File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
PROTECT THIS WITH YOUR LIVES, MY FRIENDS!

Don't let the terrorists get their hands on this!
>> Anonymous
I just made this and it didn't work. I think it has to do with the situation of the "felt liner." Anyway, don't even bother with this unless they put out a revised release. This sort of hack release is why the nuke scene is going downhill.
>> Anonymous
wow, ive never noticed how good old blueprints look. got any that wont land me a visit from the partyvan?
>> Anonymous
Those were just released, actually. So it'll take a while until newer ones are released.
>> Anonymous
last thing i need is when the party van comes and takes my comp for CP, is for them to find this on there...

NOTHANKS
>> Anonymous
considering wikileaks is the one hosting it, and slashdot and fark linked to it, I'm not worried. if the government wants to try and get every person that downloaded this file they will need to get millions of people across multiple countries.

more info:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/First_atomic_bomb_diagram
>> Anonymous
>>318608
i've got some copies of blueprints for nuclear power stations at about A0 size. they're not the original drawings (which are from the 60s and early 70s) but the copies i have are at least 25 years old. whatever they used to copy them has resulted in blue/purple/yellow colours. they look awesome, but sadly i have no means of scanning them for anon. i have some up as posters in my flat.

also, lol nuclear secrets - i have no idea about the legality of posting them, even if i could scan them
>> Anonymous
>>318754
SCANS OR GTMO
>> Gentleman
This isn't really a big deal. The information has been out there for decades, these are just the originals.
>> Anonymous
>>318754
I'd settle for a photo properly framed and of decent resolution.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
hey guys
how do i leaked critical nuclear spy notes????
>> Anonymous
>>319043
wtf is that?
>> Anonymous
>>319043
Holy fuck. Is that what I think it is?
>> Anonymous
>>319043
>>319046
IRANIAN SPY ON 4CHAN??
>> Anonymous
>>319043
NO JAMAL YOU IDIOT! THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF! SOMEBODY TAKE THE SCANNER AWAY FROM THIS GUY! WE'RE THIS CLOSE TO HAVING OUR VERY OWN REACTOR!
>> Anonymous
what... the fuck
>> Anonymous
this thread is not good
>> Anonymous
brb, fbi
>> Anonymous
am I going to die?
>> Anonymous
>>319078

well yes eventually. When i catch up with you.
>> Anonymous
this is so fucking wrong
wtf is that pic>>319043
??
>> Anonymous
>>319043
moar plz.

And why would anyone try to replicate Trinity? It's implosion method is complicated and requires precise HE lenses. The Mk I "Little Boy" bomb is simpler and requires only 1 explosive device albeit with a lesser yield.
>> Anonymous
>>318584
>>319043
I hope we don't get partyvanned for this.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>319155
oops, forgot pic
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Instructions for mk1-ish nuke
>> Anonymous
>>319162
I read those, and am quite intrigued.
>> Anonymous
Making a nuke is far more difficult than implied by the paranoid Bush Regime, even if you have plans that actually work.
Sleep safe, you are more likely to be felled by a bad hamburger cooked by a college student.
>> Anonymous
>>320393
no, it is pretty straight forward if your not concerned with efficiancy and just want a bang - getting the material is as always the hardest part - design and manufacturing is easy in comparison.
>> Gentleman
>>320405
This man speaks the truth.
>> Anonymous
>>320393
I'm assuming you carry a degree in advanced Nuclear Physics and will, accordingly, believe everything you say.
>> Anonymous
Making a gun-type nuclear device is no great secret. Hell, if I felt like putting myself on more FBI watch lists I'd go look up some PDF plans that are undoubtedly floating around online.

The tricky part is getting the materials and mechanisms for delivery/detonation. Be wary of anyone building large boxes with lead walls...
>> Anonymous
>>320405
>>320414
>>320437
fourthed.

besides the material aspect, basic nuclear weapons are simply in theory, however the required precision (gun-type are the most forgiving in this regard) is well beyond most capabilities. The tolerances for proper detonation are incredibly tight and normal machining and production equipment is generally incapable of it. They have to go to extreme lengths, for example, in the lengths of the detonator wires because the extra time the electrons take to transverse a longer wire can screw up the reaction.
>> Anonymous
Lets put it this way. Iran still can't make even a U235 gun-type device. Their enrichment systems can't produce pure enough material. They have stated they own around 6000 gas centrifuges. You need 50,000+ to make enough fissionable material.
Pakistan stole dutch and french technology, israel uses french technology, india got its nuclear tech from Russia and the United States, so the idea that some sunni towelhead hiding in afghanistan can make a bomb seems rather silly.
>> Anonymous
>>319158
You won't get partyvanned.

You'll fall on some bullets at 1400 FPS. Or commit suicide with two shots to the head... but you won't get partyvanned.
>> Anonymous
>>320461
>>You need 50,000+ to make enough fissionable material.

No you don't. That's absolute nonsense.

What you need, however, is a large amount of uranium to PROCESS. This is what Iran lacks. IIRC, most of what they have access to is yellowcake, which is why processing is proving to be so difficult.

You can, however, make more than enough fissionable material with just a few thousand centrifuges.
>> Anonymous
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb3.htm

>>320458
>They have to go to extreme lengths, for example, in the lengths of the detonator wires because the extra time the electrons take to transverse a longer wire can screw up the reaction.

you have great comical talent
>> Anonymous
>>320458
Indeed, but most of the complexity involved in those sort of solutions is due to efficiancy, namely minimizing the amount of fissile material needed but still producing the desired result - at one end you have gun designs, simple, effective, very inneficiant and wasteful - at the other end something like say a floating core implosion device with fusion boosting - complicated, very difficut to test and itterate properly, lots of room for error, but fissile material needed is less than half(or even a third) of a gun device.

As always, material availability(and quality with high efficiancy designs) is the limiting factor - if it wasnt, hell why bother with nuclear devices? skip straight to thermonuclear, the most efficiant of the lot.
(>>320405here btw)