NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi everyone,

I was having a discussion with a buddy of mine the other day, and he asked me some interesting questions about nuclear weapons.

I've done a little research on the web, but I would still like to get clear answers on the following:

a.) By what process is uranium enriched so it can be used in bombs? Is it related to the waste product created by nuclear power stations?

b.) Do neutron bombs give out the EMP wave associated with other nuclear weapons?

c.) What is the relationship between uranium, plutonium, and "red mercury", if any?

d.) Where do "hydrogen bombs" fit into the whole scheme of things?

e.) Which nuclear weapons give off the most fallout?

Hi everyone,

I was having a discussion with a buddy of mine the other day, and he asked me some interesting questions about nuclear weapons.

I've done a little research on the web, but I would still like to get clear answers on the following:

a.) By what process is uranium enriched so it can be used in bombs? Is it related to the waste product created by nuclear power stations?

1. There are two primary processes in use, Gas Diffusion, and Gas Centrifuge.

In both processes, the Uranium ore is superheated into a liquid. Then it is either pumped through a porous membrane (Diffusion) or sent through a centrifuge, depending on the process, to seperate the differing weighted molecules.

2. This has nothing to do with Reactor waste products.


b.) Do neutron bombs give out the EMP wave associated with other nuclear weapons?

Yes... Neutron Bombs are also called "Enhanced Radiation" weapons. While heat and blast is minimalized, they are still, for all intensive purposes H-bombs.


c.) What is the relationship between uranium, plutonium, and "red mercury", if any?

Uranium is a natural ore found in the earth's crust. Typical ores contain heavier isotopes of fissionable uranium... The ore is purified for use in reactors and bombs. [U-235, U-238]

Plutonium is generally produced in breeder reactors, and is pretty much exclusively used in weapon programs. [U-239]

Red mercury is a code name for an irradiated mercury compound used in some old Soviet designed neutron bombs... It is an "Enhanced Radiation" weapon.


d.) Where do "hydrogen bombs" fit into the whole scheme of things?


An "hydrogen bomb" is a fission-fusion device. It is constructed in a similar matter to normal "implosion" type nuclear warheads. At the core of the fissionable "sphere", is housed liquid tritium [a heavy isotope of hydrogen]. A controled explosion initiated by conventional explosive caps compress the sphere into a fissionable mass, initiating an uncontroled fission reaction, which in turn superheats and compresses the tritium, initiating an uncontroled fusion reaction.


e.) Which nuclear weapons give off the most fallout?

Any types of the Enhanced Radiation weapons... They are purposely designed to maximize fallout, while minimizing heat and blast effects.

Hi everyone,

I was having a discussion with a buddy of mine the other day, and he asked me some interesting questions about nuclear weapons.

I've done a little research on the web, but I would still like to get clear answers on the following:

a.) By what process is uranium enriched so it can be used in bombs? Is it related to the waste product created by nuclear power stations?

The heavier atomic weight uranium atoms are seperated from the lighter weight atoms through seperation in a centrifuge, or through gaseous diffusion.

b.) Do neutron bombs give out the EMP wave associated with other nuclear weapons?

Yes.

c.) What is the relationship between uranium, plutonium, and "red mercury", if any?

Uranium 238 can be converted to Plutonium 239. Uranium 238 cannot sustain the fission chain reaction required for nucler fission weapons. Plutonium 239 can.

From what little digging I just performed I believe red mercury was claimed to be an extremely powerful conventional explosive that could be used as an initiator in a nuclear weapon. Nothing to do with the element mercury. Not sure if it actually exists or not.

d.) Where do "hydrogen bombs" fit into the whole scheme of things?

The first nuclear weapons constructed were fission bombs. They use a conventional shaped charge explosive to compress the nuclear material in their warhead to super-criticality... then boom.

Hydrogen bombs are fusion bombs (also called Thermonuclear bombs) that use fission bombs as detonators to initiate nuclear fusion in hydrogen. Even bigger boom.

e.) Which nuclear weapons give off the most fallout?

Depends how they're made for fission and fusion bombs. Neutron bombs are lower than both** but are more problematic in other ways.

**Edit: In the long term.

I can answer only number four. Hydrogen bomb work on the priciple of atomic fusion rather than atomic fission. They produce many times the explosive force of an A-Bomb, but need an A-bomb to set the reaction in progress. Used for destroying nations rather than cities.

a.) By what process is uranium enriched so it can be used in bombs? Is it related to the waste product created by nuclear power stations?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design#Enriched_materials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_separation


b.) Do neutron bombs give out the EMP wave associated with other nuclear weapons?


"...electromagnetic pulse (EMP) has the following meanings:

1. The electromagnetic radiation from an explosion (especially nuclear explosions) or an intensely fluctuating magnetic field caused by Compton-recoil electrons and photoelectrons from photons scattered in the materials of the electronic or explosive device or in a surrounding medium. The resulting electric and magnetic fields may couple with electrical/electronic systems to produce damaging current and voltage surges. The effects are usually not noticeable beyond the blast radius unless the device is nuclear or specifically designed to produce an electromagnetic shockwave."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse

"As an anti-missile weapon, ER [enhanced radiation] weapons were developed to protect United States Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos from incoming Soviet warheads by damaging their electronic components with the intense neutron flux."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb


d.) Where do "hydrogen bombs" fit into the whole scheme of things?


"More advanced nuclear weapons take advantage of nuclear fusion to derive more energy. In such a weapon, the X-ray thermal radiation from a nuclear fission explosion is used to heat and compress a capsule of tritium, deuterium, or lithium, in which fusion occurs, releasing even more energy. These weapons, colloquially known as hydrogen bombs, can be many hundreds of times more powerful than fission weapons. The so-called 'Teller-Ulam design' is thought to be responsible for megaton range thermonuclear weapons."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb


e.) Which nuclear weapons give off the most fallout?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout

Hi everyone,

I was having a discussion with a buddy of mine the other day, and he asked me some interesting questions about nuclear weapons.

I've done a little research on the web, but I would still like to get clear answers on the following:

a.) By what process is uranium enriched so it can be used in bombs? Is it related to the waste product created by nuclear power stations?

b.) Do neutron bombs give out the EMP wave associated with other nuclear weapons?

c.) What is the relationship between uranium, plutonium, and "red mercury", if any?

d.) Where do "hydrogen bombs" fit into the whole scheme of things?

e.) Which nuclear weapons give off the most fallout?
a) Uranium is used to make a gas called uranium hexaflouride (UF6). The gas is then processed in a series of centrifuges; inside these centifuges as semi-permeable memberanes. UF6 made from U-235 passes through the memberane at a different rate than U-238, so that's how you do the separation.

Apparently, it's one way to do the separation.

b) Not sure.

c) Uranium and Plutonium are chemical elements that have no stable isotopes (that is, they're always radioactive). I forget their atomic numbers. I've never heard of "Red Mercury".

d) Hydrogen bombs operate by a nuclear fusion process where you fuse hydrogen nuclei together to release energy. Uranium and Plutonium operate on a nuclear fission process where you split nuclei to release energy. Why these processes work requires a bit of a lengthy explanation, but in both cases, the mass you get out is less than the mass you put in. mass and energy are equivalent, so the lost mass is converted into energy.

e) Not sure.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

e) There is a weapon designed but (as far as I know) not actually built and deployed in readiness called a "cobalt bomb". Like a neutron bomb, its purpose is primarily not a giant boom but to spread radiation damage. But where a neutron bomb is supposed to produce a neutron flux (in essence, a shock-wave of fast-moving neutrons that damage living tissue but leave infrastructure standing), a cobalt bomb is meant to spread a radioactive haze over the area that lasts a long, long time. Where ordinary bombs leave residue that dissipates relatively quickly (within weeks for a neutron bomb) a cobalt bomb is supposedly capable of leaving an area hazardous for decades.

Take all that with a grain of salt, though. Governments are pretty cagy about the specifics of their weapons programs. Wouldn't surprise me for them to release frightening disinformation as some sort of stupid psychological warfare plan.

Google the High Energy Weapons Archive. It has the answers to all your questions and more.

It is also a better source than wiki.

a.) By what process is uranium enriched so it can be used in bombs? Is it related to the waste product created by nuclear power stations?
I would merely add this: So called "Breeder Reactors" are nuclear power plants which get usually more or less useless U-238 added on the side, and while the normal fission runs, the various neutrons etc flying about change the U-238 into other materials, finally culminating in Plutonium.

Just to clarify: If a country had working breeder reactors, I believe it could use them to create weapons-grade Plutonium without having to use normal Uranium-Enrichment processes. But Breeder Reactors are fairly advanced machines, and we can probably be fairly certain that countries like the DPRK and Iran don't have them standing around.

PS: Is Uranium-Hexaflouride (the gas-type stuff they use for diffusion processes) the nastiest substance ever? I think it might be...

I would merely add this: So called "Breeder Reactors" are nuclear power plants which get usually more or less useless U-238 added on the side, and while the normal fission runs, the various neutrons etc flying about change the U-238 into other materials, finally culminating in Plutonium.

Just to clarify: If a country had working breeder reactors, I believe it could use them to create weapons-grade Plutonium without having to use normal Uranium-Enrichment processes. But Breeder Reactors are fairly advanced machines, and we can probably be fairly certain that countries like the DPRK and Iran don't have them standing around.

PS: Is Uranium-Hexaflouride (the gas-type stuff they use for diffusion processes) the nastiest substance ever? I think it might be...

The first breeder reactors in the US, if you subtract the shielding, would fit on a tabletop. They really aren't any more complicated to make.

You do not need weapons-grade plutonium to make a bomb - it's just easier to design and make sure that it goes supercritical - a lesser percentage of purity just means you have to design it for a more rapid assembly velocity. Tests have shown that both plutonium and HEU bombs made from 50 percent (that is, 50 percent of the desired isotope, and 50 percent of the unwanted isotopes) works - it can still be done.

The first breeder reactors in the US, if you subtract the shielding, would fit on a tabletop. They really aren't any more complicated to make.
Fair enough...suffice to say that a breeder reactor in theory can produce the stuff, and that none of the current "bad guys" has them.

There are a lot of optimizations and other things that can be done with nuclear weapons.

Asymmetrical detonation - where 80 percent of the energy is released in a single direction.

Using lower grade materials

Fission-free fusion weapons

Neutron bombs

Other fallout materials (other than cobalt)

The US didn't get around to developing these advances until the 1960s and 1970s, and the information on how to do it isn't just laying around.

I would bet that any country which already has bombs and can continue testing, and uses some good science, can come up with the same. But these sorts of advances also require fairly high achievements in materials processing and precision machining. Not something the backyard terrorist would be able to replicate.

<snip>

A country on the other hand, would be able to do such fairly easily.

A country on the other hand, would be able to do such fairly easily.

Yes, that's my point. But the only advantage they really have is that they know it can be done. Doing just atomic bombs was so difficult for Pakistan that they had to have help from the Chinese.

Currently, the only nations that presumably have independently developed the more advanced nuclear weapons are the US, UK, and Russia (one presumes somone in the Ukraine and other former Soviet states knows as well).

Have to actually build them to see if they work. So, if we see regular testing out of the current nuclear powers, we'll know they are trying to make more progress.

Many thanks for the replies. :)

I've found a little more on "red mercury" - there seems to be some controversy over what exactly it is, and if it even exists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_mercury
Red mercury is a discredited substance that was thought to be used in the creation of nuclear bombs (some believed that red mercury was a ballotechnic material).

The discredited theory is that red mercury is an incredibly powerful conventional explosive that can be used in the making of small and highly portable fusion bombs (H-bombs) or red mercury WMD. Current fusion bombs require the detonation of a nuclear fission device to trigger a fusion reaction. A conventional explosion of red mercury is supposedly powerful enough to similarly trigger a fusion reaction, without the need for nuclear fission. A bomb of such design would be much smaller and easier to transport than current fusion bombs; if red mercury existed and had such properties, it might be used to make a softball-sized bomb with a yield of two megatons. This theory has been advanced by neutron bomb inventor Samuel Cohen, however many of his other weapons-related statements in the past have been shown to be somewhat inaccurate.

If red mercury were indeed this powerful, then it would be a potent weapon in and of itself, without use in a nuclear weapon. However, no substance of this nature has ever been shown to exist, nor has there been any theoretical reasons to think that it could exist.

More mundane theories on the nature of the substance include:

* that it is very high-quality uranium or plutonium, being distributed under a codename
* that its existence is a hoax perpetrated on would-be terrorists, rogue states, or traffickers in military contraband
* there was also a claim that "red mercury" used in Soviet analogues of the Stealth technology, which makes an aircraft invisible to a radar.

One televised report indicated that the Soviet Union, which had a vested interest in nuclear non-proliferation, encouraged the KGB and GRU to arrange sting operations for the detection of those seeking to deal in nuclear materials. The Soviet intelligence services created a myth of the necessity of "red mercury" for the sorts of nuclear devices that terrorists and rogue governments might seek. The substance is a mere pigment devoid of properties suitable for nuclear weapons; it is speculated to be mercury sulfide (cinnabar), mercury(II) iodide, mercury antimony oxide (Hg2Sb2O7) or any other red-colored mercury compound. Possession of this substance as the result of undercover deals with Soviet law enforcement was an obvious ground for immediate arrest and likely conviction in criminal courts, with severe punishment following conviction.

Following the arrest of several men in the UK in September 2004, on suspicion they were trying to buy a kilo of red mercury for £300,000, the International Atomic Energy Agency made a statement dismissing claims that the substance is real. "Red mercury doesn't exist," said the spokesman. "The whole thing is a bunch of malarkey."

...but, on the other hand:

http://www.rense.com/general57/red.htm
Red Mercury, as far as I know it, is NOT detonatable by itself.

I believe this is a smokescreen to keep it from being understood by the public.

What it is, is an efficient TAMPER, making possible the successful IMPLOSION FISSIONING of MINISCULE AMOUNTS of PLUTONIUM.

No more the still-fabled "critical mass" of around 35 lbs of fissile material!

It is MERCURIC-STYBIC HEPTOXIDE - Hg2Sb2O7

And its crystal structure has a lattice of little hollow spaces, into which plutonium atoms fit snugly, and are probably drifted in by a combination of gas-diffusion and/or electrolysis.

The heavy atoms of Mercury (Hg) and Antimony (Sb) reflect back neutrons into the mass at the same time they hold the plutonium while it is fissioning, by inertia of their heavy nuclei having too tremendous MOMENTUM by their implosion of a shell lined with Hg2Sb2O7 saturated with Pu, using immense electromagnetic fields generated by explosive FLUX-COMPRESSION GENERATORS (FCGs), and giving many times more velocity and hundreds or even thousands of times more energy density of implosion, than any chemical implosion technique ever could.

Any types of the Enhanced Radiation weapons... They are purposely designed to maximize fallout, while minimizing heat and blast effects.
No, no, no, no, NO, NO.

I know a few others answered this correctly, but no one has corrected this misstatement.

Enhanced Radiation Weapons increase the amount of radiation. That's why they're called "Enhanced Radiation Weapons." Radiation==energetic particles and photons. Fallout, on the other hand is solid matter that contains radioisotopes which emit radiation.

ERWs are designed to give a radically increased amount of energetic particles and photons from the initial blast, without increasing the amount of fissile material used. IOW, more zoomies for your bang. They are generally much cleaner (i.e. less fallout) than comparable 'conventional' nukes.


If you're still not getting the distinction, think of it this way:

Fallout==sh!t. Radiation==Stink. ERWs are 'stinkier' than other nukes, even though they contain less 'sh!t.'

As for what makes the most fallout in the real world? Well, since no one has found evidence of a cobalt bomb, nor has anyone (to my knowledge) claimed to build one IRL, I'd say that the older, first- and second-generation bombs, with their less efficient design, would be the dirtiest for any given yield. An inefficient bomb design requires more material to obtain any given yield, so has more material 'left over' afterwards to scatter about. Also, the bigger the bomb, the more fallout, of course. And lastly, any ground or surface burst will be dirtier than an air burst.

The first breeder reactors in the US, if you subtract the shielding, would fit on a tabletop. They really aren't any more complicated to make.

You do not need weapons-grade plutonium to make a bomb - it's just easier to design and make sure that it goes supercritical - a lesser percentage of purity just means you have to design it for a more rapid assembly velocity. Tests have shown that both plutonium and HEU bombs made from 50 percent (that is, 50 percent of the desired isotope, and 50 percent of the unwanted isotopes) works - it can still be done.

The other advantage, is that less P-239 is needed [over U-235] for a "critical mass" in the warhead, ie... Plutonium based bombs can be "smaller" than their Uranium counterparts.

The other advantage, is that less P-239 is needed [over U-235] for a "critical mass" in the warhead, ie... Plutonium based bombs can be "smaller" than their Uranium counterparts.

Smaller as long as the material is 95 percent P-239 or better. Any P-240 in there as a contaminant causes the material to fiss before ideal compression is reached - preventing the nuclear detonation. You can still reach it by raising the assembly speed (and here, timing is very critical).

Hi everyone,

I was having a discussion with a buddy of mine the other day, and he asked me some interesting questions about nuclear weapons.

I've done a little research on the web, but I would still like to get clear answers on the following:

a.) By what process is uranium enriched so it can be used in bombs? Is it related to the waste product created by nuclear power stations? Uranium is reacted with flourine or maybe Hydroflouric acid to make uranium hexaflouide gas, which is then run through a centrifuge which causes the heavier U238hexafluoride to separate from the lighter U235 hexaflouride. What's left is U238, depleted uranium, which can be used as armor piercing projectiles, tank armor, or as a refractory material in a nuclear weapon.

b.) Do neutron bombs give out the EMP wave associated with other nuclear weapons? I would assume that they do, but to a lesser extent than standard nuclear weapons. I'm not sure of this though.

c.) What is the relationship between uranium, plutonium, and "red mercury", if any? Uranium is a naturally occuring radioactive element. Plutonium doesn't occur in large enough ammounts in nature so it's made in "Breeder reactors". It's usefull for nuclear weapons and for energy production. I've heard that "red mercury" is just a rumor.

d.) Where do "hydrogen bombs" fit into the whole scheme of things?Hydrogen bombs generate more energy than fission bombs because they boost power by using the energy from a fission weapon to join together, or fuse, lithium and tritium atoms (Or was that duterium?) anyway, the process of nuclear fusion generates a shitload of energy and a much bigger fireball.

e.) Which nuclear weapons give off the most fallout?"Salted" nuclear weapons have certain metals added to them that absorb neutrons and become radioactive isotopes. This boosts fallout significantly. Cobalt, a certain isotope of Zinc, and even Gold can be used.

I belive any nuclear weapon will develop an EMP. but since it's line-of-sight, at ground-level,it likley won't affect anything the thermal shockwave wouldn't destroy anyways.
to really use the EMP as a weapon, you need to get the bomb into orbit, or at least the upper atmosphere.

I belive any nuclear weapon will develop an EMP. but since it's line-of-sight, at ground-level,it likley won't affect anything the thermal shockwave wouldn't destroy anyways.
to really use the EMP as a weapon, you need to get the bomb into orbit, or at least the upper atmosphere.
Yeah. A larger ammount of the bomb's energy would be converted into EMP rather than heat (according to an issue of Scientific American I read a couple years back), and it's in a position to fry satelites both with EMP and with ionizing radiation.

I belive any nuclear weapon will develop an EMP. but since it's line-of-sight, at ground-level,it likley won't affect anything the thermal shockwave wouldn't destroy anyways.
to really use the EMP as a weapon, you need to get the bomb into orbit, or at least the upper atmosphere.

Actually, the EMP is LOS, but even through the ground. The EMP "burst" travels "farther" than the thermal blast...

However, there is an increase in the potential of the EMP burst from the nuclear explosion, as the explosion occurs at higher altitudes... Primary because less Gamma rays are absorbed by the ground [Compton effect.. conversion of gamma-ray photons to high-energy "recoil" electrons when absorbed by atmospheric particles...]... Even a below-ground nuclear explosion creates an EMP shockwave capable of effecting electronics on the surface.

Depends how they're made for fission and fusion bombs. Neutron bombs are lower than both** but are more problematic in other ways.

**Edit: In the long term.
Actually, newer fusion weapons have very little long-lasting fallout, although there is still some relatively short stuff from them. The only way to truly erase long-term fallout would be to create some sort of anti-matter weapon as it would limit itself to the EM spectrum.