3 ms·

I will ask again: Why do people keep repeating this? You keep throwing around ideas like "They are simple nuclear bombs". It's not like during WWII the US aske

I will ask again: Why do people keep repeating this? You keep throwing around ideas like "They are simple nuclear bombs". It's not like during WWII the US asked some physicists to make a weapon and they replied with "just put some of this in a box and drop it on Japan. Call us when you need more" Here are multiple explanations as to why a reactor is not and can not be a bomb: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7149/why-does-nuclear-fuel-not-form-a-critical-mass-in-the-course-of-a-meltdown http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7149/why-does-nuc... Did you get your education on nuclear power from the "The China Syndrome"?

landryraccoon 10y ago
"Boom" in this context I assume doesn't mean kilotons of TNT equivalent explosion, it means "criticality event resulting in the release of a lethal dose of radiation". At Los Alamos, Harry Daghlian was killed by the "boom" resulting from simply accidentally dropping a brick onto a core of nuclear material.
- milesokeefe 10y ago
  More on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Daghlian#Criticality_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Daghlian#Criticality_acc...
logfromblammo 10y ago
One of the design constraints of a bomb weapon is that it should not go off before you want it to explode. Another constraint is that you have to be able to get it to the target area while someone is actively trying to stop you from doing it. Finally, a weapon has to direct its energy such that it destroys the intended target, rather than dissipating most of it uselessly, or harming your own assets. That's why the physicists didn't just say to refine some plutonium and lob it at the enemy. There have been 60 criticality accidents, with 14 fatalities. None of these resulted in an explosion (excluding steam), but that does not mean that a criticality accident cannot cause an explosion. A lower critical mass will produce more "flash" than "bang". It can still make a boom. The pow from a cherry bomb is as much an explosion as that from a 500-lb military munition. A failed reactor will not destroy any cities, like the first nuclear weapons. But it could destroy a back yard, and render the surrounding neighborhood uninhabitable for many years.

landryraccoon 10y ago

"Boom" in this context I assume doesn't mean kilotons of TNT equivalent explosion, it means "criticality event resulting in the release of a lethal dose of radiation". At Los Alamos, Harry Daghlian was killed by the "boom" resulting from simply accidentally dropping a brick onto a core of nuclear material.

milesokeefe 10y ago
More on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Daghlian#Criticality_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Daghlian#Criticality_acc...

logfromblammo 10y ago

One of the design constraints of a bomb weapon is that it should not go off before you want it to explode. Another constraint is that you have to be able to get it to the target area while someone is actively trying to stop you from doing it. Finally, a weapon has to direct its energy such that it destroys the intended target, rather than dissipating most of it uselessly, or harming your own assets. That's why the physicists didn't just say to refine some plutonium and lob it at the enemy. There have been 60 criticality accidents, with 14 fatalities. None of these resulted in an explosion (excluding steam), but that does not mean that a criticality accident cannot cause an explosion. A lower critical mass will produce more "flash" than "bang". It can still make a boom. The pow from a cherry bomb is as much an explosion as that from a 500-lb military munition. A failed reactor will not destroy any cities, like the first nuclear weapons. But it could destroy a back yard, and render the surrounding neighborhood uninhabitable for many years.