420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
CIA & Vault 7 by Simon Gendlewill - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 16:03:21 EST ID:YRrchvuw No.389035 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1489093401617.jpg -(234457B / 228.96KB, 1368x873) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 234457
Suprised there's no thread about this.

>http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikileaks-cia-vault-7-julian-assange-year-zero-documents-download-spying-secrets-a7616031.html
>https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/

What has suprised me more than the shocking contents of the above are how many fellow liberals are shrugging their shoulders and/or making excuses for the CIA.

When did we start siding with the deep state? How have so many left-wingers forgotten about the last 60 years of CIA horrors?
>>
Phineas Finderlirk - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 19:24:17 EST ID:MBZ+rwoO No.389057 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Tell us what the solution is OP.
>>
Nicholas Dridgedale - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 20:55:37 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.389063 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389035
Here is the problem.

The CIA needs that stuff.

How it is used is the issue. None of these documents seem to indicate that they are targeting US citizens. Or anyone but legit espionage targets.

Basically, what are you doing is the same as saying, "Holy shit, the military has a fuck ton of weapons, why do Liberals allow the military to have weapons like gins and shit?"

Well, because they need them. And we have a system to keep them from turning them on us. Sort of. The CIA, yeah, they are shady, and they have a past, but this is just standard spy shit. I'm more concerned about their drone program and them destabilizing nations for US profit.
>>
Edward Cidgesodge - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 22:07:43 EST ID:D3IZqUk/ No.389068 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What if Trump was behind these leaks? Think about it, if he's compromised by the Russians it fits perfectly. If Wikileaks has it, the Russians have it.

>Trump did hold one open press event on Thursday. When asked about the Wikileaks matter by a reporter, he smiled and did not respond.
>he smiled
>>
Edward Cidgesodge - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 22:10:53 EST ID:D3IZqUk/ No.389069 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389068
Oh, also, the way wikileaks released their info fits the Russian angle too because they basically shit all over the Americans and the CIA without releasing how it's actually done, letting them use the information themselves and not letting ordinary citizens/corporations figure out countermeasures. If they were really on the side of the people as they claim, they would have released all the details of how these things were done rather than keep them secret.
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 22:43:43 EST ID:YeZGzDdF No.389072 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489117423584.jpg -(106550B / 104.05KB, 1229x692) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>When did we start siding with the deep state?

Same time that people started siding with establishment candidates, likely with strong connections in CIA too. Which almost makes me think its astroturfed but then again, the sheer amount of propaganda we've been exposed to just recently makes it unsurprising that no one has a clue what the fuck is going on.

>>389068

Perhaps he's just smiling watching the CIA burn and it was beyond his control. Then again, Trump's a big guy...
>>
Polly Brookshit - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:09:43 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.389077 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489122583088.jpg -(72767B / 71.06KB, 436x393) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389063
>None of these documents seem to indicate that they are targeting US citizens. Or anyone but legit espionage targets.
I seriously doubt that you're brain-damaged enough to actually be that gullible.

Maybe give the furious deep-state handjobs a rest for just this one thread? Nobody's gonna fall for this shit anyway so you might as well save yourself the effort.
>>
Fucking Fivingway - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:31:16 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389079 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389077
The espionage state was created by Obama's predecessors stretching back decades. He just utilized it in his role like every president has, he wouldn't have had the power or capacity to dismantle it even if he had thought it was a good idea.

If you're truly opposed to the state having intelligence, then why not have Trump just get rid of the CIA? Oh, right, because you actually do want a massive controlling state, just not when it's run by people you disagree with.
>>
Polly Brookshit - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:48:45 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.389080 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389079
Did you accidentally quote the wrong post? Or did you actually somehow convince yourself that my post had anything to do with either Trump or Obama?
>>
Fucking Fivingway - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 01:24:22 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389084 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389080
I put the actors to names since you're wont to use phrases like 'furious deep-state handjobs' I assumed you must be a retarded 4skin Trumptard. You can defend your statement just as easily from the perspective of the forces involved rather than the actors which represent them: the espionage state was created by the cooperation of both the liberal and conservative elements of the US government stretching back decades. So either you support the existence of the deep state, in which case you don't get to complain when it's applied to someone you favor, or you think it shouldn't exist altogether.

I suppose it's not entirely clear from your post what you actually think, but you seemed to be suggesting (and OP was definitely suggesting) that people who support the existence of the CIA's tools must be liberals because the leak came from a liberal administration...when in reality both liberal and conservative administrations have equally contributed to the development of these powers, and so being for or against the deep state has almost nothing to do with being or supporting liberals or conservatives.
>>
Polly Brookshit - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 01:37:05 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.389086 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389084
>I put the actors to names since you're wont to use phrases like 'furious deep-state handjobs' I assumed you must be a retarded 4skin Trumptard.
Well, that was stupid. Don't be stupid. That's not even a phrase that Trump or any of his surrogates have ever used.

Did you ever consider that you're paranoid and jumping to conclusions?

>(and OP was definitely suggesting) that people who support the existence of the CIA's tools must be liberals
>must be
No he is not. He is asking the specific subset of fellow liberals who obediently go along with this: why?

It's like you're so on edge for anything that could possibly be interpreted as a slight against all liberals that you don't take the time to fucking read the thing that is getting you so worked up in the first place.
>>
Fucking Fivingway - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 01:52:40 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389088 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389086
OP is addressing liberals, and asking them why they are going along with it. Whether or not OP is liberal doesn't matter, I thought he meant fellow to the liberals in the CIA, but I think you're probably right, and is identifying himself as liberal.

But my statement doesn't have anything to do with that, because what I'm saying is that conservatives have also made similar apologies for the deep state, and in alternate circumstances liberals have made strong opposition to it, so again it's not a liberal or conservative issue in the big picture. The better question I'm trying to ask is why does ANYONE support the deep state? (which I tried to answer in my original post; people support it when it benefits them, complain about it when it doesn't.)
>>
Polly Brookshit - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 02:06:49 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.389089 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389088
>But my statement doesn't have anything to do with that, because what I'm saying is that conservatives have also made similar apologies for the deep state
But nobody is surprised when they do that because that's perfectly in line with their usual security-state rhetoric. When liberals do it, it runs counter to what they've pretended to stand for all this time. OP already knows why conservatives would support this, so he has no need to ask them and probably gave up on them long ago when it comes to this shit (I know I have). He doesn't understand why a supposed liberal would support this, so he does ask them.

Did that clear things up?
>>
William Fonningpitch - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:40:30 EST ID:YPXyZD9K No.389123 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389063
getting rid of the cockpit in aircraft is really not that bad an idea. do you understand what kind of power they have just by being able to do a census of the nation's computers? information is power and being able to look at everyone's data? that's scary as fuck. y'know, terrorists have very specific patterns of behaviors and we can just pay attention to those patterns without harvesting everyone's data. terrorist cells tend to make single outgoing calls to foreign countries before destroying their sim card, for instance.
>>
Cornelius Sickledale - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 19:29:10 EST ID:Ta8rvEqQ No.389151 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389084
so not trusting the cia makes you a trumptard. great.
>>
David Seffingridge - Sat, 11 Mar 2017 15:33:51 EST ID:TFyYun/f No.389183 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389151

This.

Liberals are supposed to be 'anti-establishment' and conservatives 'establishment', but modern western liberalism seems to have done a 180 and now view themselves as/are the establishment. This is recently seen in these CIA leaks where they defend the CIA and claim these leaks are bad. It can be seen in this thread an in left-wing media as a whole.

I'm a liberal, but what those around me have become disgusts me.
>>
Emma Dartforth - Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:44:24 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389224 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489419864728.gif -(691020B / 674.82KB, 200x191) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Original Wikileaker makes a strong case that Wikileaks is directly connected to Russia.

>Wikileaks is Connected to Russia – Despite Their Claims

https://patribotics.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/wikileaks-is-connected-to-russia-despite-their-claimswikileaks-is-connected-to-russia-despite-their-claims/

Former Wikileaks hacker does a trace on Wikileaks servers. Well, what do you know...



And this - https://snarkypenguin.wordpress.com/2016/12/15/so-is-wikileaks-really-supported-by-russia/
>>
Graham Canderstone - Mon, 13 Mar 2017 15:23:07 EST ID:MQpXQ/h3 No.389234 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389224
Speak of the devil, here comes the liberal running interference for the CIA.
>>
Cyril Bummerridge - Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:26:11 EST ID:ar/MUnpO No.389237 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389234
I guess that's easier than accepting facts that run counter to your worldview...
>>
Martha Nirringmat - Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:47:59 EST ID:MBZ+rwoO No.389255 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Because our main state adversaries in the world, Russia and China, have intelligence services with equally bad or worse records of being ruthless and dangerous.

While the CIA has done plenty of things against U.S. citizens at the behest of various directors and administrations, the agency remains a tool, and to believe that they're controlling the nation is pretty silly.

And yes, CIA has lots of hacking and cyberweapon resources. The reason for that is because their job is becoming more and more technologically challenging, with more of the people they're interested in becoming more sophisticated with their cybersecurity and cyberwarfare. I'd be more worried if we actually saw tons of examples of them using them on citizens and corporations for no reason. Instead all we see is that they have them, kind of like how the military has weapons of mass destruction.

That's to say nothing of the need for an agency which can respond to and help defend against cyber intrusions, which we've been having a few of lately. Today it's the CIAs dirty laundry, but perhaps tomorrow it will be something that actually damages national security.

The CIA is a large agency with many departments and responsibilities, so I'd much prefer to judge things on a case by case basis rather than to pretend that instances of misconduct or shady operations define the agencies duties and mission as a whole.

You can sit around talking about how you want the CIA gutted or dismantled, but even Trump knows that would not be a prudent move.
>>
Jarvis Grandshit - Mon, 13 Mar 2017 23:04:53 EST ID:b2+Yo/sQ No.389256 Ignore Report Quick Reply
niiggeerr, this is bullshit.

ther is nothing big about this leak like at all holy shit fufck. like you have to have a usb implantd into your Samsung tv that's 2012-2013 I jmean holy fukc.
they cia has to put a usb in your tv oh wow oh wowowow OH WOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
>>
Jarvis Grandshit - Mon, 13 Mar 2017 23:07:01 EST ID:b2+Yo/sQ No.389257 Ignore Report Quick Reply
AND LIKE possibility possibility of mybe LOOKING INTO hakign your car LIKE we already knew we could do that and the CIA ONLY LOOIKING INTO POSSIBILITY not even proof of it evne ahppening
>>
Jarvis Grandshit - Mon, 13 Mar 2017 23:08:35 EST ID:b2+Yo/sQ No.389258 Ignore Report Quick Reply
fucking nigggersss NOT evn care aboujt like the what they are vren doing its ridiculous, nothing loike snowden lieaks AT ALL

ALL THIS while dtrumnpcare passing and like FUDK UP YOUR SHIT NIGGAR
>>
Basil Blatherspear - Tue, 14 Mar 2017 03:39:37 EST ID:NGFmh1BL No.389259 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389237
This doesn't run counter to anyones worldview to be honest. Leaked documents no matter who they leaked them relate directly to who the originally owned the leaked files. Considering this I find your posts kind of ironic.
>>
Charles Brookfuck - Tue, 14 Mar 2017 05:30:47 EST ID:Nsx2uIJ1 No.389260 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I can't wait for Wikileaks to leak something like how to make a nuclear bomb. Or something that helps a dictator mass-murderer avoid death.

If they'd leaked the Bin-Laden raid these Putin/Bernie/Trump bros (Amazing right?) would be ecstatic. "How could they conceal this REVENGE killing??!"

If only Wikileaks went after Russia's friends like Iran or Syria. Shit go after Saudia Arabia! Nah, US only...the real evil on the earth. Bullshit.

Wikileaks is pro-Russia and Anti-United States. Morons think this is a force for good. Actually you would probably turn against a leak of a weapon of mass destruction since you've made it clear that we need to blow Russia and bow to them to avoid nuclear war.
>>
Samuel Herryfuck - Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:08:28 EST ID:GWrUAms9 No.389264 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389260
>If only Wikileaks went after Russia's friends like Iran or Syria. Shit go after Saudia Arabia!
To what end? All three of those countries are dictatorships with no regard for their citizens. Trying to get them mad at their governments would be pointless at best and turn into Syria at worst. Furthermore, everybody already assumes those regimes are up to no good and none of them make any efforts to pretend otherwise. All three countries are already pariahs in some form. There would be no point.

Meanwhile, America's government very much cares about appearances and (ostensibly) cares about the opinions of its citizens. The people have a long tradition of openly confronting and questioning their government and the sitting regime can be legally and nonviolently replaced. Getting Americans mad at their government actually has the potential to lead to positive change so it is actually worth the time and effort to try to do so.

But this is all just you engaging in some Soviet-style whataboutism so you probably knew all that already.
>>
Samuel Diddlehall - Tue, 14 Mar 2017 10:40:15 EST ID:h19uLDR2 No.389266 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389035

>How have so many left-wingers forgotten about the last 60 years of CIA horrors?

I don't think they have. Liberals aren't left-wingers.

nb
>>
Rebecca Hucklesut - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:49:35 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389325 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489592975203.jpg -(61884B / 60.43KB, 800x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389264

Remember, Wikileaks went full retard over the Panama Papers because it had information damaging to Putin and his cronies.

>All three countries are already pariahs in some form. There would be no point.

The idea that Dictatorships are opaque so know light should be shed on their inner workers in frankly fucking stupid.


Anyway, the DOJ just released its finding on the "YAHOO! hack" and indicted 2 Russian spies and 2 hackers.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/15/doj-set-to-indict-four-people-in-yahoo-hackings-sources-tell-nbc.html

>The Department of Justice indicted four people on Wednesday in connection with a conspiracy to hack into Yahoo's networks.

>The defendants, including two officers of the Russian Federal Security Service, Dmitry Dokuchaev and Igor Sushchin, were able to gain information about "millions of subscribers" at Yahoo, Google, and other webmail providers, the Justice Department said.

Russian hearings start on March 20, FBI Director James Comey, National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers, former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates are all coming among a cast of many more including some Crowdstrike guys.
>>
Lydia Bimblefoot - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:00:17 EST ID:Yiq0urtO No.389343 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389260
>Shit go after Saudia Arabia!

They have. The Democrat leaks revealed Hillary was taking millions from them.
>>
Wesley Funnerridge - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:10:39 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.389347 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389343
Funny how they never seem to have info that puts Russia in a bad light or Trump. Just sayin'....
>>
Isabella Clezzlegold - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:26:56 EST ID:nSpV6TpJ No.389373 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389347
Russia Today has literally announced some of their "leaks" before wikileaks even posted them. Just another branch of the propaganda machine.
>>
Hamilton Buzzstone - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:03:10 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389384 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389343
>They have. The Democrat leaks revealed Hillary was taking millions from them.

How does that hurt Saudi Arabia? To quote the Cheeto-in-Chief:

"THAT MAKES ME SMART"

Granted, a "leak" of Saudis pouring money is sexier than just building a golf course in the house of ISIS in front of god an everybody. Or a Muslim Ban for countries that aren't make the Trump clan rich.

Show me a Wikileaks drop that hurts anybody but the USA or their allies.
>>
Thomas Bongerworth - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:22:29 EST ID:T43ZgZvA No.389399 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389343
Didn't Alaweed bin Talal bail Trump out at one point?
>>
Cyril Channerbeck - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:31:34 EST ID:MBZ+rwoO No.389401 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389373

This, haha. It's an arm of the Russian state, whether or not they know it. Though I suspect they do, since their leaks are so targeted at discrediting Clinton (Personal enemy of Putin) and the CIA.

>>389264

>But this is all just you engaging in some Soviet-style whataboutism so you probably knew all that already.

We're not engaging in hypotheticals, it's already been established that Russia was running interference during the election. Now we're in the process of finding out which Russians were colluding with which Americans and why.

>>389077

Again, no proof. You can call him stupid for not believing something in the absence of actual proof, but it doesn't make it so.

Is it possible? Sure. But then it's also POSSIBLE that I could be a super secret agent. Possibility is one thing, reality is another.

Right now the only solid evidence we have regarding foreign cyberpenetrations point to Russia and the FSB, a fact you prefer to ignore in favor of casting doubt and using innuendo.
>>
Cyril Channerbeck - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:33:29 EST ID:MBZ+rwoO No.389402 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389401

Correction: the only evidence we have of cyberattacks against American targets right now, points to the FSB and Russia. There's no evidence of wholesale use of those CIA tools on Americans. Just Russian sponsored hacking.
>>
Clara Wibberseg - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:34:56 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.389413 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389402
I'm very interested in this topic because I'm incredibly skeptical of all these Russian hacking claims, they seem like pure Dem propaganda to me, so if you've got solid evidence (sources) you can share with me I'd be pretty happy to check it out.
>>
Wesley Granddock - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:40:51 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389417 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1489772451105.jpg -(91089B / 88.95KB, 620x439) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389413

The Congressional hearings will begin on March 20 and will be televised/broadcast on CSPAN. A lot of the evidence is classified, so much so that Senators have had to travel to CIA HQ in Langley rather than the CIA bring the evidence to the capital.

>CIA providing raw intelligence as Trump-Russia probes heat up

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-russia-investigation-cia-intelligence-235774

So you're going to have to tune in Monday for the hearings. The American intelligence services apparently have the good and have convinced many of the Congress members of the voracity. Not to mention the private security firms hired independently also tracing it back to Russia.

Even Trump originally denied it, then was briefed, said it was true they were meddling, than promptly shut up about it as several members of his campaign and staff were busted communicated with Russia and for some reason lying about it. Trump shutting up about raises enough red flags since that dumb motherfucker can't shut up about ANYTHING.

But let's face it, you want to believe it's Dem propaganda and already do, so you will refuse to believe it whether given evidence or not. And Wikileaks DAMN sure isn't going to leak any evidence that hurts the Russians, so maybe there will an intelligence leak.

So right now it's just the intelligence services and Congressman saying there is evidence. The show begins on March 20 for the rest of us.
>>
Hannah Sumblebury - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:08:30 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.389420 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389417
I am desperately hoping that, if true, it comes to light that Trump and his puppeteers are treasonous traitors and it becomes a bigly scandal for the history books. Democratic corruption looks like peanuts compared to Republican corruption.

Trump supporters are too far gone to accept any of this could be true. The right has successfully created unofficial propaganda misinformation sources, and cause the right to distrust genuine media.
>>
Clara Wibberseg - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:18:01 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.389422 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389417
>Here's some evidence.
>Most of it seems to be classified.
>Tune in on the 20th for the actual investigation.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the information.

>But let's face it, you want to believe it's Dem propaganda and already do, so you will refuse to believe it whether given evidence or not. And Wikileaks DAMN sure isn't going to leak any evidence that hurts the Russians, so maybe there will an intelligence leak.
Come on, bro, you were doing so well until you shat this sentence out, damning me with assumptions about my character and damning Wikileaks.
I believe facts. Factually, the Dems produce a shit load of propaganda, so it's not stupid of me to assume that this is just more propaganda. That being said, I am a man of facts, plain and simple. I've looked into the Russia hacking facts and found absolutely nothing substantial, which is why I again assumed it was pure propaganda. If something substantial emerges, I will take it to heart, but that hasn't happened yet. And no, '17' groups saying Russia hacked into us is not proof; if those 17 groups had proof, then they'd better show it to the world and not expect us to simply have faith.
And why would Wikileaks be unreliable? Wikileaks has no reason to protect Russia. The whole notion that Assange works for Russia is utter horse-shit, literally just more Dem propaganda. Research it for yourself; Assange has essentially no ties to Russia, and he, himself, is an Australian.

And here's my biggest question; why is it always 'Russia hacked the US election'? Why is it so broad? I've never heard anything like, 'Russia hacks into voting places to skew ballots' or anything like that, just, 'Russia hacked our election'.
Even when I look into that, all that seems to come up is references to who hacked into the DNC, as if that's some big deal. These groups all say Russia hacked the DNC.
That's cute, since originally it was China who hacked the DNC, according to the news, as well as like 4 separate other countries. There was a massive leak in information, a leak taken advantage of by multiple countries, due to two factors; Hillary Clinton used an unsafe personal email server, and one of the heads of the DNC literally fell for an email trap. He received an email 'from Google' about his account, he filled it out, gave them private information, and then emailed it back to them, thinking they were Google, when they were hackers. Talk about a fucking moron.

But, there's no point in us going back and forth about it; like you've said, the 20th is when we will finally see what's up. On the 20th, I will review the evidence presented very thoroughly. I hope you and I can discuss this topic more, then.
>>
Clara Wibberseg - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:19:55 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.389423 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389420
You know, friend, in my opinion, that's EXACTLY what the dems want you to think, no matter how true or false that is. I want you to think about that. About the divisiveness and the hostility and the washing over of Democrat scandals and propaganda in the face of the possibility of the Republicans also being guilty.
>>
Hannah Sumblebury - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:39:15 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.389427 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389423
I never claimed Dems don't have their own scandals. In fact, I said as much. I listen to multiple media outlets including right wing sources. I have thought about it just fine. The writing is on the wall. One has to have a poor political sense to believe that there isn't any rational cause to believe Trump may be tied in with the Russians.

I have no issue with also being aware of democratic scandals. It's common practice for each side to redirect to the others scandals. I am well aware of what's going on with the Dem party. I said as much.

This nation is going to rise up against both sides and we can finally match up with the rest of the first world. But first things first, the Republicans corruption runs deeper and their corruption is foremost in our minds since they have the most power at the moment. They are committing the most damage to our nations strength and international standing. Trump will go down in history as the worst president in US history. And if there are Russian ties, he will also go down as being a part of the biggest scandal as well.

Trumps America is Bizzarro world, but his supporters simply don't see it.
>>
Phineas Dredgebun - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:07:48 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389436 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389423
Honestly, what scandals? Are you talking about Weiner? Are you talking about the DNC being made of poop? Who gives a fuck? Literally peanuts compared to being/manufacturing/supporting the Manchurian President.
>>
Hannah Sumblebury - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:14:16 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.389437 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389436
Hillary being a pay-to-play politician and how the DNC rallied against Bernie. But of course corporate Dems would do such a thing. Like you said, this is nothing in comparison to Puppet in Chief.
>>
Phineas Dredgebun - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:31:02 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389438 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389437
Yeah exactly those are the things I mean. When Democrats have a scandal, we fuck ourselves out of a sure-thing election. When Republicans have a scandal, they hand the country over to our biggest foreign enemies.
>>
Cyril Channerbeck - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:58:30 EST ID:MBZ+rwoO No.389452 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389413

First let's clarify that when we say "Hacking" with regard to Russia and the election, we're not talking about changing vote counts. That's not what we or congress is talking about. We're talking about cyberattacks, corruption, manufactured scandal and targeted leaks intended to affect public opinion and tamper with our government.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-cyber-idUSKBN14S0O6

"He accepts the fact that this particular case was entities in Russia, so that's not the issue," Priebus said on "Fox News Sunday."

Is Trump Democrat propaganda now too? Or his DOJ, for indicting four men, two of which are FSB, in charges of attacking an American company over the internet, focusing on the personal information and communications of american civilian and military officials?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yahoo-hack-indictments-fsb-idUSKBN16N0CO

>>389422

>I believe facts. Factually, the Dems produce a shit load of propaganda,

So do republicans? Thing is, the propaganda doesn't generally make it to the point of resignations, bipartisan congressional investigations, etc. Remember "Lock her up", and Bannon himself posting online that he "Wouldn't be surprised" if Obama went to prison lol? Where'd that end up?

>so it's not stupid of me to assume that this is just more propaganda.

Sort of is, but we don't need to go over the flaw in making assumptions. What I don't get is how one could be so closed off to the notion in the light of everything taking place around you. Investigations, resignations, recusals, acknowledgements by Trump and indictments by his DOJ over the fact that FSB hackers are attacking companies and more in our country, etc. Meanwhile all you can really do is attack the sources of the allegations, evidence or investigations.

>That being said, I am a man of facts, plain and simple.

Of very selective facts. You'll have to continue being selective come those investigations on Monday. I'm sure there'll be a lot of facts that you won't appreciate over the next few weeks, just like there are now.
>>
Barnaby Grandspear - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:28:41 EST ID:MqC/+Wc8 No.389479 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389452
>Frantic damage control: the post
>>
Reuben Debberstock - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:40:31 EST ID:QK8mfsjv No.389480 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389452

Leaks that actually further reveal the extent of corruption of the democratic party, the United States government, and other things that shouldn't have been secret to begin with, that the public has a right to know.

Let's say THE RUSSIANS were in fact behind all of these things,and did try to influence the United States through what essentially amounts to information warfare. How often does the United States do this? And not just that, how many governments has the United States directly or indirectly overthrown, at the cost of so much blood and suffering and repression that it can scarcely be contemplated?

Someone did something once that the United States has done consistently for decades, and to a lesser degree. Wowzers!

Not to mention that given the CONTENT OF THE LEAKS, which is hardly ever discussed for some reason (probably because it doesn't get reported on, and instead the narrative is diverged into this weird Russia-baiting territory that benefits the people whose malfeasance was exposed in the same fucking leaks, because in America the press is a subsidiary of the CIA and the for-profit entities that own everything) we have much more important things to worry about, like the utter rottenness of our own state, how our government doesn't serve us, how much blood has been shed in our name due to the rottenness of the people who really wield power and our failure to do anything about it or even realize it's fucking happening? How about we talk about that instead? That never happens.
>>
Jarvis Wommlehark - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:29:52 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.389621 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389452
>So what if the Dems produce propaganda? The Republicans do it, too!
>Yes it is stupid of you to assume something is propaganda and to investigate it!
>You're only interested in 'selective facts'.
Just keep jerking yourself off, buddy. But seriously, two wrongs don't make a right, and if you believe even half of what you hear, you're an idiot who needs to do more homework on their beliefs.
>>
Jarvis Wommlehark - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:42:44 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.389625 Ignore Report Quick Reply
But also, where's that dude I was discussing the Russia Hack with? It's the 21st, so that hearing was yesterday, and apparently from the news I read about it, nothing was concluded. I mean, from what I saw, Comey stated that Russia had nothing to do with the actual votes in key states, and it seems like all they talked about was how poorly Trump's comments fare with our European allies and about the fact that the president could never order a wire-tap, even though I have no doubt in my mind he can and that that's a blatant lie, especially seeing as the NSA sure as shit wire-tapped everybody on Bush's order thanks to 9/11. Am I 100% sure that's a lie? No, but I'm like 98% sure.

So yeah, so far it seems like the Russia Hacking claim is a dud, still probably just Democrat propaganda. I mean, come on, how much time have the Dems spent discussing and working on this, making news articles about this, and how much has actually been concluded? Doesn't this just seem like a grand distraction or a last-ditch effort from the Obama administration to hinder the Trump administration?

Here's a better question; does anyone here actually foresee Trump being connected to some big Russia hack that altered the outcome of the election, and/or getting in trouble for it, possibly impeached?
>>
Shitting Clovinglire - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:29:44 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389632 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490120984259.jpg -(69750B / 68.12KB, 960x727) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389625

>from the news I read about it, nothing was concluded

Then you weren't paying attention. You should watch it, and draw your own conclusions rather than swallow your news sources spin. But as has been stated before, you seem to have already decided what to believe and are just trolling those of us that think there's smoke AND fire.

The FBI Director, with clearance from the Attorney General told the world that The Trump Administration is under criminal investigation, and has been since July, for collusion with Russia on the DNC hacks. Flynn was detected because he was swept up on a wiretap with a Russian agent. That his name was leaked is a whole other ball of wax and is what the Republicans are focusing on.

>I mean, from what I saw, Comey stated that Russia had nothing to do with the actual votes in key states,

He said they tried to meddle with voter registration system in nearly half the states (revealed last Summer). Russia didn't hack the vote directly, and it didn't want to. Russia's goal was to meddle in the election to help get Trump elected, via targeted leaks and fake news.

But if you don't think influencing the people who cast votes isn't meddling then you're being intentionally daft. Votes don't cast themselves.

>Am I 100% sure that's a lie? No, but I'm like 98% sure.

That 2% would basically be Trump and dead-enders, as the FBI Director and head of NSA basically came out and said Trump lied about the wiretapping by Obama. Complete bullshit, the POTUS lied.

>So yeah, so far it seems like the Russia Hacking claim is a dud, still probably just Democrat propaganda.

False. Anybody that saw that hearing and came to that conclusion has already decided what they want to believe and not waiting to see where the investigations are going. You seem to think the only way Russia could have any effect on the election is if they directly hacked into voting machines and changed votes for Trump. If that's the case you haven't been paying attention at all, and lack basic understanding of covert action/influence.

Opening a pre-existing fracture can be just as effective as creating a new one.

For example, if you catch your wife sexting with another man, sending nude pics, do you let it go unless the dick is actually inserted? Is it nothing? Just a distraction?

>I mean, come on, how much time have the Dems spent discussing and working on this, making news articles about this, and how much has actually been concluded?

That the Trump administration may have colluded with Russian hackers who were working to sway the election to help Trump win (or Hillary lose).

God damn you're fucking dense. You can just listen to the hearing, there's nothing to look at. But you can watch too if you need to see a bunch of ugly people's faces.

>Doesn't this just seem like a grand distraction or a last-ditch effort from the Obama administration to hinder the Trump administration?

A distraction from what? Trump started all this shit with his stupid tweet about the wiretapping. He can't control himself, this is a complete self-inflicted wound. He opened a fishing expedition that brought this to a public hearing. Next thing is a special commission in going to happen because too many Republican are running interference. Trump's his own worse enemy and will probably go down for it. FOX NEWS actually suspended the talking head that started this line of fake news because of how damaging it has been. When has that ever happened?

No tweet from Trump, no Lindsay Graham calling on Comey to come testify. No Trump tweet, no yesterday. Trump couldn't even stop tweeting lies DURING THE HEARINGS. They even brought a tweet up in the middle of the hearing. No shit, they read the hour old tweet directly to Comey, who debunked it live. Extraordinary.

>Here's a better question; does anyone here actually foresee Trump being connected to some big Russia hack that altered the outcome of the election, and/or getting in trouble for it, possibly impeached?

Yes. Mostly because I don't think Republicans like Ryan and McConnell will be willing to jump on the whole "it's better to suck Putin's cock to get along" line. They won't do it, especially with so many of Trump's campaign members not only being in contact with Russia, but then lying about it to the feds.

Why? If it's all cool, why lie about something you don't have to lie about? Granted the Trump Admin has so far been amateur hour, but they have to be stupid, incompetent AND corrupt. This is only the beginning of this, and Trump will make it worse just watch.

That being said, if Trump goes down Pence is there for them. Impeachment from a GOP congress is a way for them to save face. So many establishment Republicans hated Trump from the beginning, they're not going to fall on their sword for him. I don't think they'll ever be able to convince him to step down, he's too much of a megalomaniac for that.

Really, do you really think this is all completely normal? Or is your bar so low for Trump that this is just par for the course.
>>
Simon Novingdale - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:30:29 EST ID:x8x4wfOW No.389633 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389632
Funny how when clinton was under fbi investigation, everyone and their mother knew she was guilty. Meanwhile, trump being under fbi investigation and only the most batshit retard actually believes there was collusion going around
>>
Isabella Sidgewater - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:33:56 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.389634 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389633
Cognitive dissonance: the Post
>>
Jarvis Wommlehark - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:13:55 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.389636 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389632
I'm really interested in your reply, I'm sure we'll have a good back and forth about all this, but I'm actually out of time right now, so I'll just respond to you tomorrow. That being said, did I listen to it for myself? Yes, I watched the video on youtube this morning while I was working, I guess more so listening rather than looking since I was also busy. That being said, I mean I gotta tell you, totally bluntly, it sounds like Comey was just buying time and deflecting. All the liberal news today is about the investigation and Trump's wire-tapping comment, absolutely no mention, whatsoever, of the Russia Hack, it seems, while conservative outlets are stating that Comey essentially confessed that there was no Russia hack and that now the Dems are trying to insinuate that the hacking was something as trivial as leaking shitty info about HRC, which really isn't any sort of espionage. I mean, if Clinton fucked up, and journalists around the world helped the US voters realize Clinton fucked up and dissuaded them from voting for her, I see that as a good thing, not as espionage. That's power through information, not power through corruption, like for instance hacking into voting booths and altering them, which would be a serious crime.

But again, I gotta go like now, so, I'll read the rest of what you said later. But before I respond, thanks for taking this time to speak with me about this issue. I find it very interesting, and you clearly represent a side of the argument that I do not fall into.
>>
Jarvis Wommlehark - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:15:07 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.389637 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389633
oh shit lol there's another x8. This could get confusing down the road.
nb
>>
Ernest Bepperstock - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:29:34 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389638 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490128174578.jpg -(20882B / 20.39KB, 329x357) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389637
If you only remember the first two characters of IDs, you'll be confused roughly every 480 posters. Upgrade to four characters and experience tranquility 8es
>>
Shitting Clovinglire - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 18:17:32 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389643 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389633

>Funny how when clinton was under fbi investigation, everyone and their mother knew she was guilty. Meanwhile, trump being under fbi investigation and only the most batshit retard actually believes there was collusion going around

Turns out both Clinton and Trump were under FBI investigation at the same time. Except only one was making the news because Comey said there was nothing there. So really late in the game the only candidate under investigation by the FBI was Trump.

Except since the investigation is still ongoing, he couldn't say until now. Hilarious.

>only the most batshit retard actually believes there was collusion going around

Nice try. Flynn already got caught and had to quit (Trump claims now he fired him). He was picked up on a foreign FISA wiretap openly talking about it. Burn.


>>389636
> All the liberal news today is about the investigation and Trump's wire-tapping comment, absolutely no mention, whatsoever, of the Russia Hack, it seems

You should watch today's "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. He's a conservative on a liberal network but it was covered extensively by them and many of their guests were principles in the hearings.

>while conservative outlets are stating that Comey essentially confessed that there was no Russia hack

That doesn't even make sense. The hack is a forgone conclusion. Nobody is denying that Russia was behind the hacks any more, it's accepted as fact by Republicans and Democrats, and yes even Trump because they've seen the intelligence. Comey even explains how they left fingerprints all over the place and wanted us to know it was them.

When you listened today did you somehow miss Rep. Schiff laying out the entire timeline of the hacks and the Trump Campaigns circumstantial connections right at the beginning. Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPeHywajNjs

Please watch the whole thing carefully.

The question now is whether or not the Trump Administration colluded with the the Russians on the hacks. We've gone beyond whether Russia did it or not. They did it.

>I mean, if Clinton fucked up, and journalists around the world helped the US voters realize Clinton fucked up and dissuaded them from voting for her, I see that as a good thing, not as espionage.

Clinton has nothing to do with this, she was never hacked. It is espionage because it was done by a foreign power not to give you an inside look as a whistle-blower, but to do damage to one candidate's campaign. The fake news onslaught goes way beyond just exposing DNC shenanigans.

I'll ask you, if Russia hacked the US nuclear secrets, how to build nuclear weapons and released that through Wikileaks would you see that as a victory of transparency? What if they released a list of undercover agents working against ISIS? Fair game because transparency trumps the US doing anything covertly? Where does one draw the line on "Oh that's not good" and "Yeah fuck the system!!" My guess it's subjective. Treating the hacks as journalism is a moral gray area for sure.
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:00:42 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.389644 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389637
That was me posting from a friend's wifi. Now everyone will accuse us of sock puppeting

WAY TO BLOW IT FAGGOT
>>
Betsy Buttingped - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:45:28 EST ID:b2+Yo/sQ No.389647 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389644
well you're both morons :-)
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 21:55:22 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.389650 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490147722479.jpg -(55766B / 54.46KB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389647
Y-you, too! ;_;
>>
Reuben Simbledale - Tue, 21 Mar 2017 23:34:56 EST ID:KVQJ8U2S No.389653 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490153696787.jpg -(88989B / 86.90KB, 408x392) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389260
>I can't wait for Wikileaks to leak something like how to make a nuclear bomb
>>389643
>I'll ask you, if Russia hacked the US nuclear secrets, how to build nuclear weapons and released that through Wikileaks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
>>
Barnaby Hishson - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:09:00 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.389661 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389653
LOL
I haven't had this good of a laugh on 420chan in a while.
>>
Doris Saffinglock - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 11:54:49 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389663 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490198089423.jpg -(400041B / 390.67KB, 960x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389653

Wow. This might the dumbest response I've ever seen here. Went right over your head you child.

OMG! What was Iran and North Korea thinking? All that money, all those scientists, working with the AQ Khan Network...and all they really needs was WIKI-FUCKIN-PEDIA!! You are such a genius!

What ever could be keeping Cuba from a nuclear bomb??? No internet in Cuba, of course!

What makes me laugh the most at you, you mental midget, is that in your tiny retarded Trumpkin mind, you were reading this thread and thinking "Hurr...durr...he doesn't know...he doesn't know...."

And then took your little cum stained NEET fingers, ACTUALLY googled "how to make a nuclear bomb" found a stupid meme and posted it thinking you're being smart - and then you actually POSTED it. Wow.

This is a perfect example of why children should be seen and not heard.

>>389661

>I haven't had this good of a laugh on 420chan in a while.

LOL. And you just got backed by X8 , one of the dumbest motherfuckers on this board! How's that feel? My fucking sides....
>>
Hamilton Nattingbire - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:06:01 EST ID:n+latHKc No.389667 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389663
>What ever could be keeping Cuba from a nuclear bomb??? No internet in Cuba, of course!
I'm pretty sure it's the Non-Proliferation Treaty doing that.
>>
Alice Drebblelet - Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:50:15 EST ID:1ZzCKZyo No.389671 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490215815348.png -(215847B / 210.79KB, 500x377) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389663
Lol calm down. You're acting exactly like some 4skin Trumptard, from your word choice down to your general over-reaction.
>>
Caroline Chandlebanks - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 03:47:35 EST ID:KVQJ8U2S No.389712 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490255255657.jpg -(539099B / 526.46KB, 810x773) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389663
Dude, anyone capable of passing high school physics can conceptually design a rudimentary yet functional nuclear device. Good luck acquiring the material and industrial capacity to refine U-235 or synthesize Pu-239 (or even the conventional explosives needed to attain prompt criticality) without anyone catching on. This is meant to elucidate that knowing how to do something =/= being realistically capable of carrying it out.

Seeing as how anyone who can't figure it out off the top of their head can currently find all they need to know about this particular subject using little more than google (which you've pointed out), I fail to see how these instructions being (re)released via wiki leaks would do anything significant to the status quo. So I'll let you go ahead and explain how that is a relevant issue and not blatant fear mongering, since you're the one who brought it up to begin with in that context.

In contrast, exploiting political scandals, exposing cover-ups, revealing military plans, etc. through this medium would stand to have a far greater impact on the world at large. Wiki leaks functions as a powerful social engineering tool, and is much more likely to make waves through that avenue than any nonsense about spreading the "secret" of how to build an atomic bomb.

How dare you insinuate my high-quality custom OC made specifically for that reply™ came from elsewhere, though I'm flattered you think it deserves memetic status after being seen by all of 3 people. Nice completely original frog comic that only comes up 4 times in the first line of google image search results.
>>
Martha Clundlestun - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 03:54:51 EST ID:uR9+BrFh No.389713 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389712
This. You just need two seperate isotopes and some TNT, there you got your nuclear bomb. I remember my elementary school science teacher explaining how you could build a nuclear bomb the size of backpack. I'm not saying creating nuclear arms is easy, I'm just sayin' the same as Caroline.
>>
Simon Dragglebork - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 05:43:30 EST ID:ZL/M6cbo No.389714 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490262210523.jpg -(16483B / 16.10KB, 308x391) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389713
yeah some tnt is total capable of delivering enough energy to produce a sustained reaction in a small enough package
>>
Caroline Chandlebanks - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 07:52:23 EST ID:KVQJ8U2S No.389715 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490269943657.jpg -(15074B / 14.72KB, 227x269) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389714
If you've got a good enough neutron reflector (all about dat beryllium), and tritium/deuterium for even more neutrons, then yes.

Pic related is the carrying case of a W54 nuclear warhead (launched by the Davy Crockett) converted in to what essentially amounts to a ridiculously oversized satchel charge. While never actually used in combat, the Special Atomic Demolition Munition serves as proof of concept that - if you can lift 50kg - it is possible to have a "backpack nuke." Though it won't be the Tsar Bomba, I certainly wouldn't want it in my living room.

As for the power of the TNT (or any conventional explosive), consider that supercriticality has been caused by combining sufficient masses of plutonium by hand. The material will readily react; it's just a matter of keeping it together in prompt criticality for a long enough instant before it blows itself apart. A more crude design might be less efficient, but keep in mind a bomb in which <1/64th of the uranium underwent fission was still enough to destroy Hiroshima.

That being said, it would still be an incredibly onerous process to produce one independently at this time. People used to go to the electric chair for disseminating this information - now the order of the world is such that governments can give less than a rat's ass that it is readily available on a public educational database. It's just too much of a technically challenging, dangerous, and resource-intensive endeavor to pull off without attracting the attention of those who have a means to put a stop to it. They are that confident.

All in all, wiki leaks exerts its influence through how it affects the hearts and minds of the people, which can't be countered through the same measures. Telling someone how to do a task they won't feasibly have the means to accomplish is not going to achieve much in reality, no matter what it is. Hence the publication of [readily available] source material on how to build a nuclear device largely falls outside the focus of why wiki leaks is relevant in the world today, and could be expected to have a negligible impact were it to occur.

TL;DR - how I learned to stop worrying and love the /chem/: a /tesla/-/pol/ crossover love story
>>
Simon Dragglebork - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:47:02 EST ID:ZL/M6cbo No.389718 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389715
.As for the power of the TNT (or any conventional explosive), consider that supercriticality has been caused by combining sufficient masses of plutonium by hand. The material will readily react

i didnt say it wouldnt react i said i implied it wouldnt sustain the reaction long enough to be effective

>That being said, it would still be an incredibly onerous process to produce one independently at this time. People used to go to the electric chair for disseminating this information - now the order of the world is such that governments can give less than a rat's ass that it is readily available on a public educational database. It's just too much of a technically challenging, dangerous, and resource-intensive endeavor to pull off without attracting the attention of those who have a means to put a stop to it. They are that confident.

its more an issue of digital dissemination making it much much easier to pick people to watch
"you want to find out how to make a nuke? by all means.... now we are aware of a potential threat and/or employee"

>If you've got a good enough neutron reflector (all about dat beryllium), and tritium/deuterium for even more neutrons, then yes.
is this hypothetical? like "if you had a bright enough flash light you could illuminate the moon?"
>>
Wesley Crondlefoot - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:14:01 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389725 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389718
>>it wouldn't sustain the reaction long enough to be effective
Well I'm glad we're finally having some talking points on /pol/ that can actually be dismissed or supported by concrete scientific facts. No, that's not the case. If you had two subcritical masses of plutonium, and merely place them together with your hands, it will initiate a sustained nuclear reaction that will only stop if you reduce the mass again to a subcritical amount. In fact, that was the fate that directly befell the famous early nuclear physicist Louis Slotin and his colleagues:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin
>>
Martha Clundlestun - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:18:26 EST ID:uR9+BrFh No.389726 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389714
>>389718
I think the original U.S atom bomb had TNT clash the isotopes, causing the atomic explosion. Not bothered to goggle that shit tho
>>
Doris Grimwater - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:29:48 EST ID:ZL/M6cbo No.389755 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389725
youre right forgive me
totally an effective nuclear warhead right there
maybe i should have chosen my words better
maybe you should be following the thread better

maybe both
>>
Archie Sockleberk - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:04:40 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389761 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389755
Maybe it got pointed out that something you said is stupid and you're desperately moving goal posts?
>>
Doris Grimwater - Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:30:21 EST ID:ZL/M6cbo No.389764 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389761
oh shit!
i cant believe i missed that!
>>
Eliza Drullyfoot - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 00:31:40 EST ID:0B9qh6RW No.389770 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490329900866.jpg -(2140145B / 2.04MB, 3200x2560) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
In any case, can we agree that simply holding together two pieces of fissile material isn't necessarily enough to have a nuclear explosion, we've had cores blow themselves apart and the pieces had to be picked up.

But a greater obstacle than assembling a nuclear bomb is acquiring enough fissile material.
UFx, U, and F, are some of the most toxic, oxidative, and corrosive chemicals, and none of the commercially-known enriching mechanisms are simple or forgiving.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.