To: Interesting Times
The author mixes a couple of things. First, it would not take a nuclear weapon, (hydrogen bomb.) An atomic bomb would be more than sufficient. Which is what I gather the author was trying to say.
5 posted on
03/21/2005 9:10:11 AM PST by
D Rider
To: D Rider
The author mixes a couple of things. First, it would not take a nuclear weapon, (hydrogen bomb.) An atomic bomb would be more than sufficient. Which is what I gather the author was trying to say. The term "nuclear weapon" includes both fission (atomic) and fusion (hydrogen) bombs, so Dr. Corsi's statement is correct. The latter type of weapons is often described as "thermonuclear" due to the extremely high temperatures required to initiate a fusion reaction. Link.
To: D Rider
Actually, the author qualified his remarks carefully. He indeed talks about a low-yield nuclear bomb.
40 posted on
03/21/2005 1:41:11 PM PST by
RinaseaofDs
(The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.)
To: D Rider
How did you come to the conclusion that "nuclear" means "hydrogen" and "atomic" does not?
Somehow you seem to have equated "nuclear" with "fusion" and "atomic" with "fission".
Via what process or set of definitions?
48 posted on
03/21/2005 5:51:26 PM PST by
G Larry
(Aggressively promote conservative judges!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson