Which is why I said: "Given two lumps of uranium of sufficient size and reactivity..." I never claimed to be able to lay hands on enough uranium, despite the fact that ACL is apparently ignoring the parts of my posts that prove him wrong-- namely, all of them.

Really, the physics are that easy. You can build a fission bomb that easily. I doubt you could get it into the megaton range without a *lot* of refinement; but you can get a bomb with more explosive force than the same weight of TNT, sure enough.

If all you want is a fission bomb, it's just a matter of getting enough enriched uranium to come together. If you want a humongous mushroom cloud, that takes a lot more effort. Refining the bomb, so it becomes more efficient and more destructive, is *not* an easy task. But building the basic bomb itself? Child's play. Why, even ACL could do it!

Really? Then why did you think it's so difficult to make one?

I can see why you're backpedaling, someone probably pointed you at a physics primer; but come on now.

The fact is that, given enough U-235, anyone can make a quick and dirty atomic bomb. How much is required depends on how good you are at physics; in some cases, as little as 15kg is required. Not all that difficult, really.

My dear boy, but it isn't. You've just said as much, in your last post.

What makes things difficult is acquiring U-235, and then refining it into the right shape for an efficient bomb. You want to use as little as possible, after all, so you can make more than one. You also want it to make a really big boom when it explodes-- there's no point in building one that only has force equivalent to, say, five times its mass in TNT. You can build one, it's just not efficient to do so.

But don't worry. *pat*pat* When you're finished contradicting yourself, we'll still be here to help you with your science homework.

Well, you said you could do this. That's why I'm replying at all, because that notion is utterly absurd.

So is it safe to say that you've given up this claim? That's all I really have a problem with.

I said 4 tons. And really, how far do you think that's going? That's only 50 pounds of fuel, less than what they used in Hiroshima (which wasn't much!)

I know, I was responding to the idea that Arethusa (or anyone else on this thread) could actually make a working bomb in the real world. It's also what ACL is responding to, in his own lovable way.

hmm....

Where did I say anything about building one? All I said was that the physics are very easy. You do know that, right? I can't be sure, since one moment you seem to have grasped the concept; the next it slips away from you.

But then again, I do have the necessary parts. What I need to know is this-- can you hit one rock with another?

Basically, once I have the uranium, all I need is a trained monkey to bang the rocks together. I assume you're capable of the task?

I see your point; but my point is, the physics of making a fission bomb are pathetically easy. Making a big, powerful one that can go boom and knock out a city is a different matter; but that's just refinement.

To be completely fair, though-- apparently, if you're really good at it, you can make a fission bomb from as little as 15kg of U-235. Of course, I don't think anyone here is that good. The trick isn't in building the bomb, it's in making it powerful.

I'm not claiming to be able to build a big powerful one; but I bet I can get two lumps of subcritical uranium to go "pop!"

I know I said I was going to drop this thread, but just to put a final lid on this: yes, the month figure was partially hyperbolic and not intended to be taken as a serious besmirching of your mother's honor, despite what Lime seems to be ever so intent on. I will say that within a month, it is potentially possible to obtain enough (relatively— we're not talkinga bout crude ore here) raw material to refine an exceedingly crude and probably fairly ineffective weapon, all while assuredly giving yourself about one month left to live. Could I personally do this in a month? Well, that's a matter of much debate. I wouldn't bet on me, but for the love of god, do kindly forgive me for using figurative speech.

Basically, Cain's about got the right idea: building the bomb is exceedingly easy. Getting the material is not impossible, depending on equal parts connectiosn, luck, and disregard for your own life. Getting it all together in a bomb is more difficult. Getting it all together in a bomb that will not be exceptionally crude to the point of being tactically useless while inviting incredible risk, loss of life, and loss of resources? That's something else. Pathetically easy? Well, I never said that, but Lime's in one of his lovalbe little tantrums again and there's no stopping that.

I think I've about had enough of this thread.

That's a pretty half-assed retraction, but it's too late to be picky. Thanks

That "figurative" can be a synonym for bullshit

I had heard that some of us shadowrun nerds actually had girlfriends but I never actually thought they existed. Whats you secret for attracting women? Talored pheramones? Or is it some kind or mind control spell? Does she know your a roleplayer? Or are you like me and you just keep it as you own dark secret flaw. (yea this is just a joke)

EDIT: Why dont we all just lace our characteers bones with Munchkinanium? Its 20 times more indestructible than adamantium, adds 30 points of body impact and balistic, adds 20 to your magic rating (even makes mundanes awakened), gives you 10 additional essence, allows you to stack all reflex enhancing mods, makes it so you dont take drain, and also acts as a force 20 weapon focus.

SR Canon might imply that, but it doesn't mean the nervous system has any electrical energy to give.

Battletech pulled some fluff about "bioelectricity"-powered myomer implants in the "Lostech" book simply because the body produces squat for electricity.

My method involves dating girls who are also gamers. It's a lot more convenient when you don't have to explain why your Friday night Shadowrun game is more important than taking her out for dinner and a movie... because she's playing the shaman.

Still has Mercury in it. Around 50% of it the filling is Mercury.

Better article.

Or get a better dental plan.

It's not necessarily a conspiracy or anything. First off, noone knew mercury was toxic until about twenty or thirty years ago. Until then it was common practice for high school science teachers to stick their hands in vats of mercury to show their students how a mercury barometer works, for instance.

It's not like mercury is the only thing we still use regularly that we know is unhealthy. Crisco (partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil) has been on the market for eighty years, and is still being used in potato chips today. However, scientists have known for years already that trans-fatty acids like Crisco are 1) cargenogenic, 2) indigestable by the body, and 3) a possible root cause of the high incidence of heart attacks in this country. There is also speculation and some small evidence that the some of the highly toxic chemicals that are used in the harvesting of cotton sometimes leech their way into the Crisco, causing severe chronic health problems.

My point is, science is constantly figuring things out, and what's "healthy" will change from year to year. I mean, hell, a hundred years ago people thought heroin was good for you! There is not always some massive conspiracy at the bottom of it; it's just how science works. We didn't know something before, and because of it did something stupid. We know better now.

Yeah, things were a lot more fun back then.

ed- Although now that I think about it, I've known people who still think it's good for them