I’m assuming the science of making one is out there. Why then countries like Iran who so want to develop atomic weapons haven’t been able to do so?
In: Physics
For example Germany, Netherlands or South Korea could probably build them within a year but that’s a very bad idea from a financial and diplomatic point of view
Why is it so hard for Redditors to google or use the search function?
Obtainment/procreation of weapons grade uranium. Conceptually speaking, nuclear bombs are simple. You’re creating a chain reaction with the enriched uranium by effectively smashing it together at a high speed. Fat man/little boy both had smaller explosives inside of them that were designed to set off the chain reaction required for the nuclear explosion.
Basically, you have to shave 3 neutrons off of naturally occurring uranium. This changes it from u238 to u235. This is a less stable version.
This is a very lengthy process that involves very specific and expensive and large equipment
It’s not really a science problem, it’s an engineering and logistics problem. In order to build a nuclear bomb a nation has to muster a vast array of resources, skills, and manufacturing and organizational capabilities to enable them to clear a number of expensive, highly complex and time-consuming hurdles. Even though the science of fission is fairly well-understood, there are still numerous areas that will require significant R&D, especially in fields like materials science, because those who have done that research aren’t sharing it. And that’s assuming you can endure the significant international pressure that will come as soon as the nature of your project is known to the world.
I mean have you seen the price of spent uranium lately?
Science isn’t hard, getting the fissile material is the most challenging part from actual execution point of view. Many countries could develop a nuke almost overnight due to having all the infrastructure in place – see concept of nuclear latency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
Political consequences and harassment from other states is main reason that we don’t have more nuclear states.
This is why breakout capability is a thing. Iran can make a nuke today if they wanted to, but they won’t because then the rest of the world will look at them sideways.
There was a story I heard a weapons inspector tell of his inspection of some Libyan sites. They were looking at centrefuge rotors and he picked one up with his bare hands because he knew that would render it useless. These rotors spin at over 100k rpm day in day out for extended periods of time. The oils and the corrosion from them would ruin the balance and that rotor could never be used. The engineering required to build these things is insane. This one part of the fuel cycle is what trips up most powers looking to build the bomb. India for example tested a plutonium bomb because they didn’t have this ability to refine uranium. So this tech is out of reach of a proven nuclear power. So in short it’s hard.
Making a nuclear bomb is pretty trivial. In an Nth Country Experiment three young PhDs who had zero experience in weapon development figured out how to create a nuke using only *publicly available information*. In *1964*.
Developing delivery systems, though? Now that’s a different question. ICBMs are very complicated and very expensive.
In addition, it’s not about just “having the bomb”. For it to be actual threat to anyone, it has to be able to hit your opponent as well. For that, three main methods exist; either it’s on a massive rocket, called ICBM, or you deliver it via long range bomber plane, or best of all, you have a submarine that can virtually stay hidden in the depths forever and pop up and fire the missile.
Most affordable method – long-range bomber planes aren’t very useful nowadays, unless they’re insanely high-tech (stealth and all), and even then, this method is most likely to fail.
ICBM’s in missile silos or on mobile launchers will be monitored very closely in the era of satellites, and they *can* be shot down. Plus, it’s very expensive. Also, you need considerable knowledge about rocketry, and likely a very expensive program to even get there. North Korea is trying this hard right now, and we hear of new tests every couple of years.
And nuclear submarines are even more difficult to build and expensive to maintain than nuclear weapons. But, if you manage to build a submarine with nuclear engine, and arm it with nuclear missile, you’re basically in the club. Those vessels will likely be last thing to survive if entire world goes to hell. Their only weakness is that there’s human crew who needs food. Otherwise, they could stay underwater pretty much until they break down completely.
Latest Answers