ChezGiven 0 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I hope we aren't giving away any state secrets here Rikko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34338 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Being polite doesn't excuse anyone from being fucking stupid. Aye basically this. There's a difference between being inquisitive and being a fucking thick bellend. And yes thank you wolfy, I know I'm entitled to my opinion, so please don't trouble yourself confirming this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Aye basically this. There's a difference between being inquisitive and being a fucking thick bellend. And yes thank you wolfy, I know I'm entitled to my opinion, so please don't trouble yourself confirming this. Upright position. They are about 10m tall and 3m wide, they take up most of the height of the submarine. They are launched in a compressed gas bubble, then when they reach the surface of the water the rocket engine fires. ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) If Nuclear weapons don't cause any harm when simply at the ready, then why is it so dodgy to decommission them and also extremely expensive and dangerous? Edited August 24, 2012 by wolfy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikko 20 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 If Nuclear weapons don't cause any harm when simply at the ready, then why is it so dodgy to decommission them and also extremely expensive and dangerous? The facilities used to make them get massively contaminated in the purification and manufacturing stages. So they are very challenging to decommission, but the hardest thing to decommission is stuff at Sellafield, where reprocessing takes place. Far more active and far far far more of it. The missiles just need extreme caution in handling the plutonium or uranium so as to not get a criticality accident. This then needs disposed off and has been turned into reactor fuel and burnt up there instead. Its expensive as the kit being decommissioned wasn't designed to be taken apart, the modern buildings will be a lot faster then the 1950s legacy stuff. Its expensive as the government emptied the fund set aside for nuclear decommssioning in the 1990s to build Drax Coal Power station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 The facilities used to make them get massively contaminated in the purification and manufacturing stages. So they are very challenging to decommission, but the hardest thing to decommission is stuff at Sellafield, where reprocessing takes place. Far more active and far far far more of it. The missiles just need extreme caution in handling the plutonium or uranium so as to not get a criticality accident. This then needs disposed off and has been turned into reactor fuel and burnt up there instead. Its expensive as the kit being decommissioned wasn't designed to be taken apart, the modern buildings will be a lot faster then the 1950s legacy stuff. Its expensive as the government emptied the fund set aside for nuclear decommssioning in the 1990s to build Drax Coal Power station. Do you believe it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikko 20 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Do you believe it? 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 100%. That's fair enough.I have trouble believing Nuclear power and Nuclear weapons exist and I think it's just a big con job. I certainly don't believe for one minute that a Nuclear Submarine is what they say and I do not believe they can launch trident missiles from underwater either in how they say they do it. Just my opinion of course and I'm not saying I'm correct, I just don't believe these things are what they say they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8978 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) 100%. ... here it comes Damn too slow What an idiot Edited August 24, 2012 by The Fish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Tbf Rikko's a nuclear engineer working on Trident isn't he? 'in on it'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 8978 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Tbf Rikko's a nuclear engineer working on Trident isn't he? 'in on it'. Nah, he's been duped by 'them' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Wolfy, in what year did special effects get really good. Those ones of nuclear detonations from the 50s were great, weren't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 'Operation Crossroads' is my personal favourite. That's better than any CGI I've seen in the cinema, and it was filmed in 1946! The czar bomba, the Russian one with a 50 megaton yield, is also cool. The woofer system they used was so loud it broke windows over a 100 miles away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38682 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Look closely and you can see Disney's signature in the cloud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Wolfy, in what year did special effects get really good. Those ones of nuclear detonations from the 50s were great, weren't they? Aye, check them out. Special effects at it's rawest lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 'Operation Crossroads' is my personal favourite. That's better than any CGI I've seen in the cinema, and it was filmed in 1946! The czar bomba, the Russian one with a 50 megaton yield, is also cool. The woofer system they used was so loud it broke windows over a 100 miles away. Aye, marvellous that one. The Enola Gay pilots said they were lucky to escape the Hiroshima detonation which was supposedly only 15 kilotons, yet the Russian pilots managed to escape one at supposedly 50 megatons hahahaha, what utter none-sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38682 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 The test was conducted by air dropping the bomb from a specially modified Tu-95N "Bear A" strategic bomber piloted by mission commander Major Andrei E. Durnovtsev. It was released at 10,500 meters, and made a parachute retarded descent to 4000 meters in 188 seconds before detonation. By that time the release bomber was already in the safe zone about 45 km away. The drop area was over land at the Mityushikha Bay test site, on the west coast of Novaya Zemlya Island, above test field D-2, near Cape Sukhoy Nos. [Podvig et al 2001; pp. 466, 498], [Khalturin et al 2005]. Durnovtsev was immediately promoted to lieutenant colonel and made Hero of the Soviet Union. The Tu-95 was accompanied by a Tu-16 "Badger" airborne laboratory to observe and record the test. The time of the test is given by [Adamsky and Smirnov 1998] as 11:32 AM Moscow Time; it is listed in [Podvig et al 2001; pg. 498] as occurring at 06:33 Moscow Decree time. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html Pure nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 A better laugh if anyone wants to see a Nuclear detonation is to look at the Nuclear cannon. hahahahaha, now that is the ultimate piss take of people's intelligence yet it's surprising how many buy into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34338 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 That's fair enough.I have trouble believing Nuclear power and Nuclear weapons exist and I think it's just a big con job. I certainly don't believe for one minute that a Nuclear Submarine is what they say and I do not believe they can launch trident missiles from underwater either in how they say they do it. Just my opinion of course and I'm not saying I'm correct, I just don't believe these things are what they say they are. What a crevice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 (edited) Here's your Nuclear reactor fuel rod assembly. As you can see, it's so dangerous, it can be handled without protective equipment and with the hands. One minute they are highly radioactive and the next they are emitting doses so low, it can be picked up and messed with. The beauty about official stories is, they can tell us anything because we haven't a clue and will just accept anything told to us, no matter how silly or illogical it sounds. These so called rods, after use, produce Plutonium as a by product for some reason and mixed with uranium , it apparently makes "WEAPONS GRADE" Uranium, which is extremely volatile we are told one minute, yet once assembled into a bomb, it's as docile as a new born puppy and you could probably run your tongue up and down it if you want. Yet slam it together and your city is toast. These so called Nuclear power plants do produce electricity , I believe that... but not by Nuclear but by the wastage of electricity which is then transferred through steam to generators , so in-fact it all looks and appears legitimate. Edited August 25, 2012 by wolfy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake Bells tits 1 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Fucking hell, what a catch you must be. Get off my back Cat!! Always with the dig! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17723 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Did you not even read Rikko's extremely well written posts? Never mind. Have you seen the 1933 film King Kong? At the time the special effects were regarded as revolutionary, now they're laughable. So serious question then, how did special effects, without the aid of computer technology, advance so much in 13 years? Please answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Did you not even read Rikko's extremely well written posts? Never mind. Have you seen the 1933 film King Kong? At the time the special effects were regarded as revolutionary, now they're laughable. So serious question then, how did special effects, without the aid of computer technology, advance so much in 13 years? Please answer. What special effects advancements are these?Please don't say the atom bomb detonations as they're as fake as hell. Oh and with all due respect to Rikko, he's just explaining what he's been reading, which is exactly what I'm questioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfy 12 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Here you go Renton, this is how they did it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookout_Mountain_Air_Force_Station Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now