5 ms·

Clever way to distribute nuclear weapons capabilities?

rtkwe 8y ago
No. Reactors don't fail or explode anything like atomic bombs. The only way this could house a nuclear weapon is by having a hidden missile silo somewhere in it and they already have nuclear missile subs for discreetly placing nuclear weapons close to their target.
- favorited 8y ago
  An atomic bomb is not the only form a nuclear weapon. Reactor fuel (or related contaminated material) can be used to create a dirty bomb, which in some ways is more destructive. Not in the initial blast, but in rendering the contaminated area uninhabitable for decades or centuries.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Aren't dirty bombs considered a Hollywood trope, and not a weapon of any actual utility (except scaring people with the thought of it)? See e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb.
    - m1573rp34130dy 8y ago
      dirty bombs can function as a denial of access ordinance... when isotopes or persistent toxin are scattered spattered over an area the cleanup is prohibitively expensive , we than have a kiev/chornobl scenario...were this to happen on wall street or silicon valley, it would be a major setback, or we would have to requantify the acceptable titre of radionucliides in a "occupiable" region
      - dogma1138 8y ago
        When you have 2000 nukes you don’t need dirty bombs for area denial the only ones who would be interested in dirty bombs would be non-state actors and those can’t build one and the few non-state actors that could are most part not stupid enough to build one because they actually want to keep what ever little regional power they have. Also reactor fuel is a terrible material for a dirty bomb because of its long half life time, you need materials which are much more active than that to be effective like those used in radioactive medicine and sensors those isotopes and are much more controlled than processed nuclear fuel and for a good reason.

No. Reactors don't fail or explode anything like atomic bombs. The only way this could house a nuclear weapon is by having a hidden missile silo somewhere in it and they already have nuclear missile subs for discreetly placing nuclear weapons close to their target.

favorited 8y ago
An atomic bomb is not the only form a nuclear weapon. Reactor fuel (or related contaminated material) can be used to create a dirty bomb, which in some ways is more destructive. Not in the initial blast, but in rendering the contaminated area uninhabitable for decades or centuries.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Aren't dirty bombs considered a Hollywood trope, and not a weapon of any actual utility (except scaring people with the thought of it)? See e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb.
  - m1573rp34130dy 8y ago
    dirty bombs can function as a denial of access ordinance... when isotopes or persistent toxin are scattered spattered over an area the cleanup is prohibitively expensive , we than have a kiev/chornobl scenario...were this to happen on wall street or silicon valley, it would be a major setback, or we would have to requantify the acceptable titre of radionucliides in a "occupiable" region
    - dogma1138 8y ago
      When you have 2000 nukes you don’t need dirty bombs for area denial the only ones who would be interested in dirty bombs would be non-state actors and those can’t build one and the few non-state actors that could are most part not stupid enough to build one because they actually want to keep what ever little regional power they have. Also reactor fuel is a terrible material for a dirty bomb because of its long half life time, you need materials which are much more active than that to be effective like those used in radioactive medicine and sensors those isotopes and are much more controlled than processed nuclear fuel and for a good reason.