To: DevSix
"They have a rather short shelf life if not continually maintained."
I see people claiming this, but I have yet to see anyone provide support for the claim. Missiles, yes, the fuel system (potentially) requires maintenance. Warheads? Aside from the fissionable materials, the rest of a nuke is readily maintained especially if you don't care about the tricky timing mechanisms, targeting hardware, sensors, or anything other than the bang.
Plutonium (Pu239) has a half-life of about 24,000 years, so a cold war era warhead will have lost about .05 % of its potential bang.
And the amount of plutonium required is quite easily carried by a single person (I won't actually mention the quantity, but the information is easily obtained on the web). Plutonium is an alpha emitter, and alpha particles can be stopped by a sheet of paper. Minimal shielding would be required. Besides, if you are planning to die for the cause, what difference does it make if it is by cancer or nuclear detonation? Plutonium gets really dangerous only when inhaled or ingested.
I'd really like to see some supporting evidence that nukes have short shelf lives, because my experience leads me to conclude otherwise.
32 posted on
07/19/2005 12:48:30 AM PDT by
calenel
(The Democratic Party is the Socialist Mafia. It is a Criminal Enterprise.)
To: calenel
I've read that suitcase style bombs go bad because the emitted radiation destroys the electronics over time.
35 posted on
07/19/2005 6:07:16 AM PDT by
freebird5850
("Tell the truth, there's less to remember!")
To: calenel
These tiny nukes use tritium. The half life is a few years.
38 posted on
07/19/2005 10:07:40 AM PDT by
The Red Zone
(Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
To: calenel
65 posted on
07/20/2005 9:03:05 PM PDT by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson