how much does it cost to build a nuke from scratch
bout tree fiddy
>>488996402tree fiddy
>>488996402ask this guy
>>488996402tree
if you were going from zero nuclear tech to usable nukes I would say 1-2 trillion dollars in infrastructure and resource procurement
>>488996402Probably between 500 mill and 2 billion.No, you can't do it yourself.
>>488996402THREE US DOLLARS AND A HALF
You need hidrogen, some neutrons, a lot of pressure and an ignition switch.
supposedly just a bit of will and power according to jewish man who devolved into a drooling mess and got pwned by evola.
>muh trillions of doshimagine being mogged by a 17 year old
>>488996402tree fiddy but imma do it for a dolla if u come up off it now nigga
>>48899640214 quarters
>>488996402>build from scratchWhat are you poor? Just buy it retail
>>488996713See, the cool thing about using hydrogen instead of plutonium or uranium is that hydrogen is one of the most abudant element on earth and when you consider the chain reaction that happen after splitting an atom and that splitting splits the atoms around it, it's a mega kaboom. Very funny, i'm almost sure I could build one in my garage given enough time and resources.
>>488996402You gotta get one of those old chemistry sets that have uranium in it.
>>488997392
>>488997310just use lithium-6 to sustain the reaction, like castle bravo did right?
20$
>>488997544Vacuum. Keep the hydrogen stable until reach a certain point, the trigger starts the neutrons inside the vacuum chamber filled with hydrogen, the pressure of the reaction will explode the device without any fire until it get's in contact with oxygen. Considering the amount of atoms inside the chamber and a reasonable amount of neutrons being shot it would probably take a few seconds to the whole thing explodes after triggering. A timer would be enough to hold the reaction for long enough.
>>488996402Not that much really. The costly parts are the parts that are tracks.Explosive for the detonator.Uranium for the reaction mass.The problems is not the cost($8.4M/warhead), Musk could build more warheads than we currently have operational(3,748 warheads)[total ~$31.5B]. The problem is that he cannot buy the necessary component in bulk without the right licenses and the government watches those with the licenses like hawks.No one is building a nuclear bomb without finding their own source of untracked uranium.
>>488997310Can't use H without U. Can not provide the heat and pressure sufficient to cause fusion.At least, not in a weaponized format.
>>488996481>>488996497>>488996553>>488996700>>488996791>>488996844this is pretty cheap, considering the rate of inflation i'm surprised the price has remained relatively stable.
>>488996402procuring the fuel would be the largest hurdleif you have no solution for that, then the rest isn't worth discussing
>>488998727If you can build a nuke you can steal rocket fuel
Some boyscout from our own US of A made a reactor from scratch in the 80s or 90s. I’m sure if he wanted to, he could’ve made a nuke bomb too, but luckily he wasn’t a terrorist or bad person
>>488998820Steal water?But really thoug, how far does this thing need to go??Take 1,000 pic related and empty them into a larger tube. RC cars have those little motors you can use to adjust the trajectory.You just need to be a little creative. Or get a source of liquid hydrogen and oxygen.
>>488998820the nuclear fuel, anona rocket is not requiredif the fuel is uranium, the rest of the construction will be pretty cheapif it is plutonium, the design will be a lot more complexeither wayif you can't procure the fuel then it's not even worth discussing
>>488996402you could build one for probably a few thousand, there was a boyscout who was enriching uranium in his shed and codyslab was doing the same . Both were raided by the fbi though so stay safe
>>488999152You can use regular fuel in a turbine rocket is about how far it needs to>>488999161The enriched plutonium blows up doesn't propel properly
>>488999257all anon asked for was a nuclear devicenot a nuclear missilenot all of them are projectiles
>>488999227if i am thinking of the same person (the boy scout), he had built a breeder reactor which is a far cry from having a usable concentration of the appropriate isotopehis atoms were shut down due to the immense radiological hazard he created, not that he was at risk of actually making a gadget
>>488999673hes dead now so
>>488996596Way less than $1 trillion>>488996665You're way light2 best ways to make the fissile material are centrifuges or a train of breeder reactorsTo put centrifuges into perspective that Manhattan Project used them, they borrowed the entire US Government silver reseerve to wind the magnets, built a factory complex larger than the entire US auto industry and were burning something like 1/4 to 1/3 of all electricity generated in the US for multiple years to run themBreeder reactors are better, that's what the US uses now, and the best way is to use commercial power generating reactors which is why the Dept. of Energy subsidized building buke power plants during the cold warFigrue $20 billion plus each, and you would need a few of them to generate material in the amounts you would need to set up a warhead bullding lineAfter that the actual device is fairly simple, the parts are all widely available and any decently competent engineer should be able to put them together well enough to make a bomb that at least works, albeit an inefficient oneThe bar to entry for the nuke club is $$$$ more than knowledge, that's why backwards ass N Korea has nukes and a starving population
>>489000319>skinny = starvingI don't know their diet. I'm retarded. But, if it's chicken and rice then they aren't going to be huge.
>>489000319>>489000462Probably not going to get fat on rice and seafood.I bet they don't even get HFCS injected into their diet! What losers amirite?
>>488999464Well you don't wanna be to close to the detonation
>>489000698it can be set off remotely, with a timer, a proximity sensor, etc. none require being anywhere near the ol' spicy ball
>>488996530Why?Retard didn't build anything even close to a nuke.He managed to get a good does of radiation and contaminated the neighborhood.That's about it.>>488996402A lot.Doesn't really matter though, because technologies and components needed aren't exactly sold openly to anyone that waves a wads of cash around.
>>488996402In theory, you only need some highly radioactive material, explosives and a detonator. To make a nuke you just compress the radioactive material( in a ball shape for instance), then you put the explosive around it( plastic explosives like c4 or semtex are good choices), and then you put a detonator, once you press the button it explodes. The plastic explosives will compress the radioactive material, and this will reach a critical point where you get a nuclear reaction and you get a really really big boom. That's extremely easy to do, for the radioactive material you could probably use cesium( old medical equipment) and radium(smoke detectors), but of course the experts tell it doesn't work, even though it makes perfect sense in theory. Uranium mining and enrichment( in any country that does it) is guarded at maximum security, but with 80 years of nuclear technology, of course there's gonna be some leaks. Which is what happened in the cold war, when the jews got hold of 300+ pounds of uranium, there's even a video about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNI7_u99rec. So, what is my point? Nukes are fake, because building a nuke, as I demonstrated above, is incredibly easy, and the likelihood that in these 80 years of nuclear technology not one independent party detonated a nuke, despite it being so easy to make, proves that nukes aren't real
