this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
120 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

11148 readers
3363 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

http://web.archive.org/web/20240512204543/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

(Archive link in case it's changed.)

This article is a surprisingly entertaining read for a few reasons:

  • one or more people who wrote it clearly have very strong opinions about how nuclear weapons should be built
  • the article contains a surprising amount of detail, including stuff that seems like it'd be classified or at least censored
  • due to both of the above, there's a ton of [citation needed] that I doubt will ever be resolved
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 35 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Most of the information is vague enough that you can't do anything with it. I studied how nukes work for a high school presentation about the Demon Core a couple years ago, and it definitely seems weird to be allowed to know these things, but realistically speaking how is your average joe going to obtain the industrial capability to do anything with this knowledge, especially without killing themselves first.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I'm a lot more concerned about nuclear-capable private billionaires, when it comes to this knowledge.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

Well he had a sad ending

[–] Montagge 1 points 5 months ago

That's what the USA is

[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Having talked about this same questiom with a family member who was in the field of nuclear engineering, what he told me basically boiled down to this:

It is fairly accurate, but not actually as detailed as it seems. There are several major obstacles that variously will stump you, get you killed, and/or put you on the radar of a national security apparatus.

But yeah, although not exactly "easy," the basics apparently aren't that complicated to work out if you know the science.

[–] Technus 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I actually wonder how much in the article is actually deliberate misinformation meant to trip up anyone trying to build their own device.

For example, this bit caught my attention:

In modern weapons, the neutron generator is a high-voltage vacuum tube containing a particle accelerator which bombards a deuterium/tritium-metal hydride target with deuterium and tritium ions. The resulting small-scale fusion produces neutrons at a protected location outside the physics package, from which they penetrate the pit.

That seems really finicky to me.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

It is finicky. That's why only a handful of countries have actually managed to create their own thermonuclear warheads. It's more about being able to build the needed infrastructure and acquire the source material than understanding the physics.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

this makes sense if you consider timescales involved

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

there's about zero public information about interstage for example

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago

As far as I understand it, nukes are pretty easy to put together with modern tech. The problem is finding enough fissile material of the right grade. That takes a massive industrial effort.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

yeah this is not as surprising as it looks like

between pure fission design and thermonuke for a militarily relevant yields, say, 100-500 kt range, both designs are in principle working, but thermonuke is both compact and derives most of energy from cheap materials (natural to moderately enriched uranium and lithium deuteride). This is important if you remember that this thing has to fit in an ICBM

thermonukes have an extra advantage that they're staged, that means dial-a-yield becomes possible - not all parts have to be used

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

And it is even more environmental friendly ;-)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

Dude that entire Wikipedia article is a wild ride. It has got to be one of the most bizarre Wikipedia articles I have ever read. I remember reading it a while back and thinking, wow, some guy that knows about this stuff inside and out just wrote an article about how to develop a nuke. It's a walkthrough on building out a nuclear program. The level of detail in it is astonishing. I'm very happy to live in a world where I can just access whatever information I want.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

This article needs to be nuked because it's just editorial jib-jab. [citation needed]

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

i was also surpised tbh, its much more thorough about both materials and reasoning (although it could all be false). Also very strong opinions about who built first thermonuclear, with whole paragraph discussing it.