Why is Atom Bomb limited to certain countries?

  • News
  • Thread starter zorro
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Atom Bomb
In summary: The technology to make these weapons is not something that is held back by a lack of resources, but by the will of the nations that possess them.
  • #1
zorro
1,384
0
Why can't every country make an 'Atom Bomb' ?
Everyone knows that we require a fissionable material and an explosive. What else is required that is to be invented (rather discovered) by other countries?

All comments are welcome.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Abdul Quadeer said:
Why can't every country make an 'Atom Bomb' ?
Everyone knows that we require a fissionable material and an explosive.

You make it sound like getting the fissile material is easy.

Read up on the first atomic bomb effort, the Manhattan project, and you'll see that the primary obstacle was sufficient highly enriched fissile material, they tried Pu 239 and U 235. In the case of Pu 239, and all Plutonium, the material itself is synthetic and comes as a byproduct of nuclear reactors.

To be considered weapons-grade it must be 93% pure. Separating out the isotopes and impurities is the problem. That's why it requires huge expense and large-scale industrial effort to get enough for even one bomb. They isotopes cannot be separated chemically. This is why you generally hear of centrifuges in countries trying to develop nuclear weapons, the centrifuges separate the lighter and heavier isotopes. See here for other methods used in the Manhattan project: http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/mp/p2s2.shtml

For U 235, it must be 85% pure but naturally occurs in Uranium only 0.72% of the time in U. So you still have the separation problem after the refining to pure U has been done.

There are other issues as well, but that's the big one. These other issues generally revolve around reliably getting a good symmetric explosion so that you achieve supercritical mass as quickly as possible. The good solutions to some of these issues are still classified top-secret or higher in the U.S.
 
  • #3
We can separate U-235 from U-238 by many methods such as thermal diffusion, gaseous diffusion, electromagnetic separation etc. Do you mean that just knowing a method is different from getting the desired results?
 
  • #4
Abdul Quadeer said:
We can separate U-235 from U-238 by many methods such as thermal diffusion, gaseous diffusion, electromagnetic separation etc. Do you mean that just knowing a method is different from getting the desired results?
Yes it's what we call engineering
Whats even harder is doing it in secret.

Mostly it's not worth it - the bomb is pretty much only useful if you are going to use it, which means you have more enemies that have the bomb and might use it on you than you have allies who might object.

So it makes sense for Iran, N. Korea etc to have one but no sense for S. Africa, Sweden, Brazil etc (who all had bomb programs that they abandoned)
 
Last edited:
  • #5
NobodySpecial said:
Mostly it's not worth it - the bomb is pretty much only useful if you are going to use it, which means you have more enemies that have the bomb and might use it on you than you have allies who might object.

I don't agree with you. Its just like saying that knowing Karate, Judo etc is useless unless some attacks you. We should be prepared for everything. If you have power, no one can overpower you. At the same time, you should not misuse your power.
 
  • #6
Abdul Quadeer said:
If you have power, no one can overpower you.
But you don't have infinite power - you can relatively easily make a 10-15Kt U Hiroshima style. But then if doing this annoys the couple of countries that can drop 10,000 * 1Mt thermonuclear devices on you then you have lost.
 
  • #7
NobodySpecial said:
But then if doing this annoys the couple of countries that can drop 10,000 * 1Mt thermonuclear devices on you then you have lost.

Why should it annoy? Every country (according to me) should have freedom to advance in science and technology as long as it does not harm others.
 
  • #8
Abdul Quadeer said:
Why should it annoy? Every country (according to me) should have freedom to advance in science and technology as long as it does not harm others.

The very purpose of a bomb is to hurt people...
 
  • #9
Norman said:
The very purpose of a bomb is to hurt people...

Yes it is. Its purpose should be to hurt people who hurt you.
 
  • #10
At this point I think it's more diplomacy than anything. Pretty much every nation has signed the non-proliferation treaty.

The nations that haven't signed it are actively pursuing or have a nuclear program and I don't think there's anything technological that's holding them back. Obviously having less resources means they'll get there slower, but they'll still get there.
 
  • #11
Abdul, you have heard the saying that "the people who have the power make the rules", right? That's exactly the case with atomic/nuclear weapons issue with countries across the globe. Certainly not a fair rule, but relevant and applicable nevertheless.

You say that every country "should have freedom to advance in science and technology as long as it does not harm others." However, in the case with nuclear weapons, that reasoning does not apply as Norman already pointed out that the purpose of a nuclear weapon is to hurt people.

There is also a case regarding Iran building nuclear power plants, which seems to be a harmless application of nuclear technology, but it raises an issue: what will Iran do with all their nuclear waste byproducts? Unless Iran has a safe way of disposing nuclear waste byproducts, the nuclear waste byproduct has but only one "useful" application instead of sitting around and polluting the environment: developing nuclear weapons.
 
  • #12
ErichB said:
You say that every country "should have freedom to advance in science and technology as long as it does not harm others." However, in the case with nuclear weapons, that reasoning does not apply as Norman already pointed out that the purpose of a nuclear weapon is to hurt people.

I already replied to this in my post number 9. If someone hurts you, you don't sit back and let others harm you.


ErichB said:
Unless Iran has a safe way of disposing nuclear waste byproducts, the nuclear waste byproduct has but only one "useful" application instead of sitting around and polluting the environment: developing nuclear weapons.

I don't know what is Iran doing. If it is making nuclear weapons I don't have any problem as long as it does not harm others. Moreover, its not necessary that nuclear waste byproducts are created only due to developing of nuclear weapons.
 
  • #13
Abdul Quadeer said:
If it is making nuclear weapons I don't have any problem as long as it does not harm others.

Even if Iran (or any other country) hurts others with nuclear weapons, you will not have a problem. Because you (humanity) do not exist.
 
  • #14
Abdul Quadeer said:
I don't know what is Iran doing. If it is making nuclear weapons I don't have any problem as long as it does not harm others.
What happens if it does [harm others]? Bombing it back in retaliation doesn't save any lives.
 
  • #15
Abdul Quadeer said:
Why can't every country make an 'Atom Bomb' ?
Everyone knows that we require a fissionable material and an explosive. What else is required that is to be invented (rather discovered) by other countries?

All comments are welcome.

seems to require huge amounts of money and resources, even when you have the plans.
 
  • #16
Abdul Quadeer said:
I already replied to this in my post number 9. If someone hurts you, you don't sit back and let others harm you.

This is the game a country that gets a nuke enters, and as others have mentioned, they do so at a massive disadvantage. In fact, as a defensive weapon you need enough bombs and deploy them in such a fashion that your "peace" is just peace at daggers drawn.




Abdul Quadeer said:
I don't know what is Iran doing. If it is making nuclear weapons I don't have any problem as long as it does not harm others. Moreover, its not necessary that nuclear waste byproducts are created only due to developing of nuclear weapons.

Other nations do care, and are afraid... what kind of fool scares a potential foe that can LITERALLY wipe your nation off the face of the earth? Life isn't fair, and international politics doesn't even PRETEND to be fair...
 
  • #17
Gokul43201 said:
What happens if it does [harm others]? Bombing it back in retaliation doesn't save any lives.

How can you say that? I think it should not harm others unless someone wages a war on it.
Other countries- India, Pakistan, N.Korea , Israel all have Nuclear Power. But they did not harm others ( till now ). Well they can (harm others) in the future - I don't know - nothing can be said about it. But again I think you should be ready for every thing. I am proud to say that my country (India) has Nuclear Power and is capable of retaliating against the toughest enemy. So should be any other country.
nismaratwork said:
This is the game a country that gets a nuke enters, and as others have mentioned, they do so at a massive disadvantage. In fact, as a defensive weapon you need enough bombs and deploy them in such a fashion that your "peace" is just peace at daggers drawn.

Other nations do care, and are afraid... what kind of fool scares a potential foe that can LITERALLY wipe your nation off the face of the earth? Life isn't fair, and international politics doesn't even PRETEND to be fair...

Yes I agree. Its all politics. NPT is flawed. Nothing is fair. Those who are in power make the rules.
I asked something else and this topic ended here. I don't understand why people here gave an example against Iran. There are other countries too which have nuclear power.
 
  • #18
Abdul Quadeer said:
How can you say that? I think it should not harm others unless someone wages a war on it.[

I think Gokul's point is that the solution of everyone having nuclear weapons so that they can kill other who kill them is not a solution. It just sets up a self perpetuating cycle leading to more people dying and giving even more excuses to use the bombs.

The real goal is that eventually no one should have nuclear weapons. They are not a good thing. No one thinks that they are. That is why stockpiles are slowly being reduced in the countries that have the most nuclear weapons.
I don't understand why people here gave an example against Iran. There are other countries too which have nuclear power.

Fair enough, but Iran is the current events topic in this area recently. You can't fault people for making that connection.
 
  • #19
nukes work better as a deterrent, keeping others from killing you in the first place. a great modern example would be that the US invaded afghanistan, but not pakistan.
 
  • #20
Proton Soup said:
nukes work better as a deterrent, keeping others from killing you in the first place. a great modern example would be that the US invaded afghanistan, but not pakistan.

I agree with you completely. That was what I meant when I said you should be ready for everything. You can even take the example of US invading Iraq and not Iran.
 
  • #21
G01 said:
It just sets up a self perpetuating cycle leading to more people dying and giving even more excuses to use the bombs.

The real goal is that eventually no one should have nuclear weapons.

Agreed.
But don't you think this is impossible - no one should have nuclear weapons
 
  • #22
Abdul Quadeer said:
I don't agree with you. Its just like saying that knowing Karate, Judo etc is useless unless some attacks you. We should be prepared for everything. If you have power, no one can overpower you. At the same time, you should not misuse your power.

Why not use the hundreds of $ Billions the program would cost to (instead) house, feed, clothe, and educate your population - remain neutral and let the world super powers protect you from aggressors?
 
  • #23
You also have to realize that allowing a country such as Iran which is likely to use them against you, to build such weapons is not a good idea from your own point of view.

It's one thing to say every country should be allowed to have nukes, but do you think any country in the west would enjoy the idea of Osama Bin Laden holding nukes? Of course not.
 
  • #24
WhoWee said:
Why not use the hundreds of $ Billions the program would cost to (instead) house, feed, clothe, and educate your population - remain neutral and let the world super powers protect you from aggressors?

Yes you should spend that money to eradicate poverty. At the same time you should not lag behind in Technology.
Who will gurantee to protect you?
 
  • #25
Abdul Quadeer said:
Yes you should spend that money to eradicate poverty. At the same time you should not lag behind in Technology.
Who will gurantee to protect you?

Life is uncertain and lacks guarantees, but let me ask you this:

Is North Korea (lets leave Iran alone) safer now, with nukes of its own, or would it be safer if it dealt with the USA, or Chinese, or Russians in good faith? The South Koreans are certainly interested in peace, and stand to lose the most so... why not?

How does the North Korean government getting nuclear weapons help this situation? Now, IF there is a conflict, the chances that they will be the subject of an initial debilitating strike, or a retaliatory one. Pakistan has protected its statehood against India, but only by being willing to launch about 50 warheads almost at once if a conflict starts. That is HORRENDOUS, and I have to wonder if a conventional war between the two nations wouldn't be preferable to this unstable peace.

Back to Iran... are they safer with Israel and the USA ready to kill them if they suddenly change course (unlikely it seems)? They managed to beat back Iraq, which was being supplied by the USA, without nukes... what's the need?

You're right that nobody should have them, but that's not how our history unfolded: the USA, then the Soviet Union in turn developed these weapons, and some others as well. Why should they have them and not more nations?... simple: the fewer who have them, the better, and the people with the nukes can infuse their words with serious weight.

I also want to be clear: North Korea could nuke the South, but it wouldn't 'save' or protect them... it would be suicide. The same goes for Iran, or virtually any other nation... nukes only make you safe against other nukes... kinda.
 
  • #26
Abdul Quadeer said:
Yes you should spend that money to eradicate poverty. At the same time you should not lag behind in Technology.
Who will gurantee to protect you?

You might want to direct that question to someone from South Korea?


EDIT: (nismaratwork beat me to the post)
 
Last edited:
  • #27
WhoWee said:
You might want to direct that question to someone from South Korea?

...And Japan...
 
  • #28
I think this movie sums up the problem with nuclear strikes quite nicely :biggrin::

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuM9oauZVxY
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Should countries that are not "world powers" be allowed by those that are "world powers" to have nuclear weapons? I think no. It comes down to who do you trust to use them responsibly (as in not use them)? If a country is threatening towards its neighbors and is not trusted by the rest of the world community, why allow them to have nuclear weapons when the powers that be are able to limit their ability to acquire them? IMO it is naive to simply say that it isn't fair. It's not about fair, it's about preventing a nuclear holocaust.
 
  • #30
drankin said:
Should countries that are not "world powers" be allowed by those that are "world powers" to have nuclear weapons? I think no. It comes down to who do you trust to use them responsibly (as in not use them)? If a country is threatening towards its neighbors and is not trusted by the rest of the world community, why allow them to have nuclear weapons when the powers that be are able to limit their ability to acquire them? IMO it is naive to simply say that it isn't fair. It's not about fair, it's about preventing a nuclear holocaust.

re: bolded: Amen.
 
  • #31
remember this world:

when you put a GUN (on the wall) in the beginning of theater play some one will use it at the end seen
 
  • #32
hagopbul said:
remember this world:

when you put a GUN (on the wall) in the beginning of theater play some one will use it at the end seen

The gun was on the wall (creation of nuke), it was used "at the end" (Japan), it was back on the wall (cold war) and then diffused somewhat. I'd say we're well past the end now.
 
  • #33
Abdul Quadeer said:
Why can't every country make an 'Atom Bomb' ?
Everyone knows that we require a fissionable material and an explosive. What else is required that is to be invented (rather discovered) by other countries?

All comments are welcome.

Big stik good. Keep peace! Not them, though. They bad. No peace, so no gettum big stick.
 
  • #34
mugaliens said:
Big stik good. Keep peace! Not them, though. They bad. No peace, so no gettum big stick.

This has clearly settled the debate. Your overwhelming logic devastates all arguments brought to bear against it
 
  • #35
Why on Earth would a country that has a civilian nuclear power system want to put perfectly good U or Pu in a bomb? It could do so much more in a core of a reactor. Take the USA for example since the mid 90's 20% of the electrical power in the USA has come from down blended Russian HEU bombs. A damm good use of nuclear weapons.

As for the technology argument look at South Africa, they had a nuclear weapon program and nuclear weapons. However they gave the weapons and program up and still have the most cutting edge research in PBMR reactors. A country dose not need to have nuclear weapons to have a cutting edge nuclear power system.

As for the required know how to build a bomb, that is a 50+ year old engineering feet, a high schooler with an Internet connection and enough time could figure out enough to build a working Fat Man or Little Boy bomb. As for the required fissionable material getting that is very difficult if one is not a nation state, and would set off multiple alarms in the national community. Now could a country starting from "scratch" turn out a tri stage multi mega tonn bomb, no. But again what would be the point, it is just a waste of fissionable material.
 
<h2>1. Why do only certain countries have access to atom bombs?</h2><p>The development and possession of atom bombs is tightly regulated by international treaties, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. These treaties limit the number of countries that can legally possess nuclear weapons and require them to have strict safeguards in place to prevent their spread. Additionally, the resources and technology required to develop and maintain atom bombs are often only available to a handful of countries with advanced scientific and military capabilities.</p><h2>2. Are there any exceptions to the limitations on atom bombs?</h2><p>Some countries, such as North Korea, have developed and tested nuclear weapons without adhering to international treaties. However, this is widely condemned by the international community and can lead to economic and political sanctions. Other countries, like Israel, have not officially declared their possession of nuclear weapons, but are believed to have them.</p><h2>3. What are the consequences of a country possessing atom bombs?</h2><p>The possession of atom bombs by a country can have significant political and military implications. It can lead to an arms race with other countries, increase tensions and potential for conflict, and create a sense of insecurity and fear among other nations. The use of atom bombs can also have catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences.</p><h2>4. Can a country without atom bombs defend itself against a country that has them?</h2><p>Yes, there are various ways for a country to defend itself against a nuclear attack, such as through the use of missile defense systems, diplomatic efforts, and alliances with other countries. Additionally, the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) suggests that the use of nuclear weapons by one country would result in retaliation and destruction for both parties, serving as a deterrent.</p><h2>5. Is there a possibility for all countries to completely eliminate their atom bombs?</h2><p>While it is a challenging and complex task, there have been efforts towards nuclear disarmament and arms control by various countries and international organizations. For example, the United States and Russia have signed multiple treaties to reduce their nuclear arsenals. However, complete elimination of atom bombs by all countries is currently not a feasible or realistic goal due to various political, strategic, and technological factors.</p>

1. Why do only certain countries have access to atom bombs?

The development and possession of atom bombs is tightly regulated by international treaties, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. These treaties limit the number of countries that can legally possess nuclear weapons and require them to have strict safeguards in place to prevent their spread. Additionally, the resources and technology required to develop and maintain atom bombs are often only available to a handful of countries with advanced scientific and military capabilities.

2. Are there any exceptions to the limitations on atom bombs?

Some countries, such as North Korea, have developed and tested nuclear weapons without adhering to international treaties. However, this is widely condemned by the international community and can lead to economic and political sanctions. Other countries, like Israel, have not officially declared their possession of nuclear weapons, but are believed to have them.

3. What are the consequences of a country possessing atom bombs?

The possession of atom bombs by a country can have significant political and military implications. It can lead to an arms race with other countries, increase tensions and potential for conflict, and create a sense of insecurity and fear among other nations. The use of atom bombs can also have catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences.

4. Can a country without atom bombs defend itself against a country that has them?

Yes, there are various ways for a country to defend itself against a nuclear attack, such as through the use of missile defense systems, diplomatic efforts, and alliances with other countries. Additionally, the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) suggests that the use of nuclear weapons by one country would result in retaliation and destruction for both parties, serving as a deterrent.

5. Is there a possibility for all countries to completely eliminate their atom bombs?

While it is a challenging and complex task, there have been efforts towards nuclear disarmament and arms control by various countries and international organizations. For example, the United States and Russia have signed multiple treaties to reduce their nuclear arsenals. However, complete elimination of atom bombs by all countries is currently not a feasible or realistic goal due to various political, strategic, and technological factors.

Similar threads

  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
15
Views
590
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
820
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
11
Views
520
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
21
Views
1K
Back
Top