What technological advances will we need to see before McNukes are a reality...

>colonization
It would be significantly cheaper and is much more realistic to nuke population centers in India and China and starve Africa to death. Your reddit-tier MUH (((ISAAC ASIMOV))) bullshit is a theoretical fantasy land that is unachievable. We can and have the means to fix these issues. If we don't correct them, the planet will, and you won't like it.

>nuke population centers in India and China and starve Africa to death.
I've been saying this all along

Attached: he did nothing wrong.jpg (900x750, 60K)

Colonization won't solve population pressure because emigration will forever be too expensive.

A tiny fraction of Earth's most intelligent will leave and their descendents will inherit the places they go, but no one is going to ship millions of unskilled laborers accross interplanetary distances, nevermind interstellar distances.

It's still worth doing, but it's not like it will solve problems for those of us who are left behind.

>but no one is going to ship millions of unskilled laborers accross interplanetary distances, nevermind interstellar distances.

Well not their entire bodies.

Who says you can only build roads with stolen taxpayer money

Attached: 1522179335537.jpg (480x468, 80K)

>You can make a nuclear device the size of a football with specific isotopes of Californium since they have such a low critical mass and such a potentially high energy
Uhhh what? I unironically have a PhD in Nuclear Engineering and to my knowledge there has never, ever existed a nuclear weapon that did not use Uranium or Plutonium as it's base fuel source. Specific isotopes of either are the only materials capable of producing a fission nuclear weapon, and keep in mind you need a fission base in order to build a hydrogen bomb. Hydrogen bombs are more like "more efficient nukes" to dumb it down.

Critical Mass DOES NOT MEAN NUCLEAR DETONATION!

If you have any scholarly sources or evidence of a non-uranium/plutonium bomb I would absolutely love to see it.

Attached: MAJOR HMMMMMMMMMM.jpg (500x500, 32K)

how do I build a nuke?

Attached: k0n1996rgbgy.png (800x600, 269K)

McNukes are for Cavemen. Its all about McPlasmaCannons

Can we theoretically make a Thermonuclear tank round that would explode up to 1 million degrees Celsius without Uranium to avoid radiation and being convicted of war crimes?

Do you want a serious answer?
The interesting thing about nuclear designs... Is that they are all "secret". Even the original designs for Fat Man and Little Boy are still classified.

(Part 1)

To my knowledge, every country that developed nukes did so based off of stolen US designs, whether directly or indirectly. The Soviets had spies all throughout the Manhattan project. The most infamous being Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. US designs were then stolen by the Soviets. And then stolen designs were stolen from the Soviets.

The Chinese stole nuclear designs from the US. And are believed to have sold a lot of them...
articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-05-21/news/9905210008_1_china-stole-design-information-neutron-bomb-weapons-laboratories

Even our supposed ally, Israel stole nuclear material and documentation/photos of US nuclear weapons.
wsj.com/articles/u-s-suspected-israeli-involvement-in-1960s-uranium-theft-1407352852

Nuclear weapons are incredibly hard to build from scratch. Every nuclear program I know of took advantage of stolen designs. If you actually want to fabricate some, well you need detail technical documents that give you the "secret" to a proper nuclear weapon.

(Part 2)

An underachieve Princeton student named John Aristotle Philips actually spent a lot of time researching to create a nuke using publicly available information. It's also believed he specifically reached out to various people who had worked on the Manhattan project and came up with a design. There is a lot of debate on whether his "nuke" would actually work, but it was seized by the FBI who classified it and the Pakistani government tried to buy it. The designs are hard, and the known materials are highly regulated and very hard to get. Material acquisition would be its own write up.
In all honesty, you best chance is to buy/steal one from an unstable/corrupt government like Pakistan, India, China, or maybe North Korea. Pakistan literally has their nukes travel around the country in unmarked trucks…
wired.com/2011/11/pakistan-nukes-delivery-vans/

Either that or find one of the many “lost” nukes out there. There was one lost right off the coast of Georgia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Tybee_Island_mid-air_collision

But you would need to refurbish the expired components of the weapons and deal with the security measures installed on the weapons.
(Final)

>Rosenberg

Detonating nukes in war, regardless of size is going to cause an international incident. Even above ground testing was banned a long time ago, a regulation even North Korea followed.
You can only make nukes with Plutonium and Uranium, both of which are not going to be OK for warfare.

However, depleted Uranium (DU) is used as an anti-tank round by the US military currently. DU is incredibly dense, far denser than lead. This allows it to carry a massive amount of kinetic energy than an equivalently sized lead “bullet”.

>Armor piercing ammunitions are generally referred to as "kinetic energy penetrators". DU is preferred to other metals, because of its high density, its pyrophoric nature (DU self-ignites when exposed to temperatures of 600° to 700° and high pressures), and its property of becoming sharper, through adiabatic shearing, as it penetrates armor plating . On impact with targets, DU penetrators ignite, breaking up in fragments, and forming an aerosol of particles ("DU dust") whose size depends on the angle of the impact, the velocity of the penetrator, and the temperature. These fine dust particles, can catch fire spontaneously in air.
DU penetrators tear through armor, and then explode into a violent flaming aerosol of molten Uranium that kills everyone and everything inside of the vehicle. DU penetrators are incredibly powerful rounds that have come under a lot of controversy but are shockingly effective.

>Julius Rosenberg was born on May 12, 1918 in New York City to a family of Jewish immigrants.

>Ethel Greenglass was born on September 25, 1915, to a Jewish family in Manhattan, New York City.

Yeah...

How my idea goes is the thermonuclear round on impact causes a huge explosion which basically turns the tank and the crew into nothing. It would be heavy and expensive but practical in a way

a 58' nuke won't have much in terms of security on it

>How my idea goes is the thermonuclear round on impact causes a huge explosion which basically turns the tank and the crew into nothing

There are nuclear guns and artillery. Not sure how practical nuke would be for tanks when a bunch of left over nuclear waste, depleted uranium, is just as effective at killing a tank and it's crew without destroying and irradiating everything in a few miles.

Plutonium and Uranium both have minimum required sizes in order to actually build a weapon, which is why you can't have "micro nukes". The Davy Crockett was a nuclear gun that used the smallest nuke ever created, and even then it could only fire the weapon around 3 miles, which was still in the radiation range of the people firing it... So it never caught on. And a mini-nuclear round that only destroys a tank isn't possible.

youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE

I mean as a non-radioactive solution since it is a hydrogen bomb as a tank round

>I mean as a non-radioactive solution since it is a hydrogen bomb as a tank round
What? A hydrogen bomb requires a fission bomb. "Hydrogen bombs" are literally just a method of extracting more energy out of a traditional nuke by adding fusion stages.

Was this just an idea you had, or did you read/hear about a "non-radioactive hydrogen bomb"? Because that's impossible.

Basically I was thinking if we could advance without the need of a fission bomb and use a fusion mechanism instead.

Ah. I mean, instantaneous fusion weapons would be pretty fantastic, but unfortunately we aren't close to them at all. I'm not away of any Physics or papers that prove we could do such a thing without fission. There are things like the MARAUDER project which was a plasma cannon.

aware*

Remember the alamo

I aint signed no profiliration treats, fuck off

Attached: 1515613557440.jpg (720x539, 39K)

You know, this isn't the first time mankind has had the chance to venture out into the unknown. There have always been those who want everybody to stay behind and not colonize anything. You know what the original "pragmatics" became?

Niggers. They became niggers.

DEATH TO THE COMMUNISTS

>unskilled laborers
Won't exist by the time colonization is a realistic option. What happens to the 99% of retards is entirely up to whoever ends up in charge in the coming decades.

Oh hey look, it's how retard commies think capitalism works!

The helipad is this way, bud. Hop in.

go hug a nigger and die of aids, faggot

Why do they keep cutting in footage of totally different tests?

>all these mad anti-space neocons who have s our grapes syndrome because they won't be able to afford space on the whopper-flopper paycheck
>everybody in space will more than likely be the kind of person with the millionare mind and the determination to raise their kids to not be a bunch of entitled faggots who think all their problems are the fault of anyone but themselves
The future's lookin bright.

Attached: ultra deluxe babby.png (1874x1874, 2.63M)

>Millionaires
>Not haveing retarded entitled kids
Pick one

Attached: DA63BD06-091A-4CAE-A346-4528A0FE65A0.jpg (852x464, 48K)

This is one of the most retarded things I have ever seen period.

this retarded

>when you unironically celebrate the killing and torture of ideological but ultimately harmless youth by a CIA puppet and see yourself as a "free thinker" because of it

Attached: 1528366392660.png (1000x1000, 1.16M)