Politics

Nitro378 Posted

I swear if we had stopped 9/11 you'd complain about entrapment.

TaiIs82 posted...

Nitro378 Posted

I swear if we had stopped 9/11 you'd complain about entrapment.

You mean if Bush had taken the CIA's warning more seriously? I don't see how that's entrapment.

He is probably lucky it was an FBI sting, I really doubt the government of Venezuela would appreciate being given dud bombs. Yet despite knowing he was feeding them pure horse **** he also suggested they try to detonate the thing he knew wouldn't work the moment they got one. Seriously, they probably would have killed this idiot.

Or...since you know, the Venezuelan government wasn't actually involved, they would probably be more like "who the hell are you?"

Masta Crouton posted...

Or...since you know, the Venezuelan government wasn't actually involved, they would probably be more like "who the hell are you?"

What does that have to do with a hypothetical scenario where he was actually negotiating with Venezuela instead of FBI impostors and planned to screw them over on the deal?

Didn't realize it was a hypothetical.

But your hypothetical is pretty damn stupid. It requires the Venezuela A) Would accept such dangerous information with potentially nation-destroying consequences, B) Would actually trust a blatantly untrustworthy source, C) Has no ability to distinguish between working nuclear devices and non-working ones, and D) That they would dispatch some sort of shadowy assassin to kill him instead of possessing the slightest amount of intelligence, and spotting the obvious bull****.

It's not actually all that difficult to design and build a basic nuclear weapon. The main difficulty lies in acquiring the necessary fissile materials, because enriching Uranium-235 or manufacturing Plutonium-239 is enormously difficult and expensive. Once you have the material, you're about 80% of the way there. Case in point: The US did not even bother testing the weapon used on Hiroshima because the scientists were certain that it would work, and testing it would require wasting valuable fissile material. And they were right.

Evil Genius 9 posted...

It's not actually all that difficult to design and build a basic nuclear weapon. The main difficulty lies in acquiring the necessary fissile materials, because enriching Uranium-235 or manufacturing Plutonium-239 is enormously difficult and expensive. Once you have the material, you're about 80% of the way there. Case in point: The US did not even bother testing the weapon used on Hiroshima because the scientists were certain that it would work, and testing it would require wasting valuable fissile material. And they were right.

I'm not sure who told you the U.S. never tested them, but I'm sorry they lied to you:

Trinity test on 16 July 1945, was the world's first test of a nuclear weapon (yield of around 20 kt).

I've been to Trinity, NM, to the actual site myself as part of a science trip.

Trinity was a test of the Plutonium implosion design, aka "Fat Man," used on Nagasaki, and a much more complex design than Little Boy, a Uranium gun-type design, which was used on Hiroshima. Little Boy was not tested before it was used.

Evil Genius 9 posted...

Trinity was a test of the Plutonium implosion design, aka "Fat Man," used on Nagasaki, and a much more complex design than Little Boy, a Uranium gun-type design, which was used on Hiroshima. Little Boy was not tested before it was used.

Hmm, I'm noticing that you did only mention Hiroshima. Touche, you win this one, you evil genius, you.