• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

First Came Brexit, Now Comes Texit

Tom Sawyer said:
dismal said:
Other countries manage to have economies without the US government running everything so, yes, I imagine it's possible. Texas is not particularly high in federal spending received nor particularly low in federal taxes paid.

And I think we can manage to keep the oil and uranium bubbling up from the ground without help from the federal government.
Click to expand...

If your uranium is bubbling up from the ground, you have bigger problems than your tax rates.
Click to expand...

But it do.

Uranium Energy Corp. (UEC) began in-situ leach mining at its Palangana deposit (grading .135% U3O8) in Duval County in 2010. Uranium loaded resins from that ion exchange facility are processed into yellowcake at the company's Hobson processing plant. In late 2012, UEC completed the permitting and approval process for the Goliad ISR mining and ion exchange facility in Goliad County.[61]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_the_United_States

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...-uranium/in-situ-leach-mining-of-uranium.aspx
 
dismal said:
Shadowy Man said:
Not enough to develop an atomic bomb from scratch.
Click to expand...

Looks like they gave North Korea about $2.5 billion. That should be enough.
Click to expand...

That's about a tenth of 'enough':
The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (about $26 billion in 2016 dollars). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and producing the fissile materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia.

Even if you can keep people with the development know-how, and only have to pay for the factories and enrichment facilities, $2.5 billion is a lot less than enough.

And that was to make just three low-yield fission bombs. I am not sure that the US government would be particularly frightened by that, particularly as the State of Texas probably hasn't a delivery system that could get them to anywhere the US government particularly cares about (They already nuked a large chunk of Nevada themselves, for shits and giggles; And I am not certain that they would be too upset if Texas nuked Oklahoma, Arkansas or Louisiana).
 
bilby said:
dismal said:
Looks like they gave North Korea about $2.5 billion. That should be enough.
Click to expand...

That's about a tenth of 'enough':
The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (about $26 billion in 2016 dollars). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and producing the fissile materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia.

Even if you can keep people with the development know-how, and only have to pay for the factories and enrichment facilities, $2.5 billion is a lot less than enough.

And that was to make just three low-yield fission bombs. I am not sure that the US government would be particularly frightened by that, particularly as the State of Texas probably hasn't a delivery system that could get them to anywhere the US government particularly cares about (They already nuked a large chunk of Nevada themselves, for shits and giggles; And I am not certain that they would be too upset if Texas nuked Oklahoma, Arkansas or Louisiana).
Click to expand...

North Korea has a GDP of 12 billion and they have a bunch of nukes.

Perhaps your comparison is not apt because we have more computing power and general knowledge about nuclear science in your left nut than they had in 1942.

But, anyway, if you want to give Texas $26 billion not to develop nukes we will take it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom