Nuclear Hoax Denies Fission and Critical Mass

The Nuclear Hoax That Denies Fission and Critical Mass

An online calculation argues that chain reactions are geometrically impossible. It claims a thermal neutron has only a 1.65% chance of hitting another uranium-235 nucleus in 5% enriched fuel, rising to just 33% at 100% enrichment. This leads to the conclusion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by incendiary phosphorus bombs with added radioactive contaminants, not nuclear weapons. Presented as critical physical-mathematical analysis, this thesis has evolved into a narrative about an international club sustaining the deception.

Critical mass does not exist, according to this view. The reasoning, detailed in various posts, starts with a thought experiment: placing a neutron at the center of a cylindrical fuel rod 1.5 meters long and 0.5 centimeters in radius. With standard interatomic distances for metallic uranium, the neutron would travel about 37.5 centimeters before exiting. Along this path, it encounters millions of potential atoms, but the small solid angle of each nucleus—real radius approximately 7.4 femtometers—drastically reduces collision probability. The repeated result is stark: 1.65% with 5% enrichment and 33% in the theoretical 100% scenario.

Even with 15% uranium, like Hiroshima's, the argument insists, self-sustainability would not be reached. The conclusion drawn is that the chain reaction is not a real physical process but a foundational myth of global nuclear power. It asserts that neither reactors nor bombs work on their own; they would require a powerful, controlled external injection of neutrons, a mechanism described as nearly invisible to the public. The so-called neutron gun, the polonium-beryllium capsule that fires neutrons during compression, would not generate enough flux to make the released energy a self-sustaining reaction.

Why do they say the atomic bomb doesn't exist?

This trend answers that everything was geopolitical narrative. It mentions James F. Byrnes, Secretary of State in July 1945 and key member of the Interim Committee that decided to use the bomb, as someone who expressed real doubts about technical viability. Although the exact phrase isn't documented in accessible sources, his scientific skepticism is claimed to have been known. With Japan weakened and the Soviet Union poised to occupy Japanese territory, the United States needed a credible demonstration of power to stop the de facto conflict. The bomb wasn't used, the argument goes, but staged.

The official version was constructed as a symbolic narrative to sustain the nuclear club, a lie shared among countries joining the deception. The comparison made is explicit: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed just like Tokyo, with a carpet of phosphorus bombs, and Little Boy and Fat Man arrived among them to provide their payload and measurable nuclear contamination. Radioactive contamination is therefore not denied; it is attributed to an addition to a conventional bombing.

Megaton tests and mushroom clouds from chemical explosions

The question raised in the conversation is whether hypothetical megaton explosions in nuclear tests could have been produced with chemical explosives. The answer given is yes: there are extremely powerful chemical explosives, all leave a mushroom cloud because the cloud is not characteristic of nuclear events alone. It would suffice for those explosives to carry a radioactive contaminant load to appear as an H-bomb. Or to appear to have one, which amounts to the same thing, it adds.

The argument extends to deterrence. It claims that not using nuclear weapons so the enemy won't use them either is foolishness, and that if you have them, you use them first. Deterrence would always have been the demonstration that nuclear armament cannot be used. In other words, the doctrine of non-use itself is reinterpreted as proof that the weapon doesn't exist.

The nuclear club as a shared lie among countries

The final chapter of the argument is titled the atomic club: a shared lie. It asserts that the chain reaction is the foundational myth of global nuclear power and that fission depends on external neutrons. The numbers wouldn't add up with Hiroshima's 15% uranium, and even with 100%, criticality wouldn't be reached without extreme compression. The hidden role of the neutron gun is presented as insufficient to generate a self-sustaining reaction.

The evidence offered is a book: Nuclear Physics and Reactor Theory, published by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in May 2015. Chapter 10, subcritical multiplication, page 71, is cited to support the claim that power plants don't operate via sustained chain reactions, but through external bombardment with neutrons. Alpha particle emitters like americium-241 or plutonium-238 are mentioned as part of that mechanism. The paradox is that the very source cited contradicts the thesis being proven.

Skeptical reader reaction and argument discrediting

The majority reception has been outright rejection. The premise has been labeled baseless conspiracy, ignorance disguised as rigor, and bar-stool physics. Several messages noted that the argument relies on personal calculations presented as proof, but without any scientific review. Comparisons with flat-earth theories and moon landing denial have been recurrent.

There have also been defenders arguing that, after so many institutional lies, nothing can be ruled out anymore. This is the door through which such narratives enter: the discredit of media and official education as guarantees of truth. Legitimate distrust of power thus becomes the breeding ground for any thesis, no matter how absurd.

The issue doesn't close. There is no consensus, no rectification, and no evidence provided beyond the repeated calculation. The conversation devolves into mutual insults and accusations of duplicate accounts. The unsettling fact is that, 472 days after the topic peine, the only evidence presented remains a hand-calculated percentage and a book saying the opposite of what is attributed to it.