[WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT reporter in Afghanistan

[George Herbert]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/9/9  <wjhonson at aol.com>:
>> It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
>> "plans".
>> The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
>> The problem is not the blueprints.  It's creating the necessary
>> equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place.  Not a
>> cheap thing to do.  Everyone however knows *how* to do it.
>
> No thats the A-bomb (and even then explosive lenses are
> problematical). H-Bomb plane still contain significant elements of
> speculation. The various failed attempts to construct them suggest
> it's not that easy.

This is wishful thinking, Geni.

Making really small H-bombs (100 kg) is slightly tricky - but medium
sized ones (1 ton) is not.

And the explosive lenses get easier the more you know about how to
make them.  The 1945 vintage ones we show for [[Fat Man]] are far
harder to design and make than the ones used just 10 years later for a
Brok / [[Mark 12 nuclear bomb]].

Which are easier to design, but bigger and therefore somewhat harder
to actually make, than the ones from five years after that in the
[[B-61 nuclear bomb]], which are conceptually quite simple (and not
that computationally hard).  Which are harder to make, if a lot easier
to calculate, than the [[W88]].

There are no WP:RS compatible sources one can cite for those
developments and details, and WP:NOT a bomb manual, but thinking that
they're that difficult just because they're not talked about widely is
wishful thinking.

I wish people would stop using nuclear plans as the hypothetical for
these discussions...


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com