wikileaks needs your help

LOL, Will - I hope no one is taking notes in this thread! ...

 

The bear is still the fissile material. India bought enriched uranium from the British and manufactured plutonium using the Cirus reactor they bought from the Canadians. I believe India also created uranium from thorium using thermal breeder reactors. India has native supplies of thorium. Me... I have no such toys.

 

@Will and Apoc, If US, Canada and Britain "helped" India become nuclear by those arguments, then Germany directly helped the US, Canada, Britain and France become nuclear. You ought to show the same gratefulness to Hitler which you demand from us for yourselves.

 

No , but a respectable electronics uni (like MIT has the power to order most of the componenets)

You should take a looks at the initiators and the materials they're made of . Those are the true bears in that type of bomb , plus the fact that the alignments and force of the explosives need to be spot on . Also this is a very very weak bomb and heavy as hell . Rebeca has a point there are ppl drooling for details .

@Helvetti : Denning your own history ? C'mon there is no need for overpatriotic bull .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiling_Buddha#Effects

 

Except that isn't historically accurate. It seems that you're emotionally involved in this issue, but the reality is that Canada provided the Cirus reactor, Britain provided the enriched uranium, and U.S. companies provided consulting and support equipment. I am not aware of French involvement. When the U.S. built the first two bombs, there was no one around to help. Germany certainly didn't have the bomb, or they could have used it on the Brits and the Soviets.

I don't think anyone is demanding gratefulness. I know I'm not. The India and U.S. relationship has gone through bad times and good times. Today I believe they are as good as they have ever been. I think it's probably best for both sides to forget some of the rough times we've been through in the past.

The alignments need to be spot on for an implosion device, because you have to synchronize so many explosions at once. With a gun type bomb, you only have one linear problem to solve. We can buy initiators off the shelf and customize them as needed. Weight isn't a primary concern, because a terrorist bomb will most likely be delivered by ship.

Of course, this is an inefficient design and we could do a lot better. It's just that gun-type designs are easy. Well, that and uranium is often easier to obtain than plutonium -- unless you have access to a breeder reactor. Plutonium won't work in a gun-type design and I believe that uranium won't work in an implosion type design.

In 1964, two physics Ph.D's with no nuclear experience designed an implosion type bomb in 30 months:

"We produced a short document that described precisely, in engineering terms, what we proposed to build and what materials were involved," says Selden. "The whole works, in great detail, so that this thing could have been made by Joe's Machine Shop downtown."​

If they could design a complicated implosion bomb in 1964, we can design a simpler gun-type bomb in 2010.

 

I'm talking about Item G on your plan . Would you be so kind to show me where the hell you can buy weapon grade polonium ?

 

how could we believe that this is real Wikileaks address ? or a suspicious one ?

 

Ron Paul's speech to the house.

[video=youtube;GDp1izlMQT0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDp1izlMQT0&feature=player_profilepage[/video]

 

Like I posted before, we'd want to use something more modern than a polonium-beryllium initiator. Those haven't been used since the 1950's. But we can replace those with something more modern -- something we can buy off the shelf. Modifications may be necessary, but hey, this is a hobby project, right?

 

Ron Paul may have a new convert, temporarily anyway and only illustrates the backwardness of the reactionaries that have argued against America for their self serving bigotries and military illusories - good job Bushranger, Australians understand freedom in its application and not just as a literature.

 

Claiming Bushranger represents Australians is like saying Anwar Al-Alaki represents Americans.

 

I've posted proof many times in these threads that Australians are 90% in favour of wikileaks so seems you're wrong again.

Here's another patriotic American. I'm thinking Obamanations in the minority view. America is in no threat from being honest.

[video=youtube;Jgv4a1sRKVs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgv4a1sRKVs[/video]

 

First, I mentioned that Assange is using Wikileaks for his own personal profit, and that that can be done legally. I never direcly claimed Assange was rorting. Seems you're plucking at straws to me.

Second, I've posted proof in this thread in the form of Assange's own words that he's using Wikileaks for personal profit.

Third, as a non-profit, Wikileaks is supposed to openly publish their financial records and they have not done that, have they?

In the USA, as in any country, the release of Confidential information is considered a serious crime that can be very close to treason.
Are you saying that the USA should no longer consider Australia to be an ally?
Would you be in favor of the USA releasing confidential Australian documents?


The REAL problem for the Obama Administration is that Assange is backed by George Soros. Obama is ALSO backed by George Soros. So notice how the administration is not taking a firm stand on whether or not to prosecute Assange for espionage (which he clearly can be charged with). The above video shows Eric Holder being a weak-kneed wimp about the whole thing. BTW, notice how in the video Ellsberg isn't directly asked what he thinks of the latest Wikileaks leak. He was asked that on The Daily Show and Ellsberg soundly condemned what Assange did. He directly mentioned that leaking the names of Afgans that are collaborating with the USA will get people killed.

The greatest responsibility of the process of diplomacy's is to prevent war. No one doubts that if it were not for diplomacy, the USA would have gone to war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Assange's leak of diplomatic documents has damaged the diplomatic process and increased the risk of further war. I wonder if Bushranger approves of that?

 

I have just read the two links you provided (again) and there's not one thing there saying he's profiting PERSONALLY from this. The articles, both written using unhappy ex-members with their own agendas, state that WikiLeaks is receiving a lot in donations but nowhere does it say he is personally profiting. You're making stuff up.

I'm saying anybody that doesn't believe in truth as the end-game should not consider Australia an ally. Not generalising, just the possibly 10% of the 'world' that may have alterior motives and are working against the rest of us.

 

Ya i wasn't paying attention to the role of the neutral gun when you linked it . AFAIK they need to be ramped up quite a lot to be functional but then again if we get the right briefcase it might have just that

 

He'll pay it lip service, until it is done, and then he'll condemn it.

Bushranger doesn't care if a few "trouble makers" get killed. If, however, those people are doing something to fight or embarrass the evil US, which Helvetti equates to the Nazi regime, then their deaths would be a tragedy.

He approves of it of course. He'll then blame those wars on the US.

[Edit] By the way, you have to love how he posts some random video and claims "90% of Australians back Wikileaks" without any polling data. The liberals in the US are exactly the same way. They represent a fringe minority and they are always piping up about how they represent the majority.

@Burshranger: The reason people here call you an embarrassment to your country is exactly because they know you don't represent Australia's views. One has only to look at the other Australian in this section of the forum to find the first example of someone who disagrees.

 

A lot of incomplete German nuclear tech and defected scientists were used by the Allies in their nuclear program. You know that don't you?

 

So now your argument is that a gun used in a murder should never be resold? After all, it is the gun that was evil, not the person who pulled the trigger. Or was it your pipe dream that we should have a world without weapons.

 

The original point by Rob and Bluestar was that India should be grateful to US and not criticize them because they "helped" us build nuclear bombs (which they didn't), they only supplied equipment for alternative purpose which was used by us for nuclear research. My argument is, by that logic America owes a lot to Germans and Hitler and should show the same level of gratefulness. Ofcourse I don't agree with that but its their argument.

 

Sorry, I missed the point of your argument. But to your point, it seems the US allowed India to get Nukes after non-proliferation, even if we didn't put a bow on them like we did with Israel. This in contrast to Pakistan, who we cut off due to their nuclear program. I hope you aren't going to argue that US embargoes and sanctions have no effect on a country.