News Why is Atom Bomb limited to certain countries?

[zorro]

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.

 

[inflector]

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.

 

[zorro]

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?

 

[NobodySpecial]

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)

 

[zorro]

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.

 

[NobodySpecial]

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.

 

[zorro]

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.

 

[Norman]

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...

 

[zorro]

The very purpose of a bomb is to hurt people...

Yes it is. Its purpose should be to hurt people who hurt you.

 

[dav2008]

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.

 

[ErichB]

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.

 

[zorro]

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.

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.

 

[jobyts]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

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...

 

[zorro]

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.

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.

 

[G01]

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.

 

[Proton Soup]

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.

 

[zorro]

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.

 

[zorro]

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

 

[WhoWee]

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?

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[zorro]

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?

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

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)

 

[nismaratwork]

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

...And Japan...

 

[JaredJames]

I think this movie sums up the problem with nuclear strikes quite nicely :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuM9oauZVxY

 

[drankin]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[hagopbul]

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

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[mugaliens]

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.

 

[Office_Shredder]

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

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

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.

 

[Mororvia]

Why on Earth would a country that has a civilian nuclear power system want to put perfectly good U or Pu in a bomb?

Because its a show of power (in the political sense). They think it gives them a voice, and to a certain extent it does.

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.

And this is another reason to not allow other countries to have nuclear weapons. All it would take is one unsecured facility to allow material to get out either by straight theft or perhaps a disgruntled scientist willing to sell it to rogue organizations for profit.

 

[nismaratwork]

This has clearly settled the debate. Your overwhelming logic devastates all arguments brought to bear against it

It wasn't poetry, but when you strip away the diplomacy, he's right.

 

[russ_watters]

So to sum up:
1. Because they can't afford it.
2. Because they decide it is not worth the money (not the same as #1).
3. Because they don't see the value. (also not the same as #1 or 2).
4. Because of the negative political consequences.
5. Because they signed a treaty that they feel they should honor.

 

[russ_watters]

It wasn't poetry, but when you strip away the diplomacy, he's right.

No, he isn't. The OP's question wasn't why the US doesn't want other countries to have the bomb it was why those other countries just don't go get it. That, setting aside that the diplomacy is a key issue so you shouldn't strip it away!

 

[russ_watters]

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.

I've never heard that before - very cool, but do you have a source?

 

[nismaratwork]

No, he isn't. The OP's question wasn't why the US doesn't want other countries to have the bomb it was why those other countries just don't go get it. That, setting aside that the diplomacy is a key issue so you shouldn't strip it away!

I know that diplomacy is key, but in the end we want to be the ones with the stick of course... us, and those we count as allies. One of the reasons that Iraq never become nuclear is that we, and Israel, used a big stick to keep them from getting it... and a good thing too. When diplomacy fails it DOES come down to the stick, and I've already talked about the diplomatic and MAD angles earlier in the thread.

 

[JaredJames]

I think that when all is said and done, the hassle a country gets for creating a nuke would far outweigh any potential benefit to them.

So it really is a case of "those with the bigger sticks" stopping them simply "going and getting it".

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

I've never heard that before - very cool, but do you have a source?

Yes I do, it is the http://www.usec.com/megatonstomegawatts.htm" program. This program should defiantly get a second run before its expiration in 2013.

 

[zorro]

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.

On what grounds do you say that Iran is a country which is likely to use them against others.
If building such weapons is not a good idea, then no one should have it. Every country that has nuclear power should abandon it openly. How can you build your own nuclear power and stop others from making it?

Why do you drag in Osama Bin Laden here? We are talking about countries not him.

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?

Yes I think they are now much more safer than before - having built the nuclear weapons. USA/Israel planned to attack Iran if they did not abandon their nuclear programmes. But they did not. WHY? they are afraid of the after-effects. It can lead to a 3rd World War. They are just good for threatening being the super-powers. But USA attacked Iraq - WHY? there are a plenty of reasons. I think one of them is that Iraq did not have an Atom Bomb.

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...

Why on the Earth would North Korea nuke the South for no reason?

 

[JaredJames]

On what grounds do you say that Iran is a country which is likely to use them against others.
If building such weapons is not a good idea, then no one should have it. Every country that has nuclear power should abandon it openly. How can you build your own nuclear power and stop others from making it?

Why do you drag in Osama Bin Laden here? We are talking about countries not him.

You're missing the point. It isn't necessarily the country (although in NK case it is), but more to do with the risk of extremist and terrorist groups getting their hands on the materials / devices.

In the US, UK and other western countries the nuclear facilities are very secure for the most part, but we can't guarantee such measure will be present in these 'risk' countries. We can't risk people who are considered a danger to us acquiring the technology and posing a threat to us. Whether it be a country or a sect within a country.

Osama getting a nuke would be an absolute nightmare for us.

Why on the Earth would North Korea nuke the South for no reason?

You really don't understand the difficulties in that region do you.

 

[CAC1001]

Liberal democracies, for the most part, I don't see any problem with them having anuclear weapons, because liberal democracies pretty much only have them for deterrance purposes. You don't allow rogue nations controlled by maniacs to have nukes however, for the same reasons you do not allow the murderers and rapists and terrorists in society to own guns.

Big nations, like the Soviet Union or China, these you really could not do anything about, but at least when dealing with something like the Soviet Union or China, you knew/knoq that you were dealing with a government, not a country led by one maniacal leader who might do who-knows-what.

Many nations fear Iran having a nuke I believe because Iran historically has been an expansionist-hungry country.

 

[nismaratwork]

Liberal democracies, for the most part, I don't see any problem with them having anuclear weapons, because liberal democracies pretty much only have them for deterrance purposes. You don't allow rogue nations controlled by maniacs to have nukes however, for the same reasons you do not allow the murderers and rapists and terrorists in society to own guns.

Big nations, like the Soviet Union or China, these you really could not do anything about, but at least when dealing with something like the Soviet Union or China, you knew/knoq that you were dealing with a government, not a country led by one maniacal leader who might do who-knows-what.

Many nations fear Iran having a nuke I believe because Iran historically has been an expansionist-hungry country.

I would add that Iran has a lot to fear from its neighbors, even more than the US. Saudi Arabia and others have no love for Iran, which they see as unpredictable and separate ethnicity.

Abdul Quadeer: As JarednJames has pointed out, you clearly don't understand such issues as the tensions in the Korean peninsula... how is it that you think from here you can grasp nuclear policy for the world?

 

[zorro]

You're missing the point. It isn't necessarily the country (although in NK case it is), but more to do with the risk of extremist and terrorist groups getting their hands on the materials / devices.

That is a different story. It is the responsibility of the government.

In the US, UK and other western countries the nuclear facilities are very secure for the most part, but we can't guarantee such measure will be present in these 'risk' countries. We can't risk people who are considered a danger to us acquiring the technology and posing a threat to us. Whether it be a country or a sect within a country.

I don't understand what do you mean by secure here. Do you mean that terrorists can't get their hands on weapons in UK/US or something else?

You really don't understand the difficulties in that region do you.

Abdul Quadeer: As JarednJames has pointed out, you clearly don't understand such issues as the tensions in the Korean peninsula

I'm sorry I really don't know the tension there.

I would add that Iran has a lot to fear from its neighbors, even more than the US. Saudi Arabia and others have no love for Iran, which they see as unpredictable and separate ethnicity.

I don't see any point in Iran fearing from its neighbours. It is the neighbours fearing from Iran.

 

[zorro]

Liberal democracies, for the most part, I don't see any problem with them having anuclear weapons, because liberal democracies pretty much only have them for deterrance purposes. You don't allow rogue nations controlled by maniacs to have nukes however, for the same reasons you do not allow the murderers and rapists and terrorists in society to own guns.

Big nations, like the Soviet Union or China, these you really could not do anything about, but at least when dealing with something like the Soviet Union or China, you knew/knoq that you were dealing with a government, not a country led by one maniacal leader who might do who-knows-what.

You don't have any right to call any nation/its leader a rogue/ a maniac. That is so unethical.

Many nations fear Iran having a nuke I believe because Iran historically has been an expansionist-hungry country.

Is it the only country? Read the history again. Tell me what else did you find out.

 

[JaredJames]

Abdul Quadeer, what country are you from?

Your responses seem to indicate you are from one of our so called "rogue states".