• orioler25@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    That’s pretty much why I was asking, I figured that no level of neglect would make one of these not dangerous. Which also makes it pretty clear that someone who’s so comfortable with their use is likely confident that they would not be victims of that use.

    • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Neglect measured on the scale of centuries might make them effectively safe…you need to have all the conventional explosives in the implosion shell fail to explode. If some of them fail, you likely won’t reach criticality in the warhead itself, in which case you just detonated a regular bomb that had enriched uranium shrapnel.

      That being said, most modern explosives become less stable and more sensitive over time, not inert. So the implosion timing is gonna be off, which means no criticality. Just spreading radioactive material.

        • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Umm. Not really? I’m kinda pulling together basic implosion-type nuke design, where you have a nuclear core surrounded by conventional shaped charges that are supposed to detonate and compress the nuclear core just prior to the nuclear reaction.

          As you would expect, most governments are a bit touchy on details about military explosives that they use…I just happen to have done a decent amount of explosives R&D in the past. Picked up a few things.