Is a "depleted uranium" bomb a nuclear weapon?
400781
There is a huge amount of exaggerated claims and outright lies said about DU from the anti-military crowd.\n\nDU is used in weapons because it is very dense and very hard - which makes it an ideal substance to penetrate armor.\n\nThe 'U' in DU stands for 'depleted'.  This means that the more energetic isotopes have been removed and what remains is the _very_ weakly radioactive part. Now to make things even less dangerous - the vast majority of radiation produced by DU is what is called an 'Alpha particle'.  This is a very weak particle that cannot travel more than a few inches through the air, nor can it pass through the layers of dead skill cells that cover our skin.\n\nIn fact the primary human health hazard from DU is that of a toxic heavy metal with a similar hazard profile to that of lead.  And the same precautions that you use to protect against lead exposure (such as don't eat it) will protect you against DU.\n\nWhen you see people in protective clothing on a target struck by a DU projectile - the DU is about number 20 on their list of toxic substances they are protecting themselves against.  (For example some plastics produce cyanide when they burn.)\n\nI recommend that you ignore the people trying to spread unnecessary fear in order to spread their political agendas.
663311
I believe it was a war of choice. The threat was not imminent, if it existed at all.\n\nnicolasraage gives some good links, although some are a bit biased.\n\nHis Washington Post article states that the chemical weapon lab was built after the 2003 invasion. So knock "1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents" off the list.\n\nThe low-enriched uranium was from before the first Gulf War and was barely suitable for power generation, definitely not weapons grade.\n\nThe 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin were so degraded as to be relatively harmless. They were probably from pre-91.\n\n"Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas". They had been used in Iraq for a range of medical and industrial purposes, such as testing oil wells and pipelines. Could they have been used for dispersal? Yes. Were they specifically "meant" for dispersal? No.\n\n" Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency". Both of your links to these stories say "possible" sarin and "possible" exposure, and that further tests would be necessary. The Fox news source is highly suspect.\n\nSo, what we have is weapons that were either built before '91 or after 2003, meaning that Saddam was probably not pursuing these technologies during the period when he was not allowed to.
1040504
If you are talking about just New Mexico, than the answer is probably not.  \n\nThere was only one above ground nuclear weapons test in New Mexico (the testing of the very first atom bomb at the Trinity Site in the White Sands Test Range near Alamagordo on July 16, 1945).  This blast was one of the weakest ever in terms of power and radiation and there were very few people present (due more to the secrecy of it, than for health reasons).  The test area is still largely off limits to people and there were no large population centers nearby or immediately downwind at the time.\n\nHowever, many Americans were exposed to radioactive fallout from the numerous nuclear tests that were conducted in Nevada during the 1950s and 60s.  There have been many documented cases of statistically high cancer rates and birth defects and deformities (which is what most 'mutations' result in) for people that were living downwind of the test site in Nevada, Utah and parts of Northern Arizona.  These are the tests where tourists would sometimes watch from a distance (as noted by another poster), there were no tourists present for the one New Mexico test.
962933
Considering that nations that officially have nuclear weapons have tested them within their own borders, and sometimes even deliberately on their own people... I see absolutely no reason why they couldn't use them internally in self defense.\n\nTo some extent, this goes back to the creation of the tactical nuclear strategy developed by the US, as a member of NATO, to defend Western Europe during the cold war.\n\nAs the Warsaw Pact (dominated by the Soviet Union, USSR) had overwhelming strength in troops, armor and aircraft, a nuclear counter strategy was developed.\n\nThis was dependent on tactical (rather than strategic) nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons that could be fired out of howitzers were developed, the theory being that you could blast the bad guys, and the good guys would win.\n\nSo the use of nuclear weapons to stop an invasion not only has intrinsic logical precedent, any means necessary, as well as the technology to make it less than internally lethal.\n\n-dh\n\nScary thought though...
256020
Kids bits in brackets :)\n\nAn atom bomb works by firing a proton/neutron (a little part of an atom) at a mass of uranium (nuclear material) the proton goes into the uranium and eventually hits and joins with an atom of uranium, that atom is now unstable (a bit like too many people on a ladder) so to make it self stable it loses some protons (some people fall off the ladder), usually 2 or 3 (that's the bit they call fission), these fire off and hit other atoms repeating the process in a chain. if the amount of uranium is small then a lot of the protons fly out of the uranium and do nothing, however if there is enough uranium the protons are contained in the mass and break up even more atoms, leading to a catastrophic chain reaction (KaaaaBOOOOOOM)!!! \n\n***Try shouting the last part it should get a few laughs :)\n\nPS. because the uranium lost more protons than was originally put into it as extra, it is no longer standard uranium, this is called a uranium isotope.\n\nbrubeck_take5 yeah I remember the ping-pong ball video... really cool, wouldn't mind seeing that again... gonna see if I can find it... let you know :)\n\nhere goes... thing the slow motion one is the best\n\nhttp://www.ap.stmarys.ca/demos/content/modern/mousetrap_reactor/trap_sideview_slow_high.wmv\n\nbut if you want to look at them all\n\nhttp://www.ap.stmarys.ca/demos/content/modern/mousetrap_reactor/mousetrap_reactor.html
733975
Basically, the principal type of dirty bomb, or Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD), combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite, with radioactive material. In most instances, the conventional explosive itself would have more immediate lethality than the radioactive material. At the levels created by most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present in a dirty bomb to kill people or cause severe illness. For example, most radioactive material employed in hospitals for diagnosis or treatment of cancer is sufficiently benign that about 100,000 patients a day are released with this material in their bodies. \nA dirty bomb is in no way similar to a nuclear weapon. The presumed purpose of its use would be therefore not as a Weapon of Mass Destruction but rather as a Weapon of Mass Disruption. \n\n\nHEU is Highly Enriched Uranium. Enriched uranium is a critical component for both civil nuclear power generation and military nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to monitor and control enriched uranium supplies and processes in its efforts to ensure nuclear power generation safety and curb nuclear weapons proliferation. \n\nI have no idea how to neutralize it, but perhaps those sites will help you out.
102659
a weapon which derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions of either nuclear fission or the more powerful fusion. As a result, even a nuclear weapon with a relatively small yield is significantly more powerful than the largest conventional explosives, and a single weapon can be capable of destroying or seriously disabling an entire city.
300195
Iran has no nukes, independant inspections have proved this, they do have a few certerfuges (used to enrich uranium), and a small amount of enriched uranium... for the most part, even our government recognizes the fact that as of yet Iran doesn't have nuclear bombs... in fact, Iran is many years away from developing even a simple uranium fission bomb (in my opinion, probably 4-10 years if advancement continues at its current rate)... however, they are on "the path" to develop such devices... but as of now, the advancement of thier nuclear program depends ENTIRELY on forign technology (yea, they could eventualy build it, but it may then take them more like 30-40 years), and machienery (that is how they got centerfuges, they didn't build them)... they do have radiologicly active munitions ("uranium bullets"), but most countries do, and they are not a signifigant threat (the bullets are made from depleted Uranium)...\n\n(dependant mainly on thier design choice) They are far from developing the hardest (scientificly speaking) parts of a nuclear device, such as the "pit", which is primarily made of plutonium, the technology to machine the "lense" (high explosive charges), and the trigger.
108685
wrong cause all unprovoked nucleat attack is stupid.also nuclear weapons kill civilians and not military targets.
583746
Nuclear testing is experimentation with nuclear weapons. Throughout the twentieth century, most nations which have developed nuclear weapons have staged tests of them. Testing nuclear weapons can yield information about how the weapons work (known as "weapons related" testing), as well as how the weapons behave under various conditions and how structures behave when subjected to nuclear explosions ("known as "weapons effects" testing). Additionally, nuclear testing has often been used as an indicator of scientific and military strength and many tests have been overtly political in their intention, and most nuclear weapons states publicly declared their nuclear status by means of a nuclear test.\n\nNuclear weapons tests are generally classified as being either "atmospheric" (in or above the atmosphere), "underground". or "underwater". Of these, underground testing contained in deep shafts poses the least health risk in terms of fallout. \nThe first atomic test was detonated by the United States at the Trinity site on July 16, 1945, with a yield approximately equivalent to 20 kilotons. The first hydrogen bomb, codenamed "Mike", was tested at the Enewetak atoll in the Marshall Islands on November 1, 1952, also by the United States. The largest nuclear weapon ever tested was the "Tsar Bomba" of the Soviet Union at Novaya Zemlya, with an estimated yield of around 50 megatons.
913117
Radiation poisoning is a real problem that goes right along with depleted uranium. The two Countries we are at war with are both glowing with our soldiers in them. Cancer is inevitable with our troops and the people that are exposed to the uranium. Our military personnel will have problems in the future.
674783
Everyone up until this point is more then 75% wrong. A Modern thermonuclear explosion occurs only one way. The other people who have answered your question before me have been watching too much TV or reading OLD encyclopedia's. A hydrogen bomb is not a thermonuclear explosion. Electrical shock...you got to be kidding me ...Detonation is accomplished by several means but the primary Explosion is small in comparison to the secondary blast. Highly radioactive or "HOT" Enriched Plutonium and or uranium particles are forced together at very high velocity,(Magnetically)the initial "Fusion" of these already unstable particles causes a exploding similar to TNT. The secondary explosion, or "Fission", destruction of the actual atoms of the forced together particles is what creates that horrific blast.The secondary blast itself has three stages. First an intense vacuum affect, the fission actually sucks oxygen atoms (or anything for that matter)into it.Secondly a shock wave will occur, thirdly the actual nuclear blast of super "Hot" and radioactive material.Material that was sucked in by the vacuum. Keep in mind that this all occurs withing a few seconds.
948889
ther is enough depleted uranium to make a cockroach nervous there
440969
It’s actually not that easy and I disagree that a student can make a nuclear bomb, dirty bomb, maybe, nuclear bomb, no. There is an isotope of uranium that is required. An isotope is an element with the same number of protons but a different number of neutrons. Common uranium is known as U238. Uranium used for making bombs is the rare U235. Once enough U235 is gathered, it must go through an enrichment process. Various equipment and technology is needed. Yes, the United States has been able to this for more than 60 years, but the technology is heavily guarded by the civilized world. Iran has had to start from the beginning to develop the technology which is not trivial.
639892
The U.S. has not used a nuclear weapon at all, be it civililian or militarily, since Japan and the end of WWII, a MUCH different time than today.  I have heard claims, however, of people that believe the U.S. has freely, and openly been using "tactical nukes" in the Middle East.  This is not true.  What a lot of people are mentioning is known as depleted uranium.  While it's not exactly the greatest stuff on Earth, it is far from what some believe it is to be--a type of nuclear weapon.  It's actually used in many civilian applications as well.\n\nhttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/\n\nAs far as the U.S. having weapons, it's known that we have decreased our arsenal, but at the same time, still have a large amount.  Is it possible that someone could get a hold of them?  Sure, I would suppose, but why bother the U.S. and the military that is surely guarding our stockpile when you could get it for a price just by asking in some parts of the world.  \n\nThe United States will forever maintain a nuclear arsenal for strategic purposes.  It is impossible to believe that if we took the lead and destryoed every one that we had, that the rest of the world would follow suit.  We'd be left unprotected, and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction--one of the main reasons the Cold War went the way it did--would be eliminated, leaving us naked and extremely vulnerable.  We maintain them anymore as defense, though I truly believe that in this political climate, we will never see the day that the U.S. fires an offensive nuclear attack...I think defensive may even be a stretch.  \n\nThe reason that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons is simple.  They have made their intentions known, and I truly believe that it is simply a matter of time before they place one on top of a missile and fire one into Israel, and one into Iraq (to wipeout any remaining U.S. and coalition forces).  While some believe that Iran is bluffing, and claim that they do not have the technology, I'll leave the bluffing to the poker players, and take the threat of a nuclear weapon coming out of Iran in the near future as a very serious one.
1117253
Yes, it's done all the time in nuclear reactors. \n\nIt's done by shooting neutrons at atoms of Uranium-235, which is "fissionable", meaning it's a kind of atom that can be split. (Other kinds of atoms can't be split, at least not easily).\n\nThey don't pick the individual atoms they want to split; they just put a bunch of U-235 near a neutron source, and wait. Nor do they see the atoms. They determine it has been split by analyzing the uranium before and after it's been bombarded. Afterwards, there are trances of other elements that weren't there before. So that's how they know.
191810
We already have. Depleted Uranium is classified as a nuclear (or nu-cu-ler for you Bush fans) weapon.\n\nAccording to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts.\n\nIn 1991, the Allies fired 944,000 DU rounds or some 2700 tons of DU tipped bombs. A UK Atomic Energy Authority report said that some 500,000 people would die before the end of this century, due to radioactive debris left in the desert.