by metatron 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Recently, the Awake magazine raised the issue of old Soviet briefcase bombs in terrorist hands.
The San Francisco Chronicle quoted Russian and outside experts on why this is very unlikely:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/23/MNG8D5PM7L1.DTL
Admittedly, they could still create a simple 'dirty' bomb but the Russians say these small units have a limited shelf life
and were withdrawn from service.
metatron
I wonder how much a device like that would weigh and if it is difficult to carry around. If it weights 80 pounds or so... then you would certainly notice the person.
Anyone trying to bring something like that into the US would have to find some "back road" way in. All airports, seaports and border crossings have neutron radiation detectors that could easily detect such a device.
As the article indicates, it is more likely that terrorists could obtain non-fissile radioactive material and use it to make a dirty bomb. Such a bomb could be of almost any size, from a firecracker on up, depending on how much damage the terrorist wanted to inflict.
A large unit could be constucted in a modular fashion - for exampe, three 25 pound suitcases. They could employ shaped charges to greatly increase their "effectiveness."
I support the death penalty for terrorists.
Interesting;
Shingarkin said Russian suitcase nukes consisted of a bag measuring about 24 by 16 by 8 inches fitted with three coffee can-size aluminum canisters filled with plutonium or uranium. A 6-inch-long detonator is connected to the canisters, and a battery line keeps it powered during storage.
Hmph.
The description really isn't in line with either type of nuclear devices. These fall into two groups, 'gun' style, which are easy to make but crude and ineffcient; basicaly take one tube, seal of the end, tamp half-a-grapefruit sized chunk of certain fissile materials in the closed off end, and place an assembly which will smash the other half of the grapefruit into the fixed assembly in the closed end when you detonate the device.
The implosion type is complicated, as you wrap a hollow sphere of fissile matterial with shaped explosive charges that make it implode VERY precisely.
Either that description is deliberate rubbish, or very vauge, with 'filled' not meaning filled and 'detonator' meaning actuator, or something like that. Even then it clearly describe three unconnected elements that could be the 'tubes' of three seperate 'gun' style devices, but I can't say why you'd have three seperate elements when one would do.
He said the suitcase nukes have a lifespan of only one to three years because some of the materials, such as the battery and the conventional explosives that produce the charge that sets off the nuclear reaction, deteriorate over time and must be replaced. Otherwise, he said, they become radioactive scrap metal.
This is true, but actually, it might be a sanitised version of the truth. If they are fission-fusion-fission devices, he's refering to the 'fusion blanket' decaying, but in that case they wouldn;'t have 'three coffee cans in them'.
However, Digges cautioned that al Qaeda might have access to non-fissile radioactive material that could allow it to build so-called dirty bombs -- devices that combine conventional explosives and radioactive material. Although they would not produce a nuclear reaction, they would still create an enormous blast and long-lasting, but less widespread, radiation.
Analysts say large quantities of such radioactive material -- such as cobalt 60, iodine 131 and strontium 90 -- have disappeared from the former Soviet Union.
Yeah, dirty bombs are easy to make and there's more than enough radioactives floating around to make a severe dent in some cities property values...
As for getting them into a country... you can retro-fit a single engine Cessna so it can cross the Atlantic. Keep low and be lucky (wnna fly a fuel tank with a nuclear device on board) and you can get anything in without anyone knowing shit.
Correct me if I am wrong but all nuclear weapons require plutonium, it is the detonator.
FIL, a "dirty" bomb is not a nuclear bomb and does not have to contain plutonium.
A dirty bomb is an conventional explosive device "salted" with radioactive material. When the bomb detonates, the radioactive material is vaporized and contaminates a wide area. Because the material is vaporized, it can easily be inhaled by unsuspecting victims, for example.
Shingarkin said Russian suitcase nukes consisted of a bag measuring about 24 by 16 by 8 inches fitted with three coffee can-size aluminum canisters filled with plutonium or uranium.
I was addressing this, I know what a dirty bomb is. But thanks for the info anyway
FiL
You can either use enriched Uranium ( ≥ 90% U235 ), or P-239.
Enriched Uranium is hard to make, but the gun-style bombs are easy to manufacture, albeit inefficient (1.5% is yield for a primateive gun-style nuke).
Plutonium doesn't need the enrichment process Uranium requires to make it a viable weapon; it's a by-product of a nuclear power plant's fission reaction. But the implosion-style bombs are a little tricky to design and make, although they are more efficient (>15%)
Basic info:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm
Less basic info
http://www.ricin.com/nuke/bg/bomb.html
Manhatten Project Info
nevermind....
Weapons grade plutonium is essential in the trigger mechanism of atomic bombs,
FiL
Try reading the resources I listed, they show clearly that a uranium-based nuke doesn't need plutonium. If you'd read the source you quote properly you would have realised that, in context, it is talking about modern fission-fusion-fission bombs, which have a plutonium-based bomb in them acting as the detonator.
Any reason for you being so rude? I gave those links in a friendly fashion, I don't see why you need to be so snitty.
