Nukes

>>32282554
Pretty hard without highly trained scientists and a team of engineers.
Lots of dosh, some radioactive shit, some testing shit, and a bunch of other shit.
I mean, if you knew what to do I would assume you could build one with one person, but it'd be a bit like building a jet with one person.
More than you could afford.
Developed enough to hire/capture/produce scientists and engineers capable of building one
Why would Germany want nukes? Why would they keep it a secret if they wanted them? Who would nuke Germany?

>>32282593
Germany was just an example because it's a developed country with money and a good infrastructure

>>32282554
>Let's say germany wants to build a nuclear bomb,would it be able to keep it secret without getting nuked first.
Yeah, no problem. I mean really getting it to mass production, cranking up the efficiency to make it smaller and more destructive and the delivery systems would be problems later but building a nuke isnt a real problem if you are a country with some nuclear test reactors. I mean, the secret behind nuclear bombs is well known to everyone and even Pakistan and best Korea got it to work.

>>32282554
>>32283292

Making a nuke is easy. Making a good one is hard, which is why it's the finer points that are still classified and why shady countries and Aum Shinrikyo want nuclear physicists.

Little Boy Bombs are fairly simple.

The problem is refining and enriching uranium.

>>32283469
>making a nuke is easy
Sure, you can just order your 4 pounds of weaponized plutonium at your local hardware store. Then you add a few kilograms of TNT to your chart, as well as a primer and a bomb casing (not very expensive - prob around the region of a few million dollars). Don't forget to set a nice smile for the cashier, you don't want to raise any suspicion after all.

>>32282554
Nice try Kim jong un

>>32283624
I said making one was easy (assuming you know a lot about engineering), I never said getting the parts was.

File: hB.jpg (689KB, 2966x1557px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 2966x1557px

>>32282554
Enrichment requires a lot of centrifuges which might raise questions.

Conversion of uranium into plutonium requires reactors which might raise questions.

All of the above woulds require access to a lot of uranium ore and a lot of energy and money. Someone would notice that maybe.

The actual construction can surely be done in a secret location. The nuclear physics is very well understood. Any nation with a decent academic community and engineering sector could do it fairly rapidly.

As someone said, making a nuke is the easy part. Making a good one is difficult. Getting the uranium, enriching it and optionally converting it into plutonium would be difficult to hide these days. In the case of fusion bombs you also need to worry about hydrogen and lithium isotopes, the production of which might raise questions.

>>32286274
btw, if the country already has a nuclear industry then pretty much everything can be concealed, especially if using black money to buy the additional uranium and other materials, and to pay the physicists (whose families you have ideally kidnapped - if you wanna get serious).

>>32282554
OP, nuclear weapons have been around for over 70 years. Google "manhattan project" and you will find every answer to every dumbass question this thread was wasted for.

File: 098371af-6b35-48a2-9026-5289ddb16a29.png (93KB, 1024x1008px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1024x1008px

>>32286274
>Conversion of uranium into plutonium

>>32286274
After you've got it, the problem becomes delivery. Building a rocket that can reach America is really complicated, unless you stick it in Cuba.

>>32286385
science bitch, its real
your uninformed ass didnt know our reactors breed fuel

>>32286385
problem?

>>32286351
Difference is that they had to invent methods of production, invent principles of design etc. We already know these things so OP is asking a different question.

Also, they didn't have Matlab to do their calcs back then, only John von Neumann and a pot of coffee.

>>32282554
nukes are relatively simple.

the fission or fusion able material is the hard part.

Hard enough that even the cleverest of sandpeople haven't figured it out.

Easy enough that Best Koreans have, despite still struggling with stuff like rice.

>>32286968
tbf, its more difficult when your scientists keep dying from "the flu", your centrifuges keep blowing up and your uranium shipments are embargoed.

File: dealwithit-hockey.jpg (56KB, 266x316px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 266x316px

The science behind nuclear bombs is very well understood. The challenge is getting the materials and machining everything to the incredibly tight tolerances required.

Source: I literally have a degree in Nuclear Engineering.

>>32287001
How many workers and money would you need to develop a bomb?