The a-bomb Hoax 1945-2017

Why a-bombs - compressing two pieces of Uranium metal with a neutron in between together - do not work - part 2

by Anders Björkman, M.Sc.

Home

About us

Services

Contact info

News

Order books

Assbook

La bombe atomique n'existe pas!



This is Part 2 of my article about the a-bomb hoax. Part 1 is here.
Warning for pseudoscience
Have you heard about Trofim Lyssenko? He was the inventor of pseudoscience around 1930! Stalin loved him. Ever heard about Stalin? A very competent mass murderer that together with Hitler, an incompetent madman, started WW2 by attacking east Poland and Finland 1939 and the Baltic states 1940 and who US president Roosevelt liked a lot. Stalin could keep east Poland and the Baltic states after WW2. Ever heard about Roosevelt? He was very competent and created the fake a-bomb! With a little help from friends.

A-bombs were and are just propaganda lies. There is no evidence that they worked 1945 or later. The a-bomb was invented by an American Robert O Lyssenko - a cousin of Trofim - but assisted by A. Einstein and encouraged by Roosevelt and Stalin!

USA is the greatest military force on Earth since WW2 with shiny uniforms, medals, salutes, KIAs, MIAs, etc. And it has lost most wars since 1945 because it doesn't use its a-bombs. Do you know why?

No a-bomb has ever exploded on planet Earth. The a-bombs are just a hoax to keep you afraid!

Roosevelt died 1945 with the secret. He was only 63. Eight years younger than me 2017, who is still young and beautiful (see photo top right) to tell you the Truth many years on. It upsets plenty people. It is the whole idea!

Summary:

1. This article explains the good news that a-bombs do not work.

 

2. Any info to the opposite is false US propaganda since 1945.

 

3. The 71 years old hoax from 6 August 1945 is of course still working kept going strong by several governments, crazy armed forces and plenty physicists incl. Nobel prize winners that cannot get any better jobs than lying for their governments - the only real job many physicists can get apart from being school teachers - and by mainstream media that are experts in publishing false info.

4. 10 000's of a-bombs have since 1946 been built, transported around, mishandled, dropped by mistake but none has ever exploded.

 

5. Reason is that an a-bomb cannot explode. It is physically impossible.

 

6. Nuclear arms are therefore very safe and secure! They cannot harm anything.

7. The Islamic Republic of Iran is trying since 30 years to fake an a-bomb that Stalin did in four years 65 years ago assisted by Gulag prisoners and Wismut AG of Aue, Saxony.

 

8. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, and its boss Yukiya Amano and the dictator of North Korea are part of the hoax. Just ask them about it. They are paid to lie about a-bombs. Just laugh at them and refer them to this web site.

Content:

3.1 An a-bomb does not work (Iran and ISIS, please, take note!)

3.2 Anyone, incl. Iran, can build a 4 400 kg heavy a-bomb ... but it does not work

3.3 The Björkman a-bomb - total weight 80 kg

3.4 But you need Uranium-235 ... and it is a little complicated

3.5 Compress mechanically metal Uranium-235 and suddenly it explodes

3.6 Uranium-235 explodes if it has a critical mass

3.7 But only 0.1% of a Uranium-235 atomic becomes energy in an a-bomb

3.8 ... only 1.5% of the Uranium-235 critical mass exploded or fissioned in an a-bomb

3.9 Fission fizzle

3.10 Only fools believe that metal in mechanical contact with metal explodes

3.11 Psychological shock

3.12 Japan is a nice country ... and no a-bombs exploded there

3.13 A-bomb testing ... by underpaid, summer working, stupid American and British students

3.14 No scientific evidence that an atomic device can explode = good news!

3.15 Only risk is overheating and melting of the metal and surroundings

3.16 An exponential chain reaction is not possible - Congratulations Iran, sorry or be happy Israel

4.1 Recommended videos

5.1 Iran could make the a-bomb within 10 months: experts:

6.1 Addendum 1

6.2 Addendum 2

6.3 Addendum 3

6.4 Addendum 4

7.1 Why this web page?

 

3.1 An a-bomb does not work (Iran and ISIS, please, take note!)

Wikipedia cannot really explain how a nuclear a-bomb works, unless you believe that a very nasty type of fission producing destruction, invented by an American clown under military secrecy 1942/5 exists:

Until destruction is desired, the bomb is kept subcritical - in the case of a uranium bomb, it is achieved by keeping the fuel in a number of separate pieces, each below the critical size or mass. No fission occurs! To produce destruction, the pieces of uranium are brought together rapidly into compressed contact with each other - to become a critical mass - to drive the instantaneous explosion FLASH of the nuclear weapon into the atmosphere. It lasts some nanoseconds and vaporizes and radiates innocent people that happen to be in the way. It cannot be stopped after being started.

This nasty type of military fission is however pure pseudoscience to scare you and a BIG JOKE explained below.

Nuclear fission is only possible under moderated and controlled conditions to produce energy in form of electricity and heat.

Fission producing sudden, military destruction is pure pseudoscience to scare you and a BIG JOKE. Evidently bringing two separate subcritical pure metal pieces of uranium in contact with each other does not produce one solid piece with a critical mass that suddenly detonates in nano-seconds. Two metal pieces cannot become one by compressing them together ... and even if they can, they will not detonate. Metal cannot explode or fission in nanoseconds in a FLASH !

You should wonder why Wikipedia cannot say so!

So I (left) will here explain how it doesn't work and I will pay you 1.000.000:- if you prove me wrong in other matters.

In the USA it is against the law to even suggest that a-bombs do not work but I am living in southern France, where the sun is shining most of the time and the wine is good.

Swedish Nobel prize winner (physic) Manne Siegbahn was 1945 asked to build a Swedish a-bomb but when he suggested that he would publish the drawings ... he didn't get the job! And USSR dictator Stalin built his a-bomb 1945-1949 with Uranium ore from Wismut AG that ... didn't contain any Uranium to talk about. Knowing Manne and Wismut AG convinced me that a-bombs do not work. It is simply silly propaganda based on pseudoscience to keep you afraid.


We are told that the US made, 4 400 kg heavy, Hiroshima atomic WMD bomb called 'Little Boy' was designed as follows (the drawing is a silly fake):

It was secretly designed by a small number crazy people 1943/45 that after a while believed their own lies supported by media and military. Effective propaganda made then people believe it was and is a real bomb.

It worked as follows according to How Nuclear Bombs Work by William Harris, Craig Freudenrich, Ph.D. and John Fuller: 

The simplest way to bring the subcritical masses together is to make a gun that fires one mass into the other. A sphere of U235 is made around the neutron generator and a small bullet of U235 is removed. The bullet is placed at the one end of a long tube with explosives behind it, while the sphere is placed at the other end. A barometric-pressure sensor determines the appropriate altitude for destruction and triggers the following sequence of events:

1. The explosives fire and propel the bullet down the barrel.

2. The bullet strikes the sphere and generator, initiating the fission reaction.

3. The fission reaction begins.

4. The bomb explodes or detonates.

Evidently nobody has ever, since 1945 until 2017 been able to prove that sudden mechanical contact at high pressure of two masses of pure metal (Uranium-235, U235) together making up a critical mass in this collision will initiate a fission FLASH reaction, so a fission reaction begins exponentially ... and that a bomb detonates ... unless it is in a top secret scientific paper. Effective propaganda is always simple.

How can anyone doubt the above nonsense?

But you cannot compress an atom or a piece of solid metal by a collision.

They just bounce.

Try yourself - drop a piece of steel on another piece of steel. They do not join up to become one bigger piece! Same with pieces of uranium. Anyway, just read on about the hoax:

 

3.2 Anyone, incl. Iran, can build a 4 400 kg heavy a-bomb ... but it does not work

So the US a-bomb is not very complex or big - about 3 meters long with diameter 0.7 meter, but heavy - mass 4 400 kg!! Anyone can build it! But it doesn't work. Full details of the physics behind the 4 400 kg is available in the top secret Los Alamos Primer.

Item A is a front nose lock nut (!!) attached to a 1" (~2.54 cm) diameter main steel rod holding the 6 Uranium-235 metal (U235) target rings (item H) in place on top of a Tungsten-Carbide tamper plug (item F) and inside the 6.5" (16.5 cm) inside diameter Tungsten-Carbide tamper cylinder sleeve (item I).

Each U235 target ring weighs ~5.08 kg, i.e. all 6 target rings weigh together ~30.5 kg.

A target ring has inside diameter ~2.54 cm (1") and outside diameter ~11.8 cm (4.65") and height ~2.57 cm (1.01") and volume 268 cm3 and weighs ~5.08 kg, because the density of the metal U235 is about 18.95 g/cm3.

Total height of the 6 target rings is 15.4 cm (6.06").

If the front nose locknut (item A) is not secured, the target rings (item H) will drop off! And items B, C, F, G and I will be loose.

Item S is the 9 Uranium-235 metal (U235) projectile rings.

Each projectile ring weighs ~3.39 kg and has height 1.71 cm (0.67").

The inside diameter is ~11.8 cm (4.65") and the outside diameter is ~16.5 cm (6.5") so the projectile rings can slide inside the cylinder sleeve - item I and the 6.5" bore gun tube - item N. Total height of item S is 15.4 cm, i.e. same as item H. How the projectile rings (item S) and items T, U and W are secured inside the cylinder sleeve/gun tube and do not drop down by themselves is not clear! Nine projectile rings weigh ~30.5 kg.

The target rings and projectile rings have combined (critical) mass 61 kg and volume 3 219 cm3 (a cube of Uranium-235 with side 14.77 cm) that will 'explode' when pushed together. Evidently two pieces of cold Uranium metal will not 'explode' under any circumstances so what is supposed to happen according to the experts?

It is suggested that, at the same time the Uranium-235 rings are violently pushed together, four small Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' (item G) are also compressed and broken. The Beryllium metal pieces (melting point 1 287C) and the radioactive Polonium metal pieces (melting point 254C) are initially separated by a Nickel and Gold sheathing absorbing any alpha particles He2+ from the Polonium. When violent compression occurs the sheathing is broken, we are told, and the solid Beryllium metal and solid Polonium metal pieces are mixed (!) producing free neutrons with 15 000 000 m/s speed (!) that in turn fission the compressed Uranium-235 rings = a-bomb explosion. You see, when you expose Beryllium to alpha particles each consisting of two protons and two neutrons fused together (like a Helium nucleus), the Beryllium releases neutrons at 15 000 000 m/s speed and becomes Carbon (LOL), while the Polonium becomes Lead. Ever heard of alchemy? It is an influential tradition whose practitioners have, from antiquity, claimed it to be the precursor to profound powers.

You should wonder why you have to compress anything to initiate the a-bomb but it is a national and atomic physics secret since 1945. Why not just remove the Nickel/Gold sheathing of the 'initiator' and let the alpha particles produce the fast or free neutrons that fission the Uranium-235, etc.?

And why didn't the a-bomb just explode anytime, when hit by a free neutron flying around?

A small natural neutron background flux of free neutrons exists on Earth all the time, caused by cosmic ray muons, and by the natural radioactivity of spontaneously fissionable elements in the Earth's crust.

According John Coster-Mullen who has built his own a-bombs the nine stacked projectile rings of Uranium-235 metal (U235) should have a total mass of 38.531.12 grams, and the six stacked target rings of Uranium-235 metal (U235), should have a total mass of 25,616.44 grams. Together that is 64,14756 kg which is not a critical mass of any kind.

The remaining mass of the bomb - 4 339 kg - is all the other lettered items seen above.

US Army designed it VERY HEAVY 1945! Why you need 4 339 kg of scrap to push 2 times 30.5 kg (or whatever?) of Uranium-235 together is still a military secret 2015. National security, you know! Remember Klaus Fuchs!

Another fake drawing of the VERY HEAVY 'Little Boy' is shown right. The basic principle is the same but the details differ completely. This is normal when idiotic military hardware is used as propaganda. There is no Item A a front nose lock nut, etc.

Fake drawing of 'Little Boy'

 

 

3.3 The Björkman a-bomb - total weight 80 kg

It would evidently be much simpler to just have a 60 kg cube about 14.8*14.8*14.8 cm of Uranium-235 with a hole with an 'initiator', where you can inject a piece of 1 kg of Uranium-235 at a speed of >1.000 m/s using a little mechanical device, so it explodes, when critical mass 61 kg is suddenly reached. This mechanical device incl. 61 kg Uranium-235 weighs say 70 kg. Put it in a bag with weight 10 kg and you have a Björkman a-bomb (right) that only weighs 80 kg. Imagine that a little cube of Uranium-235 can explode in a little bag! Of course one 1 kg piece must be injected at a speed of >1.000 m/s into the other 60 kg piece.

Easier to handle than the stupid 4 400 kg monster allegedly used at Hiroshima.

 

Björkman a-bomb with 61 kg of Uranium-235 inside

 

3.4 But you need Uranium-235 ... and it is a little complicated

Uranium is a metal and doesn't cost very much and is not rare. About 53 000 tons of Uranium were produced annually 2012.

A friend of mine at Freiberg, Saxony (East Germany/DDR until 1990) worked for Wismut AG, 1948-1958, that produced 10.000 tons of (fake) Uranium for USSR to build a-bombs - or so they say. Those were the times. Wismut AG was a private company (in communist DDR!) 100% owned by the KGB (USSR secret intelligence/security agency) headed at the time by comrade Serov. KGB knew the US a-bomb was a fake as KGB had spies everywhere in the USA fooling FBI for years. So USSR produced their own communist a-bomb! It didn't cost them a kopek. It was just proletarian propaganda. It was never built. Only propaganda films and photos of fake Soviet a-bombs were produced to impress the proletariat and put fear into the Americans.

Disc of U235 made in USA! Just drill a hole and ... voilà ... a ring! Then compress it, or just drop it on the floor!? ... and BOOM!

One American, Paul Nitze, was behind the three most important reports that promoted the perception of a Soviet threat against the United States after World War II. The first of these reports, NSC68, was instrumental in changing the policy of the Truman Administration, which initially did not perceive the Soviets as a major threat. The second Nitze report was the Gaither Report that, in 1957, said the U.S. had fallen behind (!) the USSR in nuclear weaponry. Didn't Nitze know that the USSR bomb was a propaganda hoax?

It is suggested that only Uranium-235 (U235) can fission and that Uranium-235 (U235) makes up only 0.72% of normal Uranium metal and has to be separated from the remainder (mostly Uranium-238 (U238)) in special factories which makes such enriched Uranium-235 (U235) a little more expensive. A Uranium-235 (U235) atomic has three neutrons less than a Uranium-238 (U238) atomic. To, e.g., obtain 61 kg of pure, enriched Uranium-235 (U235) metal you need about 8 400 kg or 8.4 ton of Uranium to separate the Uranium-235 (U235) from. How to separate Uranium-235 (U235) from Uranium-238?

Well, one way is, Iranian style since many years, that you treat the Uranium with Fluorine, F, so it becomes a gas - UF6 - and then, in gas separators you separate the lighter U235 F6 molecules from the little (three neutrons) heavier U238 F6 molecules! And then you remove the fluorine again and have pure, metal Uranium-235 (U235). Voilà! Then you cast and machine the target rings and projectile rings of Uranium-235 (U235) in any workshop. Uranium-235 (U235) is a metal like iron that can be shaped into target rings and projectile rings. Imagine drilling a dia 1" hole in a target ring. Aren't you worried it will fission by itself by a neutron passing so it EXPLODEs? No - it must also be compressed! To double density! Very important.

It is, however 2012 - 67 years later, still TOP SECRET, what US factory managed to separate U235 from 10 tons of U238 by gas separation or whatever - magnetism? - and then making it, the U235, a 72 kg metal slab again and what workshop manufactured and drilled the U235 metal target rings and projectile rings in 1945! Reason apparently being that no such workshop or technology existed at that time, 1942-1945, and no rings were ever manufactured. Of course, there was Oak Ridge, TN, with 75 000 people but they didn't know what they were doing.

Some people say Clinton Engineer Works, 20 miles west of Knoxville, TN, produced the rings using the calutron electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS) process. Hundreds of thousands of magnetic type separators (!) driven by great amount of electricity were used by Clinton Engineer Works to produce some hundred kilograms of U235. Reason for so many separators was the relatively low product collection rate of the process and the long cycle time required to recover material between runs. The rings and the separators would otherwise be nice atomic museum show pieces! But ... it was all stupid PROPAGANDA! No U235 was ever produced and no separators existed!

Talking about atomic museums - there is one at Albuquerque, NM! It produces a lot of propaganda about US nuclear bombs and the nonsense done nearby 1945. It is supported by US Congress! Imagine that - a museum full of lies supported by the US Government. 2012! But Albuquerque is just an ugly, boring dump in the New Mexico desert with an annual hot air balloon show + plenty PhD's living in the Rio Grande gutter.


3.5 Compress mechanically metal Uranium-235 and suddenly it explodes

According underpaid US scientists 1945 the Uranium-235 (U235) a-bomb above exploded (!), when the 9 projectile rings (item S) of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) were suddenly mechanically pushed over and mechanically compressed into (?) the 6 target rings (item H) also of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) by the projectile Tungsten-Carbide disk (item T) at a speed of >1.000 m/s (according #20 of the Los Alamos Primer) and the projectile steel back (item U) in turn accelerated by exploding cordite power bags (item W).

But you cannot compress an atom or a piece of metal by a collision. It just bounces.

At the same time the Uranium-235 projectile/traget rings are in contact together, four Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' (item G) are also in contact. The Beryllium and the radioactive Polonium are initially separated by sheathings of Nickel and Gold absorbing any alpha particles from the Polonium, but when sudden contact occurs, the sheathings are broken and the solid Beryllium and solid Polonium are mixed or pressed together producing free neutrons (!) that at 15.000.000 m/s speed (~3% of the speed of light) in turn fission the Uranium-235 projectile/traget rings = a-bomb explosion. That a free neutron flying around at 15.000.000 m/s speed didn't explode the bomb earlier was good news for the bomber crew.

This took place 600 meters above ground, when the bomb itself was dropping vertically at 324.7 m/s speed.

Why the 9 projectile rings did not drop by themselves by gravity is not clear. Maybe they were glued together and to the disk glued to the steel back?

So an a-bomb is very simple! Slide or drop or push (assisted by exploding cordite!) 9 Uranium-235 (U235) projectile rings over 6 Uranium-235 (U235) target rings and compress them together inside a Tungsten-Carbide tube (sleeve/disk/plug) a speed of >1.000 m/s, compress at the same time some Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' and fission and ... BOOM. Children died! And do not forget to tighten item A - the front nose locknut on the steel rod!

The first a-(Plutonium) bomb explosion at 5.30 am, July 16, 1945, 0.016 seconds after destruction at about 20 meters above ground. The FIREBALL (?) is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees in the desert. The picture, allegedly taken by a high speed, 64 fps (one frame every 0.0156 seconds), B/W film camera at a distance 10 000 yard away, is a simple fake! Like this video!

Inside the fake FIREBALL is pure energy that have heated up split and unsplit Plutonium atomics and the air to >1.000.000C. The pressure inside the fireball is originally >1.000.000 bar, when it expands at great velocity in all directions ... if you believe the nonsense. The sudden flash flies by at the speed of light!!!!

In this 1955 film you see a little (fake) a-bomb go off, so next day place is safe to visit and have a look at the damages! All nuke bomb films are fake! Russian, American, French, etc.


Above is evidently pure nonsense. Stupid, idiotic propaganda. It does not work! Metal in contact with metal, be it gold, silver, lead, iron, Uranium of any kind incl. Uranium-235 (U235) of any critical mass, do not fission exponentially and explode (initiated by a metallic Polonium-Beryllium mix producing free neutrons at 15.000.000 m/s speed) even after being mechanically compressed together at a speed of >1.000 m/s ... suddenly.

What is supposed to happen to initiate fission? The projectile rings and their steel back (items T and U) - say weight 50 kgs - accelerate down the 2 meters long gun tube (item N) in microseconds and collide with the impact absorbing anvil (item E) with a velocity of v - say v = 150 m/s, which is pretty high. The air inside the gun tube is compressed and would probably destroy the gun tube (higher speed - 1 000 m/s - will absolutely blew the tube apart). Imagine firing a canon ball in a canon with the normally open end closed!

The total energy applied at collision impact is 562.5 kJ (25 000 kJ if speed is 1 000 m/s at collision) and half of it is absorbed by the impact absorbing anvil (item E) trying to push the projectile rings and its steel back (item U) back up the tube. You know - objects also bounce, not just compress, at impacts. The remaining energy - 281.25 kJ - is supposed to radially compress mechanically the projectile rings and the target rings outwards (total 61 kg) and adjacent items (say also 61 kg) but 2.3 kJ/kg energy will not compress metal a lot in any direction. Compare energy required to destroy WTC 1/2!

You really wonder what idiot or nuclear physicist came up with this crazy idea that two pieces of cold metal (Uranium-235) mechanically compressed together using cordite would start to fission. Would really the two cold metal pieces merge into one? What really happens at the contact surface between the projectile rings and the target rings? Do the rings become one solid mass? And why would it explode? Free neutrons flying around from a Polonium-Beryllium mix? 

 

3.6 Uranium-235 explodes if it has a critical mass

The blast wave and FIREBALL have apparently just hit ground stirring up some (fake) dust

The 'experts' have an answer to that. Critical mass! The critical mass is the smallest amount of pure, metal, fissile material needed for a sustained nuclear exponential chain reaction that cannot be stopped after it is started. For Uranium-235, U235, the critical mass is 61 kg! If 30.5 kg of metal U235 projectile rings are brought in sudden mechanical, compressive contact with 30.5 kg of metal U235 target rings they add up to 61 kg = critical mass! A 3.39 kg projectile ring in contact with a 5.08 kg target ring does not produce fission! Why? Because 3.39 + 5.08 = 8.47 kg is not a critical mass! On the other hand a sphere or ball of Uranium-235 with diameter 17 cm has a critical mass of only 52 kg. Or:

A mass may be exactly critical without being a perfect homogeneous sphere. More closely refining the shape toward a perfect sphere will make the mass supercritical. Conversely changing the shape to a less perfect sphere will decrease its reactivity and make it subcritical.

So a 52 kg sphere of Uranium-235 is a critical mass like 61 kg of rings of Uranium-235. atomic physics is just a big laugh. Military secret, of course.


In retrospect it would have been much easier to allow two 26 kg half-spheres of Uranium-235 to collide than to play around with projectile and target rings.

And what damages are caused by cordite gases when the projectile rings or half-spheres have been pushed down the gun tube? Doesn't the whole a-bomb assembly blow apart? LOL! OK, OK, it was never built! It was just a joke. Any photos of it were just photos of a mock-up! Military propaganda 1945 worth US$ 2 billion! LOL! And nuclear physicists supported by professor Wellerstein believe it 2017.

 

3.7 But only 0.1% of a Uranium-235 atomic becomes energy in an a-bomb

But I agree. One U235 Uranium atom may fission as discovered by Otto Hahn 1938. It works in peaceful nuclear power plants. You do not have to mechanically compress Uranium metal rings in a tube for it. In a peaceful atomic power plant there is no mechanic compression of Uranium atoms or critical masses of any kind to keep the plant going.

When one U235 nucleus fissions into two lighter nuclei fragments or products (i.e. other atoms), about 0.1 percent of the mass of the Uranium nucleus appears as fission energy of 202.5 MeV ... we are told (by some underpaid physicist?):

A. Typically ~169 MeV appears as the kinetic energy of the nuclei fragments (new atomics), which fly apart at about 3% of the speed of light, due to Coulomb repulsion.

B. An average of 2.5 (*) neutrons are emitted, each with a kinetic energy of ~2 MeV (total of 4.8 MeV).

C. The fission reaction also releases ~7 MeV in prompt gamma ray photons (light).

D. 169 + 4.8 + 7 = 180.8. Where does the remaining 2O2.5 - 180.8 = 21.7 MeV energy go? Or is there a simple addition error?

Regardless, this means that a nuclear fission of one (!) atom emits about 3.5% of its energy as gamma rays, less than 2.5% of its energy as fast neutrons (total ~ 6%), and the rest as kinetic energy of fission fragments (this appears almost immediately when the fragments impact surrounding matter, e.g. water (?*) in an nuclear power station, as simple heat, where the reaction is controlled at a certain constant temperature).

(* Two or three neutrons are supposed to immediately fission two other U235 atoms - chain reaction! - but the energy 2 MeV is much too small ... according same underpaid physicist! And evidently the fragments first impact surrounding U235 metal ... and not water or air, i.e. the U235 metal piece is heated up first. If there is U238 Uranium in the bomb and a free neutron collides with it, it may become radioactive plutonium 238, which is very dangerous, we are told, etc, etc. )

Note that no matter is transformed into pure energy à la Einstein here. Only one atom is split into two other atoms - fragments - and some neutrons and gamma rays and, as they are moving, they represent kinetic energy.

However:

In an atomic bomb as described above (due to exponential chain reaction), this heat may serve to raise the temperature to 100 million K (Kelvin) and cause secondary emission of soft X-rays, which convert some of this energy to ionizing radiation.

This is utter nonsense. Nothing can react and release pure energy exponentially! Low temperature will simply melt the Uranium-235 (U235) metal assembly that will flow or evaporate away and any reaction stops at once. Therefore:

However in nuclear reactors, the fission fragment kinetic energy remains as low-temperature heat, which itself causes little or no ionization.

It is the speed of the neutron, when it hits the nucleus that has a lot to do with how likely a fission is to occur. One might think, intuitively, that if the neutron is going really fast that it has a better chance of “shattering” the nucleus, but that’s not really how it works. Actually, for the fissile nuclei such U235 the SLOWER the neutron is going, the more probable fission is.

So slowed-down neutrons to maximize fission are an absolute requirement. And then from fission comes more neutrons, which continue the reaction. Well, mostly right. Actually, the neutrons born from fission are going really fast. Really, really fast. And they have to slow down ~10.000 times to have a good chance of causing fission. That’s where the moderator comes in.

The moderator in a nuclear reactor is the material whose job it is to slow down neutrons without absorbing them. This slowing-down is done by neutrons bouncing off the nuclei of the atomics in the moderating material. For most reactors, moderation takes place in the water that also cools the reactor.

Great Britain detonated its first nuclear bomb May 15, 1957 - and it looked like above ... photo by some unknown hero.

Doesn't the flash or FIREBALL look ... fine, fantastic, ... fake? But where is the blast wave?

For a high-temperature reactor like the liquid-fluoride reactor, graphite (carbon) is used as the moderator. This was not really known in the1940's when the a-bomb was said to have been invented.

It is thus the moderated free neutrons that keep the fission going in a peaceful nuclear power reactor by heating the water. The 2 MeV kinetic energy of a free neutron becomes 0.01 MeV kinetic energy and the rest - 1.99 MeV - heats up the water. Fission also takes place naturally in the Earth's core and keeps it warm ... so that volcanoes can erupt and continents can move, etc. But in 1945 it was ...

 

3.8 ... only 1.5% of the Uranium-235 critical mass exploded or fissioned in an a-bomb

... we are told by the 1945 a-bomb engineers and manufacturers. Fission was made manageable 1939 and 1945 everything was known about it by clever scientists we are told ... but made top secret for military and national security reasons. How convenient.

How many U235 atoms are there in a solid 61 kg a-bomb described above? The answer is that there are about 4x1026 U235 atoms in a little, 16.5 cm diameter, 15.4 cm high, 61 kg (critical mass, LOL) U235 a-bomb two parts core, i.e. quite a lot of U235 atoms in the metal target rings and projectile rings.

Only 1.5% of the 4x1026 U235 atoms, i.e. 6x1024 atoms are, according to unproven research 1944/5, supposed to absorb one neutron and become U236 atoms that fission exponetially the other atoms during a few nanoseconds to produce an a-bomb pure energy release explosion FLASH according some strange, unproven theory. The military destructive fission goes fast as the neutrons have speed close to the speed of light.

98.5% of the U235 atoms do not fission exponentially as the free neutrons miss them and fly away, we are supposed to believe. Imagine that! 98.5%. Why not 100%? 

Fake photo of fake US a-bomb explosion FIREBALL without blast wave

So the following is supposed to happen in a U235 exponential, military, destructive chain reaction atomic explosion after two pieces of cold metal U235 are compressed together:

1. One metal U235 atom of total 4x1026 atoms absorbs one neutron and becomes an U236 atom that fissions and is split into two fragments of some kind at high speed (3% of the speed of light) and two or three free neutrons (also at high speed) due to mechanical compression. It is supposed this happen in the interface between the projectile rings and the target rings.

2. The two or three free neutrons miss 120-150 metal U235 atoms in the vicinity because the nuclei are very small compared to the atom itself but still manage to collide with 2 or 3 U235 nuclei that become U236 atoms that fission in turn and split into more fragments and another 2 or 3 neutrons that again miss 120-150 U235 atoms in the vicinity but manage to collide with 2 or 3 U235 nuclei, and so on until only 6x1024 U235 atoms (1.5% of total) have become 6x1024 U236 atoms that fissioned during a few nanoseconds chain reaction.


3. The temperature increases >1 000 000 K in nano-seconds and produces a white, hot FLASH and a SHOCK WAVE and the energy heats the surrounding air over several kilometres that produces a FIREBALL that then rises to form a dirty black (or white?) MUSHROOM CLOUD.

4. The pressure increases 1 000 000 bar due to pure, white or blue, invisible energy (kinetic energy of the fragments) being released forming a SHOCK WAVE that destroys the surroundings (except the Bank of Japan building and similar strong buildings) and plenty noise. It also takes some nano-seconds.

5. Above only happens, if the total mass of the two cold metal pieces being mechanically compressed is critical. No moderator is required according to professor Wellerstein 2015 because "you use 80-90% enriched material in a bomb", so probability is high to hit some of the 4x1026 atomic cores and split them before they all melt, boil or fly away due to fission of previous cores.

Regarding the photos of a-bomb explosions shown above, Wellerstein thinks they are all real (in email to me 4 February 2015):

"Similarly I do not think you have really considered the difficulty of faking footage and photographs of nuclear weapons. Even today, with advanced CGI, making something that looks compelling is non-trivially difficult. In the 1940s and 1950s it would have been impossible. The clouds in question are so much larger than those produced by conventional explosives -- they are on the order of clouds produced by only immense releases of energy. The radioactive effluents produced by the megaton-range destructions in the 1950s were detectable by independent scientists all over the world. The size of the energy release that creates a cloud can be calculated roughly in retrospect should you ever be interested -- nuclear destructions above the surface of the ground are always characterized by an uncommonly bright FLASH (a "double flash," technically), and the size of the fireball, its rate of rise, and ultimate top altitude correlates very strongly with its energy release. That this should be true is fairly obvious from a first-principles analysis of the movement of very hot gasses through the atmosphere. The fact of the heavy "anvilling" of late-stage multi-megaton mushroom clouds, caused by their reaching (and sometimes breaching) the troposphere, is evidence of their great explosive output. Conventional explosives simply cannot reach temperatures that would allow them to do such a thing."

Why a dirty MUSHROOM CLOUD of any type or color or a FIREBALL hanging around in the sky is supposed to develop ... except on fake footage to impress stupid onlookers ... is not really clear. Hot air ball of fire rising?

If there are U238 nuclei mixed with the U235 nuclei, the neutron may transform the former into plutonium + radiation, i.e. the U238 nuclei are not split into fragments but transformed into another substance.

That the fragments (heat) do not melt the 4x1026 nuclei solid metal core is that fission goes faster than melting, we are told, etc, etc, bla, bla.

However, when the first (and only?) nucleus of 4x1026 U235 nuclei in the above bomb fissions (it is split by free neutrons from somewhere - the Polonium-Beryllium initiators?), it will only heat the surrounding, as it is not cooled and the 2.5 free neutrons will just fly away and produce nothing with their 2 MeV energy each. They cannot possibly collide with and fission anything. They must be moderated to produce further fission like in an atomic power plant or in the Earth's core.

The 4x1026 minus 1 remaining nuclei in the little dia 16.5 cm, 15.4 cm tall chunk of U235 metal target/projectile rings will therefore not fission further. The bomb does not work! It always fizzles! Unless the cordite blows the whole thing apart and some innocent bystander gets a target ring or projectile ring in the face?

 

3.9 Fission fizzle

Carey Sublette, self-appointed nuclear expert (!), has a very stupid explanation of fission fizzle:

"Two (sic) conditions must be met before fission can be used to create powerful explosions:

1) the number of neutrons lost to fission (from non-fission producing neutron captures, or escape from the fissionable mass) must be kept low, and

2) the speed with which the chain reaction proceeds must be very fast.

A fission bomb is in a race with itself: to successfully fission most of the material in the bomb before it blows itself apart. The degree to which a bomb design succeeds in this race determines its efficiency. A poorly designed or malfunctioning bomb may "fizzle" and release only a tiny fraction of its potential energy."

Apparently this is a clever design:

It was never tested anywhere and exploded when dropped on Hiroshima. It didn't fizzle ... you must believe. W exploded, S was suddenly pushed down N over H and military, destructive fission occurred ... because A was locked tight! The free neutrons made the rest ... at the speed of light! But not in this bomb!

 

3.10 Only fools believe that metal in mechanical contact with metal explodes

Only fools like Mr. R Oppenheimer (a.k.a. Robert O. Lyssenko) and badly informed people like most politicians believe that Uranium-235 pure, solid metal in mechanical contact with similar Uranium-235 metal in the shape of target rings or projectile rings ... or any metal in mechanical contact with itself - will produce ... an atomic explosion: that 4x1026 or 6x1024 metal U235 nuclei in some Uranium-235 (U235) target rings or projectile rings fission exponentially in nanoseconds into fragments and release pure energy in a FLASH is just fantasy, I am happy to inform! It was a fizzle.

Oppenheimer & Co. also invented the plutonium-239 a-bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki 9 August 1945. It looked something like:

 

Here two non-critical half spheres of pure metal plutonium-239 - total mass of which is critical - are kept apart by a mysterious divider (not shown in above picture) to prevent the bomb to explode by itself in a FLASH, if a free neutron passes by. The two metal spheres and the divider are suspended in a vacuum space by aluminium wires (not shown in above picture). The vacuum space is surrounded by a neutron reflector enclosing the two plutonium half spheres and the divider. Wedge shaped high explosive charges surround the plutonium half spheres. By detonating the explosive charges, the neutron reflector, the two half spheres and the mysterious divider are compressed and the a-bomb explodes. The purpose of the neutron reflector is to ensure that the neutrons released by mechanic contact do not fly away but bounce back into the compressed half spheres of pure metal plutonium-239.

What a stupid joke. Who came up with this ridiculous idea? And how is that people believe these lies 2017?

Oppenheimer, the alleged master mind of the fake Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, apparently thought it was all a joke. That nobody would get killed by the massive napalm carpet bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But later propaganda suggests otherwise:

"The day the bomb dropped, (Oppenheimer) betrayed no hint of regret: Oppenheimer and his team were, in fact, jubilant. In the vast atomic compound at Los Alamos, they had gathered to celebrate the success of the bombing mission. Oppenheimer made a triumphant entrance on to the stage, clasping his hands together like a prize-fighter while everybody cheered. His only regret, he said, was that they hadn’t developed the bomb in time to use it against the Germans. This apparently ‘raised the roof’."

Churchill was equally gratified. ‘The whole burden of execution constitutes one of the greatest triumphs of American – or indeed human – genius,’ he said.

Sad story. Imagine bombing 100 000's of innocent civilians in big cities and people cheer. Sounds like blind, stupid terrorism!

 

 

3.11 Psychological shock

Better demonstrate what you know, e.g. over Tokyo Bay, where millions can watch ... and nobody gets hurt.

But in preparation for dropping an a-bomb on Hiroshima, US military leaders decided against a demonstration bomb, and against a special leaflet warning, in both cases because of the uncertainty of a successful destruction, and the wish to maximize psychological shock. No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped.

US terrorist napalm bombing leaflet - what would a Japanese do reading it?

 

3.12 Japan is a nice country ... and no a-bombs exploded there

I worked May 1972 - November 1976 and lived at Yokohama on the Bluff with a great view of Tokyo Bay to the south and Mount Fuji to the west. Two of my colleagues were children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945. They never experienced any a-bombings. Just conventional B-29 napalm carpet terror bombings! Japan was occupied by USA until 1952 and censorship and propaganda produced the ridiculous falsifications of history known as the a-bombs (and other things). What Japanese children really experienced 1945 was ignored and overlooked. Grown up Japanese were just told to shut up and believe the US propaganda nonsense. When I arrived at Yokohama the central Naka-ku area between Yamate and Yokohama stations looked as if it had been napalm saturated bombed a little earlier. But it was 27 years ago, May 1945, three months before general MacArthur arrived and witnessed the destruction. But you could not talk about it 27 years later.

 

3.13 A-bomb testing ... by underpaid, summer working, stupid American and British students

San Antonio is about 28 miles from Trinity Site, where the first nuclear bomb was detonated on July 16, 1945. The fireball looks like smoke - but let's face it. The photo is a fake

But wasn't an a-bomb tested in the dark early morning at 04.00 am at Alamogordo, NM, USA July 16, 1945 as reported by L. R. GROVES, Major General, USA, and seen on plenty films made? Whatever was tested in New Mexico that morning you can read about in the ridiculous test report Trinity written by a Mr. K. T. Bainbridge and some assistants. It was not the bomb described above. The report is simply a joke like the 18 low quality, stupid References made before and after the alleged July 16th Nuclear Explosion, by authors some of which later became physics university professors or Nobel prize winners that could never explain how an a-bomb actually worked (due to national security reasons):

1. R. W. Carlson “Confinement of an Explosion by a Steel Vessel,” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-XXI (September 1945).

2. J. H. Manley “July 16th Nuclear Explosion: Micro-Barograph Pressure Measurement, ” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-360 (September 1945).

3. J. L. McKibhen “July 16th Nuclear Explosion: Relating Timing, ” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-435 (1947).

4. E. W. Titterton "July 16th Nuclear Explosion: Fast Electronic Timing Sequence,” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-436 (April 1946). (... he (E.W. Titterton) gained fame as having 'pushed the button' to initiate the first atomic bomb test at Alamogordo, the consequences of his time at Los Alamos were more profound. It made him a member of an old boys' network of virtually every leading nuclear physicist, both experimental and theoretical, in the Western world. Most of them had lived and worked in an isolated, close knit community for a number of years. ...).

5. H. A. Bethe, Ed., “Los Alamos Technical Series. Vol. 7 ‘Blast Wave,’ Part I (Chaps. 1-4),” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-102O (August 1947). ( ... Bethe was sceptical of the possibility of making a nuclear weapon from Uranium. In the late 1930s, he wrote a theoretical paper arguing against fission, but was convinced by Teller to join the Manhattan Project. When Oppenheimer was put in charge of forming a secret weapons design laboratory, Los Alamos, he appointed Bethe Director of the Theoretical Division, a move that irked Teller, who had coveted the job for himself. Bethe's work at Los Alamos included calculating the critical mass of Uranium-235 and the multiplication of nuclear fission in an exploding atomic bomb. ...)

6. Ernest D. Klema, “July 16th Nuclear Explosion: Fast-Neutron Measurements Using Sulfur as the Detector,” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-361 (October 1945).

7. Ernest D. Klema, “July 16th Nuclear Explosion: Neutron Measurements with Gold-Foil Detectors,” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-362 (October 1945).

8. R. Bellman and R. E. Marshak “Distribution Arising from a Point Source of Fast Neutrons between Two Slowing-Down Media, ” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-257 (April 1945). (Marshak received his PhD from Cornell University in 1939. Along with his thesis advisor, Hans Bethe, he discovered many of the fusion aspects involved in star formation. This helped him on his work for the Manhattan Project, in Los Alamos, during World War II.) 

9. R. E. Marshak “JuIy 16th Nuclear Explosion: Soil Correction, Absorption of Neutrons in Soil, and Time Dependence of Slow-Neutron Intensity. ” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-358 (January 1946).

10. J. Hirschfelder, R. Kamm, J. L. Magee, and N. Sugarman "Fate of the Active Material After a Nuclear Explosion, ” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-277 (August 1945).

11. P. Aebersold and P. B. Moon “JuIy 16th Nuclear Explosion: Radiation Survey of Trinity Site Four Weeks After Explosion, ” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-359 (September 1945). (Dr. Aebersold was at t Los Alamos to assist in the health problems in connection with the atomic bomb test. He participated in protection of personnel during the assembling and testing of the bomb and made extensive radiation measurements after the test. 24 hours after the alleged explosion, you could visit the site without risk. During World War II P. B. Moon was part of the MAUD Committee that confirmed the feasibility of an atomic bomb and then became part of the British delegation to the Manhattan Project, where amongst other things he did work on designing instrumentation for measuring the eventual bomb test). 

12. D. Williams and P. Yuster “July 16th Nuclear Explosion: Total Radiation,” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-353 (August 1945).

13. J. E. Mack and F. Geiger Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, personal communication.

14. F. Reines and W. G. Marley “July 16th Nuclear Explosion: Incendiary Effects of Radiation, ” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-364 (1945).

15. I. Halpern and P. B. Moon, “July 16th Nuclear Explosion: Attempt to Obtain Gamma-Ray Kinephotographs, ” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-430 (November 1945).

16. J. E. Mack, “July 16th Nuclear Explosion: Space-Time Relationships, ” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-531 (April 1946).

17. J. E. Mack “Semi-Popular Motion Picture Record of the Trinity Explosion,’” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory” report LAMS-373 (April 1946).

18. J. Blair, D. Frisch, and S. Katcoff, “Detection of Nuclear-Explosion Dust in the Atmosphere,” Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-418 (October 1945).

 

3.14 No scientific evidence that an atomic device can explode = good news!

There is no scientific evidence anywhere in above reports or anywhere by any Nobel Prize winners that an atomic device of any kind exploded in New Mexico July 16, 1945 due to mechanical, compressive contact! The Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory was just a military camp to produce disinformation in war by underpaid physicists and students. Who invented the above 'bomb' is not known. Some student?

Basic physics in a civilian laboratory on the other hand confirms that an a-bomb does not work at all. Prove me wrong and win 1 000 000:- . Reason is very simple. The free neutrons released at fission are too fast and cannot fission another atomic. A free neutron can only fission another atomic in a peaceful atomic power plant after being moderated, i.e. slowed down. You cannot moderate or slow down free neutrons in an a-bomb.

The stupid US 3 meters long thing right never even existed except as an empty dummy on fake photos! I know there are 1 000's of web sites, e.g. this one, and this one, and this one, suggesting the a-bomb works but ... they all produce false info and propaganda. It is a very lucrative business paid for by ignorant tax payers. And any country can become an a-bomb power! Just say you have the bomb. It doesn't cost much. Any underpaid nuclear physicist will agree to anything for a pay rise (as happened at Los Alamos in New Mexico, 1945).

And the other a-bomb powers and their 'experts' will not say anything. National, military security reasons, you know! You have to be politically correct! Today, 2015, all US a-bombs are allegedly manufactured at the Pantex Plant, at Amarillo, TX, USA, that is operated by Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC (CNS) company from 1 July 2014. 

It is a strange place (right) in the middle of nowhere ... where nobody but well paid guards work!

So maybe the USA is neither producing new, nor deactivating old a-bombs that never worked in the first place? Isn't it good news!

Luckily fission works only in peaceful, nuclear power plants and in civilian laboratories due to moderated free neutrons.

Pantex Plant a-bomb making factory at Amarillo, Texas, USA - Source - where nobody seems to work.

 

 

3.15 Only risk is overheating and melting of the metal and surroundings

In a power plant the Uranium U235 is in the form of an oxide (a molecule) where the U235 part may fission and produce heat under controlled forms. No critical masses!

No exponential chain reactions. It can never explode. Only risk is overheating of the environment due to lack of cooling water Fukushima style.

Then the reactor enclosure will burst and its bottom may drop out (melt) and some radioactive elements will leak out.

Pantex Plant a-bomb making factory sports field at Amarillo, Texas, USA, where nobody ever runs around

Safety then is simply to ensure that cooling water is always available and that the bottoms of the reactors are STRONG. Quite simple actually. 

You should wonder why the Pantex Plant a-bomb factory built a sports field in the middle of nowhere (above). Maybe because nobody has ever run there? 

 

3.16 An exponential chain reaction is not possible - Congratulations Iran, sorry or be happy Israel

In a civilian laboratory like SCK-CEN any heavy, radioactive, dangerous element can be bombarded by free neutrons and split into less hazardous, lighter elements as in normal fission, but you need to apply external energy for the fission.

A Uranium-235 (U235) exponential chain reaction is not possible. The a-bomb doesn't work. Just ask SCK-CEN. Congratulations, Iran! Your bomb will never work! Sorry, Israel! Your bomb doesn't work.

Safety at Sea is more complex! But there are 'experts' there too to produce false or pseudo scientific reports!

 

4.1 Recommended videos

How to make atomic bomb propaganda

How to prepare the ground for an atomic bomb in Japan 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT EXIST The Documentary By Edmund Matthews http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7Ytg9ckC0&feature=c4-overview&list=UU9y1hfjdOMBboMgC8BE70UA

 

Update 9 October 2012

5.1 Iran could make the a-bomb within 10 months: experts:

"Iran could produce enough weapons-grade Uranium (WGU) to make an atomic bomb within two to four months and then would need an additional eight to 10 months to build the device, experts said Monday 8 October 2012."

The experts are paid by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), a non-profit, non-partisan institution dedicated to informing the public about science and policy issues affecting international security and the report is IRAN'S EVOLVING BREAKOUT POTENTIAL by William C. Witt, Christina Walrond, David Albright, and Houston Wood: 

"The authors use one significant quantity (SQ), defined as 25 kilograms of WGU (Weapon Grade Uranium), to represent the amount of WGU needed for a nuclear weapon. ... Currently, ISIS assesses that Iran would require at least 2-4 months to produce one SQ of WGU at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant and would need to utilize its stocks of 3.5 and near 20 percent LEU. The quickest estimates are 2 to 2.3 months, and they rely on an amount of near 20 percent LEU hexafluoride that was scheduled for conversion to another form as of August 2012. Growth in the stock of near 20 percent LEU reduces the time needed to break out, even though this stock is not currently large enough on its own to produce one SQ."

ISIS thinks Iran can produce an a-bomb within 10 months and has apparently not read my article above why an a-bomb doesn't work.

 

Anders Björkman 

Heiwa Co home page

 

6.1 Addendum 1

As an a-bomb or h-bomb doesn't work it is interesting to note the enormous amounts of $ money, missiles, launch pads, war heads and persons involved to keep the US hoax alive. If that money is or was really spent or just another hoax, is another matter. It is a fact that no a-bomb has ever accidentally exploded due to human failures or mistakes when maintaining, transporting or upgrading them. Evidently you need some money/persons to keep the hoax going:

- Except where noted all figures are in constant 1996 dollars -

1. Cost of the Manhattan Project (through August 1945): $20,000,000,000

SOURCE: Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., The New World: A History of the United States atomic Energy Commission, Volume 1, 1939/1946 (Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. AEC Technical Information centre, 1972), pp. 723-724; Condensed AEC Annual Financial Report, FY 1953 (in Fifteenth Semiannual Report of the atomic Energy Commission, January 1954, p. 73)

2. Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

3. Estimated construction costs for more than 1,000 ICBM launch pads and silos, and support facilities, from 1957-1964: nearly $14,000,000,000

SOURCE: Maj. C.D. Hargreaves, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office (CEBMCO), "Introduction to the CEBMCO Historical Report and History of the Command Section, Pre-CEBMCO Thru December 1962," p. 8; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office, "U.S. Air Force ICBM Construction Program," undated chart (circa 1965)

4. Total number of nuclear bombers built, 1945-present: 4,680

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

5. Peak number of nuclear warheads and bombs in the stockpile/year: 32,193/1966

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defence Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

6. Total number and types of nuclear warheads and bombs built, 1945-1990: more than 70,000/65 types

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy; Natural Resources Defence Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

7. Number currently in the stockpile (2002): 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile)

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defence Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

8. Number of nuclear warheads requested by the Army in 1956 and 1957: 151,000

SOURCE: History of the Custody and Deployment of Nuclear Weapons, July 1945 Through September 1977, Prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defence (atomic Energy), February 1978, p. 50 (formerly Top Secret)

9. Projected operational U.S. strategic nuclear warheads and bombs after full enactment of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2012: 1,700-2,200

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Defence; Natural Resources Defence Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

10. Additional strategic and non-strategic warheads not limited by the treaty that the U.S. military wants to retain as a "hedge" against unforeseen future threats: 4,900

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Defence; Natural Resources Defence Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

11. Largest and smallest nuclear bombs ever deployed: B17/B24 (~42,000 lbs., 10-15 megatons); W54 (51 lbs., .01 kilotons, .02 kilotons-1 kiloton)

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defence Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

12. Peak number of operating domestic Uranium mines (1955): 925

SOURCE: Nineteenth Semiannual Report of the atomic Energy Commission, January 1956, p. 31

13. Fissile material produced: 104 metric tons of plutonium and 994 metric tons of highly-enriched Uranium

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

14. Amount of plutonium still in weapons: 43 metric tons

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defence Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

15. Number of thermometers which could be filled with mercury used to produce lithium-6 at the Oak Ridge Reservation: 11 billion

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

16. Number of dismantled plutonium "pits" stored at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas: 12,067 (as of May 6, 1999)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

17. States with the largest number of nuclear weapons (in 1999): New Mexico (2,450), Georgia (2,000), Washington (1,685), Nevada (1,350), and North Dakota (1,140)

SOURCE: William M. Arkin, Robert S. Norris, and Joshua Handler, Taking Stock: Worldwide Nuclear Deployments 1998 (Washington, D.C.: Natural Resources Defence Council, March 1998)

18. Total known land area occupied by U.S. nuclear weapons bases and facilities: 15,654 square miles

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

19. Total land area of the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey: 15,357 square miles

SOURCE: Rand McNally Road Atlas and Travel Guide, 1992

20. Legal fees paid by the Department of Energy to fight lawsuits from workers and private citizens concerning nuclear weapons production and testing activities, from October 1990 through March 1995: $97,000,000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

21. Money paid by the State Department to Japan following fallout from the 1954 "Bravo" test: $15,300,000

SOURCE: Barton C. Hacker, Elements of Controversy: The atomic Energy Commission and Radiation Safety in Nuclear Weapons Testing, 1947-1974, University of California Press, 1994, p. 158

22. Money and non-monetary compensation paid by the United States to Marshallese Islanders since 1956 to redress damages from nuclear testing: at least $759,000,000

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

23. Money paid to U.S. citizens under the Radiation Exposure and Compensation Act of 1990, as of January 13, 1998: approximately $225,000,000 (6,336 claims approved; 3,156 denied)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Justice, Torts Branch, Civil Division

24. Total cost of the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program, 1946-1961: $7,000,000,000

SOURCE: "Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program," Report of the Joint Committee on atomic Energy, September 1959, pp. 11-12

25. Total number of nuclear-powered aircraft and airplane hangars built: 0 and 1

SOURCE: Ibid; "American Portrait: ANP," WFAA-TV (Dallas), 1993. Between July 1955 and March 1957, a specially modified B-36 bomber made 47 flights with a three megawatt air-cooled operational test reactor (the reactor, however, did not power the plane).

26. Number of secret Presidential Emergency Facilities built for use during and after a nuclear war: more than 75

SOURCE: Bill Gulley with Mary Ellen Reese, Breaking Cover, Simon and Schuster, 1980, pp. 34- 36

27. Currency stored until 1988 by the Federal Reserve at its Mount Pony facility for use after a nuclear war: more than 2,000,000,000

SOURCE: Edward Zuckerman, The Day After World War III, The Viking Press, 1984, pp. 287-88

28. Amount of silver in tons once used at the Oak Ridge, TN, Y-12 Plant for electrical magnet coils: 14,700

SOURCE: Vincent C. Jones, Manhattan: The Army and the Bomb, U.S. Army centre for Military History, 1985, pp. 66-7

29. Total number of U.S. nuclear weapons tests, 1945-1992: 1,030 (1,125 nuclear devices detonated; 24 additional joint tests with Great Britain)

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

30. First and last test: July 16, 1945 ("Trinity") and September 23, 1992 ("Divider")

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

31. Estimated amount spent between October 1, 1992 and October 1, 1995 on nuclear testing activities: $1,200,000,000 (0 tests)

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

32. Cost of 1946 Operation Crossroads weapons tests ("Able" and "Baker") at Bikini Atoll: $1,300,000,000

SOURCE: Weisgall, Operation Crossroads, pp. 294, 371

33. Largest U.S. atomic explosion/date: 15 Megatons/March 1, 1954 ("Bravo")

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

34. Number of islands in Enewetak atoll vaporized by the November 1, 1952 "Mike" h-bomb test: 1

SOURCE: Chuck Hansen, U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History, Orion Books, 1988, pp. 58-59, 95

35. Number of nuclear tests in the Pacific: 106

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defence Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

36. Number of U.S. nuclear tests in Nevada: 911

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defence Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

37. Number of nuclear weapons tests in Alaska [1, 2, and 3], Colorado [1 and 2], Mississippi and New Mexico [1, 2 and 3]: 10

SOURCE: Natural Resources Defence Council, Nuclear Weapons Data book Project

38. Operational naval nuclear propulsion reactors vs. operational commercial power reactors (in 1999): 129 vs. 108

SOURCE: Adm. Bruce De Mars, Deputy Assistant Director for Naval Reactors, U.S. Navy; Nuclear Regulatory Commission

39. Number of attack (SSN) and ballistic missile (SSBN) submarines (2002): 53 SSNs and 18 SSBNs

SOURCE: Adm. Bruce De Mars, Deputy Assistant Director for Naval Reactors, U.S. Navy

40. Number of high level radioactive waste tanks in Washington, Idaho and South Carolina: 239

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy

41. Volume in cubic meters of radioactive waste resulting from weapons activities: 104,000,000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy; Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

42. Number of designated targets for U.S. weapons in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) in 1976, 1986, and 1995: 25,000 (1976), 16,000 (1986) and 2,500 (1995)

SOURCE: Bruce Blair, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution

43. Cost of January 17, 1966 nuclear weapons accident over Palomares, Spain (including two lost planes, an extended search and recovery effort, waste disposal in the U.S. and settlement claims): $182,000,000

SOURCE: Joint Committee on atomic Energy Interoffice Memorandum, February 15, 1968; centre for Defence Information

44. Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Defence; Centre for Defence Information; Greenpeace; "Lost Bombs," Atwood-Keeney Productions, Inc., 1997

45. Number of Department of Energy federal employees (in 1996): 18,608

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Worker and Community Transition

46. Number of Department of Energy contractor employees (in 1996): 109,242

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Worker and Community Transition

47. Minimum number of classified pages estimated to be in the Department of Energy's possession (1995): 280 million

SOURCE: A Review of the Department of Energy Classification Policy and Practice, Committee on Declassification of Information for the Department of Energy Environmental Remediation and Related Programs, National Research Council, 1995, pp. 7-8, 68.

48. Ballistic missile defence spending in 1965 vs. 1995: $2,200,000,000 vs. $2,600,000,000

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

49. Average cost per warhead to the U.S. to help Kazakhstan dismantle 104 SS-18 ICBMs carrying more than 1,000 warheads: $70,000

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project; Arms Control Association

50. Estimated 1998 spending on all U.S. nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs: $35,100,000,000

SOURCE: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

 

6.2 Addendum 2

According the Titan II Handbook the US Titan II missile can since 1960 deliver A or h-bombs (that evidently do not work) from an underground silo in USA (there are 1 600 silos, we are told) to targets in USSR/Russia by sending it up into a parabolic curve above Earth. The strong missile will lob the bomb 1.300.000 meter up into the exosphere (see right) from where it later drops down on USSR/Russia at an arrival, vertical velocity >7 000 m/s at 140.000 m altitude.

With that vertical speed the missile will hit ground after only 20 seconds.

The purpose is to steer the bombs on towns and other targets to kill 60% of the Russian population!

The bomb will never reach any target in USSR/RUSSIA though.

It will burn up in the mesosphere as explained here.

Titan II rockets are also good to send satellites into orbits around Earth at 400.000 m altitude and 7 000 m/s horizontal velocity and these satellites will never come down at all. They will just continue to orbit forever.

It would appear the US ICBM system is 100% useless.

 

6.3 Addendum 3 - 'A-BOMB HYSTERIA'

By Major Alexander P. de Seversky

Author of "Victory Through Air Power," etc.

(READER'S DIGEST, February 1946, pages 121 to 126)

As Special Consultant to the Secretary of War, Judge Robert P. Patterson, I spent nearly eight months intensively studying war destruction in Europe and Asia. I became thoroughly familiar with every variety of damage - from high explosives, incendiaries, artillery shells, dynamite, and combinations of these.

In this study, I inspected Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the targets of our atom bomb, examining the ruins, interrogating eyewitnesses and taking hundreds of pictures.

It was my considered opinion, I told correspondents in Tokyo, that the effects of the atom bombs - not of future bombs, but of these two - had been wildly exaggerated. If dropped on New York or Chicago, one of those bombs would have done no more damage than a ten-ton blockbuster; and the results in Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been achieved by about 200 B-29's loaded with incendiaries, except that fewer Japanese would have been killed. I did not "underrate" atom bombs or dispute their future potential. I merely conveyed my professional findings on the physical results of the two bombs - and they happened to be in startling contrast to the hysterical imaginative versions spread through the world.

My findings were pounced upon in outraged anger by all sorts of people, in the press, on the air, at public forums; and by scientists who haven't been within 5000 miles of Hiroshima. But the violence of this reaction cannot alter the facts on view in the two Japanese cities.

I began my study of Japan by flying over Yokohama, Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, and dozens of other places. Later I visited them all on foot.

All presented the same pattern. The bombed areas looked pinkish - an effect produced by the piles of ashes and rubble mixed with rusted metal. Modern buildings and factories still stood. That many of the buildings were gutted by fire was not apparent from the air. The centre of Yokohama, for instance, seemed almost intact when viewed from an airplane. The long industrial belt stretching from Osaka to Kobe had been laid waste by fire, but the factories and other concrete structures were still standing. On the whole it was a picture quite different from what I had seen in German cities subjected to demolition bombardment. The difference lay in the fact that Japanese destruction was overwhelmingly incendiary, with comparatively little structural damage to inflammable targets.

In Hiroshima I was prepared for radically different sights. But, to my surprise, Hiroshima looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities in Japan.

There was a familiar pink blot, about two miles in diameter. It was dotted with charred trees and telephone poles. Only one of the cities twenty bridges was down. Hiroshima's clusters of modern buildings in the downtown section stood upright.

It was obvious that the blast could not have been so powerful as we had been led to believe. It was extensive blast rather than intensive.

I had heard of buildings instantly consumed by unprecedented heat. Yet here I saw the buildings structurally intact, and what is more, topped by undamaged flag poles, lightning rods, painted railings, air raid precaution signs and other comparatively fragile objects.

At the T-bridge, the aiming point for the atomic bomb, I looked for the "bald spot" where everything presumably had been vaporized in the twinkling of an eye. It wasn't there or anywhere else. I could find no traces of unusual phenomena.

What I did see was in substance a replica of Yokohama or Osaka, or the Tokyo suburbs - the familiar residue of an area of wood and brick houses razed by uncontrollable fire. Everywhere I saw the trunks of charred and leafless trees, burned and unburned chunks of wood. The fire had been intense enough to bend and twist steel girders and to melt glass until it ran like lava - just as in other Japanese cities.

The concrete buildings nearest to the centre of explosion, some only a few blocks from the heart of the atom blast, showed no structural damage. Even cornices, canopies and delicate exterior decorations were intact. Window glass was shattered, of course, but single-panel frames held firm; only window frames of two or more panels were bent and buckled. The blast impact therefore could not have been unusual.

Then I questioned a great many people who were inside such buildings when the bomb exploded. Their descriptions matched the scores of accounts I had heard from people caught in concrete buildings in areas hit by blockbusters. Hiroshima's ten-story press building, about three blocks from the centre of the explosion, was badly gutted by the fire following the explosion, but otherwise unhurt. The people caught in the building did not suffer any unusual effects.

Most of the window panels were blown out of the Hiroshima hospital, about a mile from the heart of the explosion. Because there were no wooden structures nearby, however, it escaped fire. The people inside the hospital were not seriously affected by the blast. In general the effects here were analogous to those produced by the blast of a distant TNT bomb.

The total death, destruction and horror in Hiroshima were as great as reported. But the character of the damage was in no sense unique; neither the blast nor the heat was so tremendous as generally assumed.

In NAGASAKI, concrete buildings were gutted by fire but were still standing upright.

All of downtown Nagasaki, though chiefly wooden in construction, survived practically undamaged. It was explained that apparently it had been shielded from the explosion by intervening hills. But another part of Nagasaki, in a straight, unimpeded line from the explosion centre and not protected by the hills, also escaped serious damage. The Nagasaki blast had virtually dissipated itself by the time it reached this area. Few houses collapsed and none caught fire.

All destruction in Nagasaki has been popularly credited to the atom bomb. Actually, the city had been heavily bombed six days before. The famous Mitsubishi plant was badly punished by eight high-explosive direct hits.

What actually happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There is little evidence of primary fire; that is to say, fire kindled by the heat of the explosive itself. The bomb presumably exploded too far above ground for that. If the temperature within the exploding area of an atom bomb is super high (and the effects in New Mexico tend to indicate that) then the heat must have been dissipated in space. What struck Hiroshima was the blast.

It was like a great fly swatter two miles broad, slapped down on a city of flimsy, half-rotted wooden houses and rickety brick buildings. It flattened them out in one blow, burying perhaps 200,000 people in the debris. Its effectiveness was increased by the incredible flimsiness of most Japanese structures, built of two-by-fours, termite-eaten and ry-rotted, and top-heavy with thick tile roofs.

The wooden slats of the collapsed houses were piled like so much kindling wood in your fireplace. Fires flared simultaneously in thousands of places, from short-circuits, over-turned stoves, kerosene lamps and broken gas mains. The whole area burst into one fantastic bonfire.

In incendiary attacks, people have a chance of escape. They run from their houses into the streets, to open places, to the rivers. In Hiroshima the majority had no such chance. Thousands of them must have been killed outright by falling walls and roofs; the rest were pinned down in a burning hell. Some 60,000, it is estimated, were burned to death.

Those who did manage to extricate themselves rushed for the bridges. There is reason to believe that one of the bridges collapsed under the weight of the frenzied mobs, although some maintain that it was brought down by the bomb blast. On the other bridges, the crush of hysterical humanity pushed out the railings, catapulting thousands to death by drowning. The missing railings were not wrenched out by the bomb blast as widely reported.

On a vast and horrifying scale it was fire, just fire, that took such high toll of life and property in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The victims did not die instantaneously in a sort of atomic dissolution. They died as people die in any fire. Quite possibly the blast was strong enough to cause internal injuries to many of those caught in the centre of explosion; particularly lung injuries - a familiar effect of ordinary high-explosive bombing.

Perhaps there were some deaths from radioactivity. I met people who had heard of casualties from radio burns and radio poisoning. But I could not obtain direct confirmation. The doctors and nurses at the hospitals I visited had no such cases under their care, though some of them had heard of such cases. I also interrogated fire fighters and Red Cross workers who had rushed to the scene in the first few minutes. They all denied personal knowledge of any lingering radioactivity.

Such are the facts as I found them - they seem to me tragic enough without pseudoscientific trimmings. I am not alone in my opinions. Scientific observers on the spot to whom I talked in general shared my point of view. Nothing official came from the War Department to justify the wild exaggeration. It simply is not true that matter was vaporized in the intense heat - if steel had evaporated certainly wood would have done the same, and undamaged wood abounds everywhere in the rubble. In neither of the bombed cities was there a bald spot such as was created in the New Mexico experiment, and both atom-bombed areas have tree trunks and walls with growing vines to disprove the claims of super heat.

The more painstakingly I analyze my observations, indeed, the more convinced I am that the same bombs dropped on New York or Chicago, Pittsburgh or Detroit, would have exacted no more toll on life than one of our big blockbusters, and the property damage might have been limited to broken window glass over a wide area. Tue, the atom bombs apparently were released too high for maximum effect. Exploded closer to the ground, the results of intense heat might have been impressive. But in that case the blast might have been localized, sharply reducing the area of destruction.

Three scientists at the University of Chicago took me severely to task for saying 200 B-29's with incendiaries could have done as much damage. They pointed out "that if 200 Superforts with ordinary bombs could wipe out Hiroshima as a single atomic bomb did, the same number of planes could wipe 200 cities with atomic bombs."

These experts merely forgot to mention one detail - that the 200 cities should be as flimsy as Hiroshima. On a steel-and-concrete city high explosives would have to be added to the job. One atomic bomb hurled at Hiroshima was equal to 200 Superforts; but in New York or Chicago a different kind of atomic bomb exploding in different fashion, would be needed before it could equal one Superfort loaded with high explosives.

It seems to me completely misleading to say that the atomic bomb used on Japan was "20,000 times more powerful" than a TNT blockbuster. From the view of total energy generated, this may be correct. But we are not concerned with the energy released into space. What we are concerned with is the portion which achieves effective demolition. From that point of view, the 20,000 figure is reduced immediately to 200 for a target like Hiroshima. For a target like New York, the figure of 20,000 drops to one or less.

However, the comparison of the atom bomb with a TNT bomb, at this stage of development, is like comparing a flaming torch with a pneumatic drill. Everything depends on whether you're trying to burn a wooden fence or demolish a concrete wall. All we can say with certainty is that the atomic bomb proved supremely effective in destroying a highly flimsy and inflammable city. It was one of those cases when the right force was used against the right target at the right time to produce the maximum effect. Those who made the tactical decision to use it in these cases should be highly complimented.

The bomb dropped on Nagasaki was said to be a great many times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. Yet the damage in Nagasaki was much smaller. In Hiroshima 4.1 square miles were razed; in Nagasaki only one square mile. The improved atom bomb, in other words, was only about one fourth as effective!

Why? There are various theories, but no one knows for certain. It underlines the fat that something besides additional mass will be needed to produce greater results on the target. Eventually, of course, the problem of obtaining maximum results from atom missile will be solved. Methods will surely be found for dissipating less of the released energy in space and directing more of it to destruction.

The Chicago scientists reminded me in their statement that "the bombs dropped on Japan were the first atomic bombs ever made. They are firecrackers compared with what will be developed ten or 20 years."

That is exactly the point I am trying to make: that they are as yet in the primitive stage. Humankind has stampeded into a state of near hysteria at the first exhibits of atomic destruction. Fantasy is running wild. There are those who think we ought to dispense with all other national defence. They talk of a dozen suicides who will put on false whiskers, take compact atomic bombs in suitcases, and blow this country to bits. Such hyperbole is exciting, but it is a dangerous basis for national thinking.

On the size of the bombs, incidentally, there has been much uninformed rhetoric. How do so many people know that the atomic bombs weighed only "a few ounces" or "a few pounds"? After all, our biggest bomber, not a pursuit plane, was chosen to carry it.

A conspiracy of circumstances whipped up atomic hysteria. The Japanese had every reason to propagate extreme versions. The atom bomb gave the perfect face saving excuse for surrender. They could now pretend that an almost supernatural element had intervened to force their defeat.

The BOMB provided a face saver for or leadership as well. Our leaders were deeply committed to invasion, insisting that there could be no victory without meeting the Japanese armies in traditional fashion. We were winning a victory over Japan through air power, but I am personally convinced that we would have gone through with the invasion anyway and paid the tragic and unnecessary cost in life. The momentum of the old assumptions was too great to be arrested.

The atom bomb instantly released everybody from past commitments. The nightmare of an invasion was cancelled, a miracle saving perhaps half a million American and several million Japanese lives. Though the Hiroshima and Nagasaki episodes added less than three percent to the material devastation already visited on Japan by air power, its psychological value was incalculable - for both the defeated and the victors.

The atom bomb fitted propaganda purposes. To isolationists it seemed final proof that we could let the rest of the world stew in its own juices - with our head start in atomic energy and our superior know-how, we were safe. The internationalists, on the other hand, tried to intimidate us by reminding us that we had no monopoly on science. Everyone could manufacture the atomic bomb, they said, and if we didn't play ball we would be destroyed.

I am one of those who fought against inertia in the domain of air power. Consequently I am gratified that in relation to atomic energy the public is alert, that we are planning well ahead. But there is no call for the kind of frenzy that paralyzes understanding. Our only safety is in a calm confrontation of the truth.

I earnestly urge a cooling-off period on atomic speculation.

I am the last one to deny that atomic energy injects a vital and perhaps revolutionary new factor into military science and world relations. But I do not believe that the revolution has already taken place and that we should surrender all our normal faculties to a kind of atomic frenzy. Whatever we decide to do, let us do it calmly, logically and above all without doing violence to ascertainable facts. 

 

6.4 Addendum 4

E-mail exchange with professor Alex Wellerstein 4 February 2015:

de "Alex Wellerstein" <wellerstein@gmail.com>

à "Anders BJORKMAN" <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr>

date 04/02/15 17:21

objet Re: Your blog 7 January 2015

Hi Anders,

There is adequate evidence that fast nuclear fission is possible in enriched materials. This has been subjected to experimental testing repeatedly, and there are even reactors that operate on the principle. I stand my notion that theory is "dumb" -- the reasoning is reflective of a lack of understanding of the principle of fast fission nuclear chain reactions, to say the least the preposterous notion that all scientists in the world have either been complete dupes on this very elementary issue (all in tandem) or have been fools. The "conspiracy" is untenable on first principles alone -- Occam's razor goes against it. This is aside from the silliness of the notion that all evidence (millions of pages of reports and experiments from tens of thousands of independent investigators in dozens of countries) on the history and legacy of nuclear testing has been falsified.

The Hiroshima/Nagasaki damages are in fact not typical of napalm damages. They are phenomenologically distinct. There are evidences of high pressure and high thermal flux, to say nothing of induced radioactivity from neutrons, at the atomic bombing sites. Napalm does not produce these kinds of effects. The similarities between the two are mostly superficial -- firestorm, for example. But they have drastically different mortality rates (Hiroshima/Nagasaki were 2-4X more deadly per square mile than the Tokyo bombing, and the Tokyo bombing was itself considerably more deadly than any later firebombing, much less firebombings on cities of the size and makeup of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Similarly I do not think you have really considered the difficulty of faking footage and photographs of nuclear weapons. Even today, with advanced CGI, making something that looks compelling is non-trivially difficult. In the 1940s and 1950s it would have been impossible. The clouds in question are so much larger than those produced by conventional explosives -- they are on the order of clouds produced by only immense releases of energy. The radioactive effluents produced by the megaton-range destructions in the 1950s were detectable by independent scientists all over the world. The size of the energy release that creates a cloud can be calculated roughly in retrospect should you ever be interested -- nuclear destructions above the surface of the ground are always characterized by an uncommonly bright flash (a "double flash," technically), and the size of the fireball, its rate of rise, and ultimate top altitude correlates very strongly with its energy release. That this should be true is fairly obvious from a first-principles analysis of the movement of very hot gasses through the atmosphere. The fact of the heavy "anvilling" of late-stage multi-megaton mushroom clouds, caused by their reaching (and sometimes breaching) the troposphere, is evidence of their great explosive output. Conventional explosives simply cannot reach temperatures that would allow them to do such a thing.

You ask for a peer-reviewed paper on fast fission without a moderator -- just search for "fast-neutron reactor" and you will find evidence of whole facilities, much less their peer-reviewed output, about such reactions in non-bomb contexts. Finding evidence of this sort of thing is so trivial that I can only conclude you have not looked, or that you have concluded, a priori, that all evidence that contradicts you, no matter how copious and spread out among people who have nothing to gain or lose from playing the part of their conspiracy, must have been faked.

As for how to photograph a nuclear explosion, please just read some of the basic literature on fireball and cloud formation. It is not "pure energy" -- the energy that is released comes primarily from kinetic repulsion of fission fragments and secondary radiations. Much of this initial energy is absorbed into the atmosphere surrounding the fireball (which is the cause of the "double flash" phenomena, because it briefly renders it opaque to visible radiation). All matter at the centre of the fireball is converted into an intensely heated gas. This is the fireball that rises, eventually forming the familiar "mushroom" shape because of Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities as it passes through the atmosphere, its surface cooling and becoming more "cloud-like." As it meets resistance it begins to flatten. The heat of the initial fireball (which is a result of the explosive yield) determines both how fast it rises and how high it eventually rises, and the resistance it encounters along way (say, from the troposphere), causes it to flatten even more dramatically. What I find bizarre is that you clearly believe it is possible for TNT to do this sort of thing (which it can, on a smaller scale), but somehow you accord nuclear energy a magical, "pure energy" quality that would somehow make it exempt from this rather basic behaviour.

I do not expect, nor require, a response from you -- the only way for someone to get so deep into such a confused notion of the world is to buy in wholeheartedly, and I suspect you are well beyond reasoning on this. I write only the above so that you can get a sense of the very trivial, yet very damning, objections that immediately will come to mind to anyone who is not searching for a new "hidden theory of the world" (e.g. conspiracy theory) for its own sake.

I have little time to waste on nonsense, but since you took the time to write to me, and I did disparage your theory openly, I felt it was worth one reply. As a human being who does seek out the truth, who is happy to reconsider old dogmas, who is happy to search for evidence for new ideas, I do urge you: this is a dumb theory. It does not hold up to even the most basic logical attack. It is not worth devoting too much of your life to; it will never repay your investment of time. I do not expect you to heed any of this, because I have met cranks in the past (of all sorts), and know their ways, but I feel compelled to say it.

best,

Alex

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Anders BJORKMAN <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

Hallo Alex,

I just came across your blog at http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/01/07/bad-history-meets-bad-journalism/#footnote_2_5571 about "the random engineer who came up with this dumb theory".

Well, my web site http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm, just up-dated with your suggestions is the only one that promotes the "dumb" theory that:

(A) nuclear fission is not possible without a moderator,

(B) Hiroshima/Nagasaki bomb damages are typical Tokyo/Yokohama napalm fire bombing damages and

(C) all atomic a-bomb mushroom photos are faked,

Note that I am not a random engineer and my theory or findings are neither dull nor stupid - just not politically correct.

But maybe you are a pseudo-professor? Prove me wrong!

So - start to give me A) a link to a peer reviewed paper about nuclear fission without moderator, B) evidence that Hiroshima bomb damages are typical a-bomb damages and C) an explanation why pure energy released in air by fission produces a mushroom cloud that can be photographed.

Regards

Anders Björkman, M.Sc.

 

The following started the whole thing - from http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/01/07/bad-history-meets-bad-journalism/#footnote_2_5571 :

Some of the stuff strikes me as improbable or a little crack-potish; some of it seems plausible and interesting. I'm a firm believer in the idea that sometimes non-academic historians stumble onto interesting things and interesting questions (John Coster-Mullen is a great example of this), and I don't discriminate unless people show themselves to be going down truly untenable paths (like that small segment of the Internet who believes that all nuclear weapons are a hoax, which is just a truly silly "theory").3

 

Footnote 3:

For those who are curious: The "all nukes are a hoax" theory seems to stem from a couple different sources. The technical argument is that fast neutron chain reactions are impossible, because the fission cross-section of U235 is small for fast neutrons. The cross-section is indeed small for high-energy neutrons, which is why reactors use a moderator to slow the neutrons down and increase the likelihood of their capture by the small amounts of U235 in the nuclear fuel. What is weird is that the people making this argument don't seem to realize that this is exactly why you use 80-90% enriched material in a bomb - it is to overcome this low probability of fissioning by just putting a ridiculous number of targets in the area. It is also why there are tampers, neutron reflectors, and the like, and also why even a relatively sophisticated weapon like the Fat Man only fissioned something like 13-18% of its fissile material, and the Little Boy bomb only fissioned around 1% of its fissile material. They also have weirdly interpreted the "Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not that different from the firebombing of Tokyo" argument (to a rather absurd conclusion, that it was just a firebombing, despite the fact that firebombing and atomic bombing have really different outcomes), believe that the photographs of the mushroom clouds are all faked (despite the fact that such a level of fakery was really quite beyond the technology of the 1940s - similar to the "Apollo moon hoax," it would have been easier to make an atomic bomb in the 1940s than to fake an atomic bomb convincingly on film, at least to the degree of documentation that we have on them from the time), and believe that every scientist in the entire world (except for the random engineer who came up with this dumb theory) is in on the secret and has reasons to propagate it indefinitely (and I am apparently in on the hoax as well, to my surprise). The one person I e-mailed with about this, just trying to see what the limits of their rationality were and what it spawned from, eventually let on that to him, one of the most convincing pieces of evidence for this theory is the number of Jews who were involved in the creation of the bomb, wink wink, nudge nudge. This probably hits at the real origin of this bad idea - just another form of mis-matched anti-Semitism grafting itself onto another source. That my last name is a Jewish-sounding one did not apparently resonate with the person e-mailing me. [?]

  

7.1 Why this web page?

It is very easy to manipulate people to believe in many things apart from a-bombs. E.g. moon travel, 911 global collapses, RMS Titanic 1912 sinking, etc, etc.

I believed in moon travel 1969 and in the stories about Titanic colliding with an ice berg, when I was a young man. Later, much later, I know better and how I was misled and lied to.

Me and the a-bomb

I am a child of the Cold War and the a-bomb. My family and I lived in the capital. When I was seven years old, the government told us that the capital and us could be wiped out by an a-bomb dropped by a big country to the east and that we should be prepared. In the telephone book was info what to do, when being wiped out by an a-bomb. Those who had no telephone or telephone book could read about it in brochures about the same thing. At school we were told to be prepared. My father was terrified. He immediately booked tickets to go to New Zealand by ship for us and bought a house 30 kilometres outside the capital.

A-bombs were regularly tested at Novaya Zemlya in the northeast and clouds of atomic radiation dust swept in over us, we were told. By chance the embassy of the country testing a-bombs at Novaya Zemlya was just on the other side of our backyard fence, so it could be concluded that no a-bomb would be dropped in our backyard. My mother speaking the language of our neighbours thought so. Do not worry, she said! 1956 there were problems in Hungary and demonstrations took place outside our neighbour's embassy and I could not get home. Police chased everybody away. But I live there, I said, and pointed … to the house at the side. Then I realized that the world maybe wasn't what I thought.

My country had a big navy and I worked for it for a while. Military service! The biggest naval shipyard was in the centre of the capital and probably the target of the a-bomb. I started to work there 1966. Later the whole shipyard moved underground in an a-bomb proof shelter a little south of the capital. Imagine that. A whole shipyard inside a mountain! I worked there 1970. It looked safe. You walked down through a long tunnel with double, a-bomb proof doors and inside the mountain was our office, workshops, store rooms, dry docks, everything. James Bond ++! Amazing. Evidently I believed in a-bombs, then. In the navy we were taught how to protect us against ABC - Atomic, Biological, Chemical - warfare. If you didn't follow and obeyed orders you were shot! In war. In peace you had to stay 48 hrs in a prison cell.

My father had, unhappily, made his military service in the infantry during WW2. Like most of our family. If you are going to die for your country, it must be on the muddy, shitty potato fields of glory, they thought. I had other ideas. The sea! And not to drown!

All children had to be tested two days for military service and I was prepared. First day was a lot of tests, physical, intelligence, etc, and second day interviews and decisions. Most children were sent to infantry unless they were not social at all and had been sent to sea at 13 … then you were navy. I was taken aside and asked what kind of military service I had planned to do. Special services navy, I said. I assumed the military selection board must have been impressed by my IQ 200 score in the tests the day before. How I achieved it is another story. Nobody evidently has IQ 200!

I dutifully made my military, navy service and then … I couldn't get a job in my dear country. So I moved away … and there we are today. Isn't life full of surprises? I have learnt a lot since then, so ...

... the 911 WTC destructions at NY 2001 didn't fool me.

 

The Islamic republic dictatorship (of Iran) stresses since 34 years, i.e. from 1979, that its nuclear program that started already in the 1950's assisted by the USA is for peaceful purposes only, i.e. power generation and medical work, etc.

The five members of the UN Seurity Council, the 5 - USA, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China (all saying they have working a-bombs - which isn't true, they are all fakes) - and the IAEA (that only deals with civilian, peaceful atomic energy and cannot prove that a-bombs work - I have asked!) suggest the opposite today. They suggest the Islamic republic dictatorship is planning to build a fake, a-bomb using enriched Uranium U235.

The Islamic republic dictatorship headed by Ali Khamenei, supreme leader of the revolution to establish an islamic dictatorship, is against all types of weapons of mass destruction, WMDs, i.e. biological, chemical and nuclear and has signed all international conventions in this respect. The Islamic republic dictatorship should therefore make PR for this web page. But it doesn't. It seems the Islamic republic dictatorship likes to obtain a fake a-bomb.

November 2013 the 5+1 (Germany) all meet the Islamic republic dictatorship at Geneva, Switzerland, to sort out the matter with IAEA looking on. The Iran delegation is headed by Mohammad Javad Zarif, MJZ. MJZ and all the others evidently know that a-bombs do not function but that fake (non-working) a-bombs make your penis grow 500% and impress stupid people. So MJZ will talk and talk ... so that Iran can say it has a fake a-bomb. And USA, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China will not say much as they already has fake a-bombs. Strange thing is Germany. The have no fake a-bomb and does not want it. Why not say so?

The discussions at Geneva is whether Iran can enrich Uranium to >20% U235 using its >19 000 centrifuges in order to produce a fake a-bomb that requires 95% U235. As seen in chart right you need a fair amount of energy (and centrifuges) to enrich to 5% U235 for a nuclear power plant, i.e. 900 SWU, less energy (and centrifuges) to 20% U235 for medical use, i.e. 1 125 - 900 = 225 SWU, and much less to 95% U235 (and only a few centrifuges) for your fake a-bomb, i.e. 1 300 - 1 125 = 175 SWU. The reason is that the mass of material being enriched progressively diminishes and requires less effort relative to what has already been applied before.

It is thus very easy to enrich from 20 to 95% U235 using some 100's of centrifuges out of >19 000 and impossible to verify by IAEA.


Uranium enriched >20% U235 is useless except to enlarge your penis, and that's why the talks at Geneva cannot be finished early. USA, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China like their fake a-bombs.

One problem is that Israel will bomb Iran, if Iran has a fake a-bomb.

Of course Israel has only fake a-bombs itself, so it will bomb Iran with chemical bombs. And maybe it is the whole idea of the show? Like USA bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan 1945.

On 23 November 2013 an agreement was reached between the Islamic republic dictatorship and USA, Russia, France, United Kingdom, China and Germany at Geneva. IAEA is allowed to check the Iranian production of enriched U235 that will not exceed 5%, blah, blah. And the fake a-bomb will live on.


History is just repeating itself most of the time. Don't worry! Be happy!

Visit also THE NEW-CLEAR WEAPONS PSY-OP

 

 

Heiwa Co home page