That's not what I asked you. I asked what are your professional or technical credentials to be talking about nuclear weapons the way you are.
It take it that you answer is "none" and that you are regurgitating stuff that you find online.
When it comes to technical subjects I would rather pay attention to people who actually have some credibility.
It kind of sounds like you don't actually have any presentable evidence that my statement was incorrect and so you are devolving to trying to attack me for some unknown reason?
I'm not sure where your hostility to a fairly simple and as far as I can see uncontested description of basic scientific principles comes from?
Do you think any actual classified government labs employees that actually work building, designing and maintaining current generation nuclear weapons are going to be on some internet forum showing off their credentials and explaining how things work to unknown keyboard warriors???
If you have actual experience, building, designing or maintaining nuclear weapons, or have direct contact with someone that does, by all means please feel free to post said credentials and explain where I'm wrong and what the correct answer is. I'd love to see your credentials and learn about how I'm wrong in what I thought and what the correct answer is.
Why don't you post what you feel is the correct broad based explanation for the basics of Fission, boosted Fission and Fusion devices.
Most of the non-classified papers, books and records from around the world on the broad strokes overview of nuclear device theory were generated and available long before the internet. Could it all be a lie? Possibly but highly unlikely given the amount of crossover such things have with things commonly studied in research universities all around the globe. Things such as records of experiments with reflectors are openly discussed (who knows maybe that's all a lie too)?
So how about stop with the personal stupid attacks and if you think the information is wrong, go ahead and post the correct information and add all the annotations and such that you seem to want. If my grasp of the basic concepts that I have acquired from reading non-classified publicly available sources over the decades is wrong, I'd be happy to be told the actual correct information which I can then see if I think it is reasonably likely to be correct.
Again this is pretty basic broad strokes physics concepts so I don't see why you get upset about it?
If you want to say "I would rather pay attention to people that actually have some credibility" well then it seems the onus is on you to show writings by said people, document their credentials and explain what the correct answer is.
