before
it encounters another ion. The ions "make the choice" at the instant of
collision - with the probabilities of each event dictated by quantum
mechanics.

In the nuclear realm, where quantum mechanics reigns; there are no
absolutes, only probabilities.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[sid_galt]

Thank you for the replies.

So what is the most important factor the probability of fusion depends on?
Temperature of the plasma?

 

[Morbius]

Thank you for the replies.

So what is the most important factor the probability of fusion depends on?
Temperature of the plasma?

Sid,

The reaction cross-sections [ probabilities ] are energy-dependent - they
depend on the energy of the ions that are colliding.

In a sense, that depends on the temperature - because the temperature
tells you the distribution of energies. For a given temperature, not all
ions will have the same energy - the temperature tells you what the
distribution of energies looks like.

For a given collision, the probability of fusion depends on the energies of
the colliding ions.

So you have, in effect, a two-level probability scheme. For a given
temperature T - that tells you the probability that a randomly chosen
ion will have energy E. Likewise, the temperature T tells you the
probability that another ion will have energy E' - which may or may
not equal E.

The energies of the two ions, E and E'; will give you the probability of
a reaction - be it a scatter, or fusion, or whatever.

To get the total probability, you have to integrate over all possible
combinations of E and E'.

In addition, you have to take into account the probability that the
ion with energy E will collide with a particle of energy E' - and that's
a function of the density.

So you have a very complex function of temperature and density.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[spartan3123]

i don't believe so. World war one was caused by colonialism, created by some of the powerful empires at that time - the British empire and Germany, Germany and England were competing for control of the seas, both side built their militaries so they could maintain defend their colonies in Africa and else where. Tensions soon built up cause many "Nations" to form alliances. Really no one was "good" in W1 (expt USA) even France had colonised some countries. After the assination of some guy in the Austro Hungry Empire War was declared and all the countries stayed true to their pacts.

It took 2 world wars for the world to realize that colonialism could not operate as the world is far 2 small ( Japs started as well)

USA also pressured England to release all of its former colonies and the UN was formed to ensure that all nations and cultures of all Tec level ( min: farming societies) would not be invaded.

Thus after W2 even if nucs wern't invented there their probably wouldn’t be any more wars at the worst there would be 3 ( cold war).

It is true that NUC have played a contribution to ‘world peace’ but I think it is the change in attitudes of people that has made to largest contribution.

 

[LennoxLewis]

Just as that police officer is ready, willing, and able to shoot you dead
if you don't comply properly - the USA will use its nuclear forces should
the need ever arise.

And that, my friend, is what keeps the peace.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

I respect your knowledge of nuclear physics, but i don't believe what you're saying about nuclear weapons keeping peace for a moment.

In your police officer analogy, what if another man comes along with a gun? We already know what the answer is... it doesn't prevent peace.

Now to make things even worse... what if it's a man who thinks his life on Earth is nothing compared to the afterlife Allah will grant him, hence, he will not hesitate to do something that will result in the end of his own life on earth? What if a terrorist with no clear own bomb able country launches on at the US and unchains an string events that result in the end of 99% of human life and setting us back to the stone ages technology wise?

I recommend to watch the movie Threads (1984), which shows the horrible consequences of MAD. Better to do WWI & II over than setting us back thousands of years.

 

[Morbius]

I respect your knowledge of nuclear physics, but i don't believe what you're saying about nuclear weapons keeping peace for a moment.

In your police officer analogy, what if another man comes along with a gun? We already know what the answer is... it doesn't prevent peace.

LennoxLewis,

That's why I don't advocate letting another man have the gun. I don't want any more countries to
have nuclear weapons.

Now to make things even worse... what if it's a man who thinks his life on Earth is nothing compared to the afterlife Allah will grant him, hence, he will not hesitate to do something that will result in the end of his own life on earth? What if a terrorist with no clear own bomb able country launches on at the US and unchains an string events that result in the end of 99% of human life and setting us back to the stone ages technology wise?.

Again - I certainly do NOT want Iran or Libya or Syria or... to have nuclear weapons.

However, I cite Pulitzer Prize winning historian Richard Rhodes in the following:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,367260,00.html

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[LennoxLewis]

LennoxLewis,

That's why I don't advocate letting another man have the gun. I don't want any more countries to
have nuclear weapons.


Again - I certainly do NOT want Iran or Libya or Syria or... to have nuclear weapons.

However, I cite Pulitzer Prize winning historian Richard Rhodes in the following:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,367260,00.html


Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Okay, you don't want other countries to have them, but let's look at the reality of the situation: there are nearly 10 countries/states that have them, and several others that share them. So your analogy is off and unrealistic.

As for your article, great, but what if someone with nothing to lose launches a nuclear weapon and basically ends mankind because of the retaliation?

 

[Morbius]

Okay, you don't want other countries to have them, but let's look at the reality of the situation: there are nearly 10 countries/states that have them, and several others that share them. So your analogy is off and unrealistic.

As for your article, great, but what if someone with nothing to lose launches a nuclear weapon and basically ends mankind because of the retaliation?

LennoxLewis;

Yes - some number of states have them - but there has been no nuclear war.

However, there also hasn't been a conventional war. As historian Rhodes has pointed out;
that if the world were to completely eliminate nuclear weapons - then that would just make
the world safe for large scale global conventional conflict. Nuclear weapons deter large
conflicts like World War I and World War II.

Additionally, I think the world also needs some nations to have nuclear weapons as a defense
against impacts by asteroids and comets. You do NOT want to blow up an asteroid or comet.
You want to ALTER its orbit. If the asteroid or comet is big enough to cause a mass extinction,
as has happened in the past; then in order to alter the orbit; WE have to provide the energy to
go into the other orbit. How do we get a LOT of energy in a package light enough for us to
transport into space. The answer to that is a nuclear weapon.

Suppose the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet instead of impacting Jupiter back in the '90s was on a
different trajectory that would have impacted Earth. With such a comet you don't get enough
warning to use gravity tractors, or solar sails, or rockets...which takes decades of nudging to
change the orbit. The orbit of the comet has to be changed on THIS orbit.

The only hope in such a case may be a nuclear weapon.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[LennoxLewis]

Yes - some number of states have them - but there has been no nuclear war.

However, there also hasn't been a conventional war. As historian Rhodes has pointed out;
that if the world were to completely eliminate nuclear weapons - then that would just make
the world safe for large scale global conventional conflict. Nuclear weapons deter large
conflicts like World War I and World War II.

Not on a world wide scale perhaps, but we've seen plenty of wars since WWII. The Korean war, the drama that is Vietnam, the Gulf war and it's successor started by Jr. in 2003, the never ending Israel/Palestine conflict... and I'm leaving away small ones as well as big civil wars, like Pol Pot who killed 30% of his own population.

Even if there is only a, say, 20% chance of nuclear war emerging during this century, that equals a 20% chance of going back to the stone age... i'd gladly trade that for a 99% chance of two or three global conventional world wars that leave us in tact with a high tech society and the millions of dead would only be a positive with respect to overpopulation. :)

Incidentally, have you seen the film Threads (1984) ? It is about a the a nuclear war and it's consequences.

 

[Morbius]

Not on a world wide scale perhaps, but we've seen plenty of wars since WWII. The Korean war, the drama that is Vietnam, the Gulf war and it's successor started by Jr. in 2003, the never ending Israel/Palestine conflict... and I'm leaving away small ones as well as big civil wars, like Pol Pot who killed 30% of his own population.

LennoxLewis,

Yes - but as historian Richard Rhodes points out that prior to 1945 the number of deaths per year
in the world due to war was growing exponentially, and was many millions of deaths per year. In
1945; that curve dropped to about 1 million deaths per year due to war and has remained at a
relatively low level since. Richard Rhodes then asks, "What happened in 1945 that cause that
curve to drop". There is only one answer: the atomic bomb.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,367260,00.html

"You can definitely argue that it ended world-scale war. If you look at the number of man-made deaths in
the 20th century, you will see that around 1917 it was around 6 million per year and then in the 1930s it
was around 4 million per year. During World War II, it spiked up to the horrendous figure of some 15 million
per year. But then, immediately after World War II, it dropped off dramatically to around 1 million per year
and stayed at that low level for the rest of the 20th century. What caused that dramatic change? I think
pretty clearly the introduction of nuclear weapons."

--Richard Rhodes


Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

Incidentally, have you seen the film Threads (1984) ? It is about a the a nuclear war and it's consequences.

LennowLewis,

I haven't seen Threads - but I've seen several films that attempt to protray the consequences
of a nuclear exchange.

I found them to be INACCURATE fantasies whose main objective is to frighten a gullible public.

They just want to scare little children.

Besides, of what POSSIBLE utility is a made for TV film in a serious discussion of nuclear deterence?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[LennoxLewis]

LennowLewis,

I haven't seen Threads - but I've seen several films that attempt to protray the consequences
of a nuclear exchange.

I found them to be INACCURATE fantasies whose main objective is to frighten a gullible public.

They just want to scare little children.

Besides, of what POSSIBLE utility is a made for TV film in a serious discussion of nuclear deterence?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

LennoxLewis,

Yes - but as historian Richard Rhodes points out that prior to 1945 the number of deaths per year
in the world due to war was growing exponentially, and was many millions of deaths per year. In
1945; that curve dropped to about 1 million deaths per year due to war and has remained at a
relatively low level since. Richard Rhodes then asks, "What happened in 1945 that cause that
curve to drop". There is only one answer: the atomic bomb.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,367260,00.html

"You can definitely argue that it ended world-scale war. If you look at the number of man-made deaths in
the 20th century, you will see that around 1917 it was around 6 million per year and then in the 1930s it
was around 4 million per year. During World War II, it spiked up to the horrendous figure of some 15 million
per year. But then, immediately after World War II, it dropped off dramatically to around 1 million per year
and stayed at that low level for the rest of the 20th century. What caused that dramatic change? I think
pretty clearly the introduction of nuclear weapons."

--Richard Rhodes


Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Dear Dr. Gregory,

I'm not denying that MAD has decreased war on a global scale somewhat, but, let me summarize it to two questions:

-Do you think it's reasonable to assume that there's at least a 20% chance of a nuclear war starting during this century, probably because a terrorist got his hands on one and used it because he was promised 67 virgins in afterlife?

-If so, would you prefer that scenario over 2 or 3 world wars with 50-100 millions of deaths but mankind retaining their technology and luxurious life, that basically is unprecedented in history? Western middle class people live in much more luxury than kings did for the last seven thousand years.


On Threads, it is not a commercial Hollywood film. It's a British half documentary/film with no intent of selling or scaring people, but instead giving an accurate picture of what would happen. I would recommend downloading it.

 

[Morbius]

Dear Dr. Gregory,

I'm not denying that MAD has decreased war on a global scale somewhat, but, let me summarize it to two questions:

-Do you think it's reasonable to assume that there's at least a 20% chance of a nuclear war starting during this century, probably because a terrorist got his hands on one and used it because he was promised 67 virgins in afterlife?

-If so, would you prefer that scenario over 2 or 3 world wars with 50-100 millions of deaths but mankind retaining their technology and luxurious life, that basically is unprecedented in history? Western middle class people live in much more luxury than kings did for the last seven thousand years.


On Threads, it is not a commercial Hollywood film. It's a British half documentary/film with no intent of selling or scaring people, but instead giving an accurate picture of what would happen. I would recommend downloading it.

LennoxLewis,

I think the above choice is a FALSE CHOICE - it is NOT either / or.

Yes - I think that there is a very real possibility of a state giving a nuclear weapon to terrorists
[ I don't think the terrorists can develop the bomb without a state sponsor ]; and that is why
scientists like myself are working to combat that scenario - by improving our detection methods
and improving our methods of tracing a terrorist weapon back to the state that provided it to the
terrorists.

Whether terrorists get a nuclear weapon or not has NOTHING to do with whether a a few states
like the USA retain nuclear weapons stockpiles for deterence. The terrorists are NOT getting their
weapons from the USA, nor any of the other declared nuclear powers.

I think we can have a world in which there are NO large scale wars - because USA and the other
nuclear states have strategic nuclear deterent capability to prevent large scale conventional wars.

In this world, I also would wish that the United Nations and the declared nuclear weapons states
would hold the non-nuclear weapons states to the promises they made in the Nuclear NonProliferation
Treaty. Nations like Iran should NOT be making nuclear weapons for themselves, and most certainly
should not be making nuclear weapons to give to terrrorists.

In order to deter the later - there are technical measures that can and are be taken.

http://homeland.house.gov/sitedocuments/20071010175157-19057.pdf

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[Morbius]

On Threads, it is not a commercial Hollywood film. It's a British half documentary/film with no intent of selling or scaring people, but instead giving an accurate picture of what would happen. I would recommend downloading it.

LennoxLewis,

There's no way that a film producer knows more about nuclear weapons and nuclear war than what
I already know.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

 

[mheslep]

Whether terrorists get a nuclear weapon or not has NOTHING to do with whether a a few states
like the USA retain nuclear weapons stockpiles for deterence. The terrorists are NOT getting their
weapons from the USA, nor any of the other declared nuclear powers.

?? Despite the HEU buy down and blend down programs, does not Russia still constitute a large risk in this regard?

...In this world, I also would wish that the United Nations and the declared nuclear weapons states would hold the non-nuclear weapons states to the promises they made in the Nuclear NonProliferationTreaty. Nations like Iran should NOT be making nuclear weapons for themselves, and most certainly should not be making nuclear weapons to give to terrorists.

Visibly the UN and the weapons states have been attempting to do so:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iran/2006/0731resolution.htm" - intention to apply sanctions
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iran/2006/0731resolution.htm" - sanctions. Bans relevant trade, freezes some assets.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iran/2007/0324resolution.pdf" - bans Iranian arms exports, freezes more assets.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iran/2008/scr1803.pdf"

Given these actions, what other steps do you wish taken by the 'United Nations' to hold Iran to its NPT promises?