Would the US self detonate a nuclear reactor to prevent one of

>>34336957
>detonate
>nuclear reactor
detonate yourself, retard. that's not how those work.

File: summertime.jpg (89KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 600x600px

>detonate a nuclear reactor

>>34336957
haha holy fucking shit

>>34336957
Nuclear reactors on ships do not have enough fissile material to explode like that. At best you'd get a dirty bomb.

Shut down the atoms remotely

>>34336957
Reactor fuel rods are generally about 5% enriched. A nuclear bomb requires 95%+, in addition to extremely precise detonation controls and very careful shaping of the physics package (Incidentally, a rod shape is no good for that purpose, except as half of a shit-tier gun-type device that was made obsolete by the second Trinity test).

It would be possible to simply blow up the reactor with conventional explosives to prevent the equipment being captured, but that would leave the ship functionally unrecoverable due to persistent radioactive contamination, in addition to being an ecological disaster.

>>34337028
Didnt the US nuke a carrier in the 50's and just sunk it because they couldnt decontaminate it?

>>34336957
No, but they would scuttle it.

>>34336957
Why do that when you can just light all the jet fuel on fire and watch it fall in on itself?

>detonate a nuclear reactor

Why are Europeans so retarded?

>>34337026
If it’s a legitimate hostile boarding, the warship has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

>>34336957
We gundam seed now?

>>34336957

Nuclear reactors are not the same as nuclear bombs.

>>34337065

No. They removed the reactor from the USS America, towed it out to sea, and sank it as an experiment to see how much firepower was needed to take down a supercarrier. It was built in the 60's and scuttled in 2005.

File: Goren1.jpg (34KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 512x384px

>>34337228
>USS America
>reactor

>>34337200
I appreciate your efforts, anon.

File: drew carey lol.webm (782KB, 480x304px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 480x304px

>>34337200

>>34337015
correction, they DO have enough fissile material. actually lots of it, but it's diluted with non-fissile material and would never reach critical mass unless it went through a refinery again.

>>34337065
It wasn't a carrier, but several ships were scuttled as a result of tests in the Pacific that caused higher than expected levels of plutonium contamination.

One ship's captain, unaware that plutonium did not ping on a Geiger counter, wanted to sail it back as normal and attempted to decontaminate the ship via soap and brushes. Several crewmen suffered radiation sickness as a result, although he was convinced (by showing him plutonium residue found in his personal quarters) not to reman and sail it home.

>>34337354
nah they reach critical mass all the time, that's how you run a nuclear reactor.
Nuclear reactors have controlled criticalility and a vastly less refined fuel than nukes. It's the difference between meltdown and explosion.

>>34336957
by detonate, im assuming you mean scuttle, and yes possibly, if it was absolutely necessary

>>34336957
or ask the nearest filipino cargo ship to lightly graze the hull

>>34336957
all the can do is to let it create a runaway meltdown
and since the reactors are attached to the hull the material will literall fall into the sea right away
so no they cant do shit other to send some missiles and sink it

>>34336957

>deonate

> a nuclear reactor

>>34339108
no, its not what he means
he really is that dumb

>>34339125
That's a good way to sink a cargo ship.

Carriers are a little bigger than destroyers.

File: a837fea6ac1ee636b40dbbc783d8dce3.jpg (1MB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1152px

>>34339243
its all about the mass if this shit goes full 25 knots speed on anything it will cut it in half and continue its journey like nothing happened..

Yes, absolutely. Their WWII submarines had self-destruct mechanisms. It's ancient technology. Modern ships, especially at the carrier level almost certainly have them,.

>>34339633
Nigger, nuclear reactors don't detonate, they melt down.

>>34339661
you could very well have secondary explosions from the various pressures building up in what is basically a bunch of sealed steel compartments. fukushima was blown apart pretty violently....

>>34339679
That wouldn't be a reactor detonating, that would be a scuttling of a ship. Why would you intentionally compromise a nuclear reactor just to sink a ship knowing that it would devastate the ecosystem for hundreds of miles? Why not just, you know, destroy the secret parts? Fry all hard drives and blow up all the sensitive bits. Reactors aren't a secret technology.

don't us naval reactors run on HEU

>>34339679
fukushima had 2 hydrogen explosions that didnt do SHIT to the reactors itself

File: whygod.png (271KB, 440x399px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 440x399px

>>34336957

There should be enough ordnance stored in the ship to wipe out a medium sized 3rd world country. Just imagine the face on the ammo chief when he's told to wire the Mk84s to detonate on a timer.

>>34339870
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion

File: IMG_5501.jpg (21KB, 326x180px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 326x180px

>>34336957
That's not how it works an you know it.

File: you'rearetard.jpg (30KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x360px

>>34336957
Nuke eng fag here. Reactors don't work like that, mong.

>>34337130
>Why do that when you can just light all the jet fuel on fire and watch it fall in on itself?
Underrated.

>>34339661
>Nigger, nuclear reactors don't detonate, they melt down.
I'm sure they actually have a scuttle procedure though. Even if it's more likely to be removing reactor fuel and placing demo charges on the bottom deck and opening all the bulkhead doors.

>lets explode of fire up a double hull carrier that had been created to contain even the biggest explosion

sure the enemy havent though of that at all

File: 9jgx2x7v5rvy.png (269KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 600x338px

>>34339911
ur tellin me u guys cant just blow up ur reactors at will? what teh fung man

>>34340186
Fuck no. I'm a leaf so most of my knowledge is about leaf reactors, but the general principle applies to American ones, too. It is impossible to turn a nuclear reactor into a bomb.

it certenly can there are known metal alloys that can interract with the fuel and cause a chain reaction small one ofc but still
but if i remember correctly it needs to be in a liquid form and on high pressure so that in the case you wanna turn it into a bomb it will have to quickly remove the coolant by pressure
i went to a seminar that pedersen gave some months ago (he is the guy that keeps pushing for the thorium based salt reactor)

>>34340014
>placing demo charges on the bottom deck and opening all the bulkhead doors.
>???????
>Radioactive steam explosion under the keel
>??????

Nah I'm sure they SCRAM the reactor and leave it the fuck alone.

>>34336957
No, they would just shut down the atoms.

File: 200_s.gif (44KB, 356x200px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 356x200px

>>34340655
>shut down the atoms.>shut down the atoms.
>shut down the atoms.
>shut down the atoms.
>shut down the atoms.
>shut down the atoms.

File: 1489923990223.jpg (32KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 413x395px

>>34340655

What about the neutrons, do we shut them down too?

>>34340709
Well those are neutral so they won't side with the enemy if captured.
So we just let them be, like Switzerland.

>>34340720
glad we clear this up

what about the real fags the protons?

>>34337200
Kek

>>34340723
We get our electron semen to gang up on them.

>>34339784
No that's brazilian reactors

>>34340733
what if zirconium gets inserted before you actually get to do anything?
we call it a threesome?

So if a nuclear powered carrier was sunk/destroyed for whatever reason, would the host country try to remove the reactor?

>>34337200
I see a bright future for you in the Republican party

>>34340765
if a nuclear reactor gets on the botton of the ocean
recovering it it will be the least of your problem anon
you simply cant recover it because no one will go down there and try to cut open an aircraft carrier full of fuel and bombs

File: IMG_9428.jpg (41KB, 546x217px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 546x217px

>>34336957
>>34337015
>>34337028
Naval reactors run on high enriched uranium, not low enriched uranium.
Submarine reactors even run on ~90% U-235 fuel to give them a long core life so they basically never have to be refueled.
But still even though they basically run on fuel enriched to almost weapons grade levels, it's physically impossible for them to become supercritical like a bomb.
This is because their fuel is mixed with so called "burnable poisons" like gadolinium or boron that absorb neutrons.
These neutron poisons basically act like control rods except that unlike normal control rods when the burnable poisons absorb a neutron they get converted into elements that do not absorb neutrons anymore, hence they're called "burnable".

>>34337354
Criticality just means there is a chain reaction. So a reactor is either:

Subcritical: Not enough fissions are taking place and therefore not enough neutrons are being generated for a chain reaction to be sustainable.
Critical: Enough fissions are taking place and enough neutrons are being generated that each fission roughly causes another fission. This is basically what a reactor in normal operation does.

Then there is another state, the supercritical one, where each fission causes multiple other fissions.
This will end in a runaway chain reaction and an explosion.
This is how bombs work, this state is physically impossible to achieve in a nuclear power plant or naval reactor. Except for reactors like the Russian RBMK.

>>34341093
>This will end in a runaway chain reaction and an explosion.
Reactors go supercritical all the time. It's how you start them up or step up production.

What you're thinking of is a prompt critical, which is where the reaction escalates extremely rapidly.

>>34336957
>detonate a nuclear reactor

I want summer to end

Could you imagine the boarding crew necessary to capture an aircraft carrier and then man it? You would need at minimum 50 people with specialized training to run it then hundreds of bullet sponges to take down the armed shipboard security And 3000 non security personnel putting up a resistance in a maze of passageways and spaces that they are familiar with

It would be impossible without gassing the entire ship first

File: Akula+Reactor.jpg (33KB, 500x323px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x323px

>>34341283

Oh you're right, i got that mixed up.

>>34339243
kek

Size dont mean shit nigger, mass is everything.

>>34341283
Prompt supercritical is used to refer to reactors too.
>>34341093
RBMK reactors do not explode with nuclear explosions no reactors do. Chernobyl exploded when most of its water was flashed to steam (prompt supercritical) then threw flaming radioactive fuel and graphite moderator bricks everywhere.

Fuck RBMKs are so stupid. The control rods are tipped with graphite, so if they're fully out and you insert them you actually increase neutron production for a sec.

Retarded

>>34341447
It doesn't matter how many people an enemy force had to capture and man an aircraft carrier. They would never be able to get the Reactors back up and running after the crew scrammed them.

I have a question, can the reactor on a nuclear powered ship be shut down remotely? not as in the president gets a phone call screams SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING and pushes a button that disables a ship thousands of miles away, but can the bridge crew for example remotely disable the reactor or isolate it or does it have to be done from engineering, if they could is it the sort of thing that can't be reversed without capturing both the bridge and the engineering section?

>>34343876
are you retarted ? Give me ONE good reason for this, and for fuck sake don't tell me "ship fallen in enemy hands"

>>34337028

A wandering barge of radioactive death that gets beached and moves place to place. Sounds horrible.

>>34343876
>can a carrier do this thing it has no reason to do

no

>>34343876
I think closest thing to that is ship gets boarded, doesn't look like they'll be able to repel the boarders, captain calls engineering from the bridge and tells them to scram the reactor.

>>34337130
But anon, jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

>>34337065
They tested atom bombs on a number of surplus ships. Operation Crossroads was supposed to have an airburst, shallow then a deep water explosion. They cancelled the third test after the contamination problems from the second. The decon exercise was a complete failure with seawater contaminating piping of ships moved back into the test area. Huh, the decon was such a total failure that they just declared the entire target fleet had just been destroyed outright rather then explaining why people had to be sent stateside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Failed_Baker_cleanup_and_program_termination

>>34340765
The USN does occasional radiation surveys of the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion. They are just fine where they are.

>>34340385
The US Army made a go at that one during a holiday shut-down. The steam explosion nailed one guy to the roof with a control rod.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

>>34340186
There are procedures. All the manuals go into the hanger bay to be burnt. Various control systems are rewired to operate one last time and then sledgehammers are applied to all the controls. The destroyed fuel will be contained behind multiple layers. Contaminated water will leak for a bit but it shouldn't be as nearly as bad as the Italian Mafia dumping nuclear waste off the coast of Somalia.

File: never go full fall for the bait.png (66KB, 624x624px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 624x624px

>>34336977
>>34336997
>>34337015
>>34337028
>>34337125
>>34337130
>>34337217
>>34337228
>>34339108
>>34339125
>>34339194
>>34339212
>>34339811
>>34339885
>>34339911

>>34344770
Rather than scram, would it be.possible to withdraw the control rods as much as possible?

>>34336957
I don't see why not. If the reactor is capable of withdrawing all control rods against normal safety protocols, the amount of thermal energy released may exceed design limits and cause explosion , meltdown or other high energy events. The interesting question is, what circumstances would necessitate this?

>>34345993
>>34346181
Negative ghost rider. There are protective actions against this.

A US sailor would fight to the death to protect their ship, you must be retard because a ships reactor has way too many safety features to melt down. Plus it's suicide to even attempt to board a military ship with all of the defense systems.

File: 1498243876001.png (284KB, 358x354px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 358x354px

OP goes to the Mexican side !

I don't think a nuclear reactor can be "self-detonated" in that way. I do know however that it's not the policy of the USN to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board it's carrier ships (which I take to meaning each deployed carrier keeps a very, very small number of tacticool nukes on board for contingencies.) In theory, one of those could be set off below decks sinking the ship.

>>34345963
>OP makes a dumbass statement
>Peeps point out he is a dumbass.
>Joke is on them, it was bait.
No, it wasn't. It was just stupid.
Claiming it is anything else than the OP being an idiot is trying to cover for an idiot.

File: send help.png (108KB, 536x593px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 536x593px

>>34349227

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Anon. OP's post smacked of bait to me.
Sure, I could be wrong.
I don't believe I am.
Don't take the bait.

File: stimpy-red-button.gif (499KB, 245x188px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 245x188px

>>34336957
Yes, that is standard operating procedure.
There is a secret room, known only to the captain, with a big red button and a digital counter on top with red huge numbers that makes it blow.
Newer models also have recorded a female computer voice that makes the countdown.

I am genuinely curious now, what the hell kind of situation are you people seeing where a carrier gets fucking boarded? Are you assuming that every aircraft, the entire escort group, all of the CIWS shit, every shipboard marine and all of the ship's armouries are deleted before a siege tower built on a cargo ship comes over?

>>34337200
Underrated

>>34337200
>legitimate hostile boarding

What is an illegitimate hostile boarding?

>>34351433
Bastards.

File: 1475502848555.gif (2MB, 278x342px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 278x342px

>>34345963

>joke's on them.
>I was only pretending to be retarded