chris140472:
Presents for President Assad?
Are they exempt from driving hours then? could you picture it. Truck loads of them parked up in Thurrock services lol
Cant see why all the need for escorts, just do what they do over Korea way and get everyone out infront of the town hall as they drive em past âŚ
You think they would trust the army to carry armed nukes?
The war heads are carried in seperate vehicles,unmarked and not in a convoy.
I think they should sub it out. Theyâd save a fortune.
Warhead carriers
Special nuclear convoy truck is a blue 8 wheel Seddon Atkinson, normally carries radioactive waste
The nuke carriers were around somewhere tonight as one of the Merc Police trucks passed me on the A34, these carry marines btw not coppers
Resized pic now, sorry peeps
Stresshead:
If the prime movers were green, they carry either the missle or the warhead, never both, so no danger of a chain reaction.If the prime mover was blue, and was an old foden, then you have the plutonium Being moved.
Why carry Plutonium these are hydrogen bombs or are we going to fry Hiroshima again?
A uranium bomb is enough to set off a thermonuclear weapon dont need none of that dirty plutonium crap.
After all we all want to live in a nice clean world after a good old global thermonuclear war dont we?
Who needs a half life of 2.4 million years when uranium decays in half the time?
Thats why they keep over a hundred tons (and growing every day) at Windscale at a cost of a million a day because nobody wants or needs the crap.
chris140472:
Presents for President Assad?
Just hope there aint one for you! 3 times the heat of the core of the sun for a microsecond.
Problem is the sun is 93 million miles away not 5000 ft above your loved ones!
People mistake âatomicâ bombs eg nagasaki with hydrogen bombs.
Like comparing a mule cart with a high speed train X10
Not even a shadow on the ground left to say goodbye to!
Nobody deserves that.
limeyphil:
Nuclear stuff usually.
Or drug smugglers
Bking:
chris140472:
Presents for President Assad?Just hope there aint one for you! 3 times the heat of the core of the sun for a microsecond.
Problem is the sun is 93 million miles away not 5000 ft above your loved ones!
People mistake âatomicâ bombs eg nagasaki with hydrogen bombs.
Like comparing a mule cart with a high speed train X10Not even a shadow on the ground left to say goodbye to!
Nobody deserves that.
Seriously hope the US military has given Trump fake launch codes. Only person in the world who I think might actually use a nuclear weapon.
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
If you want to know owt about nuclear warheads ect I suggest you tweet this guy ! 
They obviously have to be transported by road from the factory to wherever they are going to. They ship them in containers by air & sea too. Not an explosive threat as they are not armed. They do pose a nuclear waste hazard though in the highly unlikely event of an accident. It is quite a common thing and is pretty much a routine to them. Usually tree hugger types cause more of an outcry and pose more of a threat than what the convoy is carrying.
chelsearich:
Ive been hgv driving 22years ,last night on the m1south i seen the strangest conoy.armoured police and army 4x4s 2 army artics wierd configuration police front and back 2 ambulance and a fire engine.what as on them trucks no haz platesâ â ?
RSMâs rat pack⌠aka: Regimental Sergeant Majorâs lunch to civies.
Trukkertone:
they were northbound on the M74 earlier in the week, going up to Faslane.
mini buses full of armed personnel following⌠and probably a plain wrapper or two that we donât seeâŚ
The nuclear subs arenât rearmed at Faslane but Coulport in Loch Long and itâs done in that shed âŚ
Bking:
chris140472:
Presents for President Assad?Just hope there aint one for you! 3 times the heat of the core of the sun for a microsecond.
Problem is the sun is 93 million miles away not 5000 ft above your loved ones!
People mistake âatomicâ bombs eg nagasaki with hydrogen bombs.
Like comparing a mule cart with a high speed train X10Not even a shadow on the ground left to say goodbye to!
Nobody deserves that.
A hydrogen bomb has an atomic bomb (the sort which landed on Hiroshima) inside it as a trigger 
And as far as drivers hours go, I laugh at the image of a nuclear bomb driver pullling into Toddington on 15 hours, ringing his boss, and saying something like âIâm pulling me card, Iâm not dropping me trailer, and if you send another driver to get the bomb, he can zb off, and Iâll start me 9 hours rest afreshâ.
limeyphil:
I think they should sub it out. Theyâd save a fortune.
Haha, can you imagine âStobart Nuclearâ. MIssile lobbed on with a couple of internals across the back.
Bking:
Stresshead:
If the prime movers were green, they carry either the missle or the warhead, never both, so no danger of a chain reaction.If the prime mover was blue, and was an old foden, then you have the plutonium Being moved.
Why carry Plutonium these are hydrogen bombs or are we going to fry Hiroshima again?
A uranium bomb is enough to set off a thermonuclear weapon dont need none of that dirty plutonium crap.
After all we all want to live in a nice clean world after a good old global thermonuclear war dont we?
Who needs a half life of 2.4 million years when uranium decays in half the time?
Thats why they keep over a hundred tons (and growing every day) at Windscale at a cost of a million a day because nobody wants or needs the crap.
From an engineering perspective, there is not a major difference between Plutonium and Uranium weapons. They can both be used in different configurations, and both require roughly the same masses to become supercritical (ie, they use roughly the same amount of metal). From the âweaponâ perspective (ie, âThe boomâ) Plutonium and Uranium are functionally the same.
Most US weapons are Plutonium based. Plutonium has favorable nuclear characteristics as compared with Uranium (namely: it has a broader neutron cross section - if that means anything to you (I will explain in a bit) - and it releases a slightly larger amount of energy per fission event.
Fission is the word used to describe what happens when an atomâs nucleusâs binding energy is broken and released into the surrounding environment. The âbinding energyâ is the effect of the residual strong force that keeps the same-charged positive protons stuck together, even though their electric charge wants to push them apart. This energy can become unstable/unbalanced, and when it does atoms become radioactive. If the instability is large enough, the nucleus can collapse into a fission event, which cleaves the atom into two or more pieces, and the binding energy is released in the form of heat and the motion of the fragments of the nucleus.
The way that we âtriggerâ this fission event (for weapons and power) is to rapidly ramp up the instability by injecting neutrons into the nucleus of the atom. There are some atoms that, when we shoot neutrons, the binding energy always collapses. These are called âfissile isotopes.â
There are three major fissile isotopes: Uranium 235 (used in the Hiroshima bomb, and almost all nuclear power reactors); Uranium 233 (used in Thorium reactors, but basically never in weapons); and Plutonium 239. These are the âmajorâ isotopes because they are the easiest to find. Uranium 235 is naturally occurring - 0.7% of all uranium metal on the Earth is the 235 isotope, so all we need to do is dig up some Uranium from the ground.
Plutonium and Uranium 233 (heretofore 233) are both âsyntheticâ elements. They donât occur naturally in any appreciable quantity - they have to be manufactured. This is done in exactly the way that we trigger fission - we shoot neutrons at a metal, and effectively âtransmuteâ it from its current state into what we want it to be. The metal of choice for 233 is Thorium 232, and the metal of choice for Plutonium is raw Uranium (238). We expose the metal to a lot of neutrons, and it slowly becomes the isotope we desire by absorbing neutrons.
It turns out that itâs much easier to make Plutonium than it is to separate natural Uranium into 235 and its other isotopes. So thatâs one reason that we use Plutonium in weapons.
Now, regarding the âcross sectionâ - as youâve probably heard, most of an atom is empty space. Because of the binding energy of the nucleus, however, the nucleus of some elements appears to be a larger âtargetâ than that of others. This is a favorable characteristic, because in a nuclear weapon the whole idea is that we want as many fission events to happen as quickly as possible. Since the fission event is triggered by a neutron hitting a nucleus, making the nucleus a bigger target works to our advantage.
As an interesting side-note, the first nuclear weapons used Uranium. This is because Plutonium had to be made rather than simply dug up and separated chemically - and to âmakeâ plutonium you need neutrons. By far and away the best (and only realistic) source of neutrons is a fission reaction - which means that before you could even consider Plutonium, you needed to enrich some Uranium. It wasnât a chicken-and-the-egg at all, Uranium had to come first.
In summary:
Modern nuclear weapons almost always use Plutonium.
Plutonium is used because it has favorable weapons characteristics (itâs easier to get it to go âboomâ)
Plutonium is also used because itâs easier to make than weapons-grade uranium.
Thermonuclear (Hydrogen) bombs start with the same fission reaction that powers atomic bombs â but the majority of the uranium or plutonium in atomic bombs actually goes unused. In a thermonuclear bomb, an additional step means that more of the bombâs explosive power becomes available. Bigger boom = better bomb.
First, an igniting explosion compresses a sphere of plutonium-239, the material that will then undergo fission. Inside this pit of plutonium-239 is a chamber of hydrogen gas. The high temperatures and pressures created by the plutonium-239 fission cause the hydrogen atoms to fuse. This fusion process releases neutrons, which feed back into the plutonium-239, splitting more atoms and boosting the fission chain reaction.
Sorry, I thought youâd asked!
I am confused, is this your knowledge of nuclear weapons or is this a cut & paste from google?
A cut and paste from 2013
dri-diddly-iver:
A cut and paste from 2013
Well thank the lord for that.