friggin' all idiots
Sep. 19th, 2002 06:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timepiececlockWatching parts of the movie the Mahattan Project.
This kid. is. a. fucking. idiot.
It's an example of extreme brilliance and staggering stupidy co-existing in the same brain-space.
So this kid. Steals plutonium from a secret lab this guy he knows works at, and builds a home-made atomic bomb.
A WORKING home-made atomic bomb.
For a science fair.
I can't believe a person--even a sixteen year old--- could be that lacking in common sense.
I understand the allure of building it jsut because you, to show you are the best, and to prove the point that its dangerous because anybody can do it.
So he steals the plutonium. Fine. So he builds the bomb. Fine.
But for god's sake, why the fucking hell didn't he build in a flaw?
There must be THOUSANDS of ways in the building process in which you can make a dud bomb, especially in a process so delicate and complex as building a nuke. If he wanted everyone to know he could build a working one, why couldn't he have built it with an internal flaw that would prevent it from ever exploding, yet it be flawed in such a way that the people who examined it would know the flaw was intentional, not error.
Wouldn't that still prove a point?
I mean, what IDIOT builds a nuculear bomb for fun and actually makes it ACTIVE?
This kid. is. a. fucking. idiot.
It's an example of extreme brilliance and staggering stupidy co-existing in the same brain-space.
So this kid. Steals plutonium from a secret lab this guy he knows works at, and builds a home-made atomic bomb.
A WORKING home-made atomic bomb.
For a science fair.
I can't believe a person--even a sixteen year old--- could be that lacking in common sense.
I understand the allure of building it jsut because you, to show you are the best, and to prove the point that its dangerous because anybody can do it.
So he steals the plutonium. Fine. So he builds the bomb. Fine.
But for god's sake, why the fucking hell didn't he build in a flaw?
There must be THOUSANDS of ways in the building process in which you can make a dud bomb, especially in a process so delicate and complex as building a nuke. If he wanted everyone to know he could build a working one, why couldn't he have built it with an internal flaw that would prevent it from ever exploding, yet it be flawed in such a way that the people who examined it would know the flaw was intentional, not error.
Wouldn't that still prove a point?
I mean, what IDIOT builds a nuculear bomb for fun and actually makes it ACTIVE?
