The first one is also false in all but the weakest possible sense of it
The men responsible for it took it serious:
He had to talk about a matter so important that it was worth taking the train all the way from Los Alamos, New Mexico.
If the Manhattan Project succeeded, might the bomb ignite an uncontrollable fusion chain reaction in the hydrogen of the ocean water or in the nitrogen atoms of the atmosphere?
Compton decided the project should only proceed if calculations gave a less-than three-in-1-million chance that an atomic bomb would vaporize the world. The scientists’ estimate allegedly satisfied that threshold—but there was no way of knowing for sure if the figures were right until the first bomb was detonated
yes they considered it early on and deemed it impossible. Bethe commented later on the anecdote: “There was never any possibility of causing a thermonuclear chain reaction in the atmosphere… Ignition is not a matter of probabilities; it is simply impossible.”
Good to know. Unfortunately that doesn’t change that people in power are willing to risk many lives.
With a space shield, they don’t press a button to start nuclear war. They simply have the option to conquer Europe conventionally, knowing that Europe has to settle because they can’t threaten severe consequences with their nuclear weapons.
Having robots to defend us would be much more helpful than a nuclear bomb.
Again, such a space shield capable of stopping a nuclear response to any meaningful degree from a major western power does not and isn’t going to exist anytime soon with the level of technology currently available. It’s just as much BS now as it was when Reagan announced his SDI. Only thing that does is a limited and somewhat unreliable system that can protect against very limited strikes as might happen if a terrorist actor managed get control of a few nuclear ICBMs.
In addition to the credible deterrence France has, Germany actually already stockpiles highly enriched uranium that would be enough for hundreds of advanced warheads. Sweden is also well positioned to get to nuclear missiles in just a few years with a concentrated effort.
So Gernany could have 1,000 warheads in a year. But then it is almost useless if Russia already cannot win a conventional war and the US don’t have to win a war to influence German policies.
The men responsible for it took it serious:
https://nautil.us/the-day-oppenheimer-feared-he-might-blow-up-the-world-355603
yes they considered it early on and deemed it impossible. Bethe commented later on the anecdote: “There was never any possibility of causing a thermonuclear chain reaction in the atmosphere… Ignition is not a matter of probabilities; it is simply impossible.”
https://www.inverse.com/science/did-oppenheimer-really-worry-about-setting-the-atmosphere-on-fire
Good to know. Unfortunately that doesn’t change that people in power are willing to risk many lives.
With a space shield, they don’t press a button to start nuclear war. They simply have the option to conquer Europe conventionally, knowing that Europe has to settle because they can’t threaten severe consequences with their nuclear weapons.
Having robots to defend us would be much more helpful than a nuclear bomb.
Again, such a space shield capable of stopping a nuclear response to any meaningful degree from a major western power does not and isn’t going to exist anytime soon with the level of technology currently available. It’s just as much BS now as it was when Reagan announced his SDI. Only thing that does is a limited and somewhat unreliable system that can protect against very limited strikes as might happen if a terrorist actor managed get control of a few nuclear ICBMs.
How many more can the EU get within 10 years?
In addition to the credible deterrence France has, Germany actually already stockpiles highly enriched uranium that would be enough for hundreds of advanced warheads. Sweden is also well positioned to get to nuclear missiles in just a few years with a concentrated effort.
What’s your source for that?
This is the latest German declaration to the IAEA: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1998/infcirc549a2-26.pdf
The former could be used for breakthrough in just a few months. The latter would take maybe 1-2 years to process first.
You were right, I looked it up, Germany could create a nuclear threat. Though if Germany starts would the US not intervene?
Germany has 3000 tSWU per year enrichment capacity.
https://fissilematerials.org/facilities/enrichment_plants.html
About 300 SWU are needed for 1kg weapons-grade, 85%, uranium.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urantrennarbeit
So 10,000 kg can be created per year.
Additionally the research HEU can be anything as low as 20% U235. So maybe 300kg 85% can be extracted from the research material for a quick start.
Uranium 235 critical mass is 50kg, but reflectors can lower that to what looks like 10kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass
So Gernany could have 1,000 warheads in a year. But then it is almost useless if Russia already cannot win a conventional war and the US don’t have to win a war to influence German policies.