Posted on 12/23/2003 5:59:30 PM PST by mikegi
US/Russian Team Seize 37-Pounds Highly Enriched Uranium from Bulgarian Plant, WASH POST Planning To Report On Weds... Developing...
If this is true, it seems that about all that stands between Al Qaeda (or other Islamics) and "the bomb" is time itself.
Sooner or later, they are going to get ahold of enough materials, and enough know-how to put one of these devices (albeit crude, but workable) together.
Once they have that, all they have to do is _get it here_.
I wouldn't be surprised that in time, the North Koreans -- who build their weapons to sell for cash -- put together a "do-it-yourself" nuke kit. It won't necessarily include the U-235; rather, it will contain all the other components, complete with an easy-to-operate detonator. Just assemble with the requisite quantity of fissionable material and you're good to go.
Or perhaps, pay a little more, and get the whole shebang. Delivered in either in kit form, or complete and ready to rumble.
Another source might be Pakistan, a country that _cannot_ be trusted with their nuclear arsenal. They are literally "one heartbeat away" from a leadership that _might_ lean towards the fundamentalists. Didn't Musharraf narrowly escape an assasination attempt just days ago? And how many of Pakistan's "nuclear team" are, in truth, Islamonazi sympathizers?
A recurring comment in this thread is that, technologically, the Islamics are still "back in the 30's". Fair enough. But look how far they've come along in recent years. They weren't a threat so long as they had mostly guns and swords. But then they learned how to steer airplanes. That's progress.
Again, if the construction of a working nuclear weapon, regardless of its "crudeness" by modern standards, "can be accomplished in one's garage" (in Prime Choice's words), there is sufficient cause for alarm. This is a feat which no longer can be considered "unattainable" and out of the reach of the Islamics.
They don't have to build a 1990's or 2000-class weapon. All they have to do is make the stride from the "thirties" to the "forties".
Cheers!
- John
I posted the actual recorded synopsis of the Manhattan project as well as produced a direct link to the details of the factual events and materials used.
Are you still determined to say that I as well as the Manhattan project had it all wrong?
Taking into account your obvious and glaring errors in your original contribution to this discussion, does it even matter? I'll simply state for the record that I am not an amateur and leave it at that.
If anything, I should be the one questioning your credentials considering your immediate confusion of fission bombs with thermonuclear (fusion) bombs, U-238 with U-235, and completely out-from-left-field doubling of the amount of weapons-grade Uranium necessary for supercritical mass.
A far better link to info on nukes is: FAS Nuclear Weapon Design. Particularly, the first link at the bottom of the page "Adapted from - Nuclear Weapons Technology Militarily Critical Technologies List" (PDF file). I'm no expert on this stuff so I don't know how accurate it is (ie. probably some critical information is left out or obfuscated for security).
Umm, maybe to power a Ford Ranger around the world 27 times? With appropriate tire and oil changes, of course.
Thanks John H K. Just as I thought. There is a post within the first 50 post (somewhere between #40 and #50) that would give one a clue that this (It was uranium SITTING in an old Soviet-built reactor. We and the Russians came by and picked it up with the full cooperation of the Bulgarians. Something we've done before was what was happening.
In the final analysis, yup. Time...and a sufficiently-advanced rogue nation. I'd like to think that our knocking some rogue nations out of the picture is sufficiently prolonging that time frame.
Once they have that, all they have to do is _get it here_.
Or worse, construct it in a piecemeal fashion in a less-than-orderly nation with which we have porous borders. I won't name any names, but the country's initials are MEXICO. (Oops...I was supposed to think that part and not say it...)
I wouldn't be surprised that in time, the North Koreans -- who build their weapons to sell for cash -- put together a "do-it-yourself" nuke kit. It won't necessarily include the U-235; rather, it will contain all the other components, complete with an easy-to-operate detonator. Just assemble with the requisite quantity of fissionable material and you're good to go.
The requisite parts are pretty available already. One may recall that Hussein himself managed to get his hands on a few nuclear detonators back in the 1980s. He even had a press conference holding one in his hand. (And the Left still insists he was not pursuing WMD...)
Or perhaps, pay a little more, and get the whole shebang. Delivered in either in kit form, or complete and ready to rumble.
If there's one thing that nuclear weapons aren't, it's cheap. The core ingredient costs serious money; whether it's mined or manufactured. But your mention of North Korea stands to reason. There is a long history of treachery among many an Asian nation in which they would furnish weapons to the enemy of their enemy and let the two of them duke it out so that their original enemy would be weakened enough that they could make demands on them...or attack them outright.
Another source might be Pakistan, a country that _cannot_ be trusted with their nuclear arsenal.
That one has me bothered as well...but I'm reasonably sure that there are contingency plans in place that would prevent those weapons and their caretakers from remaining in Pakistan in the event of a '70s-style Islamic revolution.
And how many of Pakistan's "nuclear team" are, in truth, Islamonazi sympathizers?
If my hunch is correct, those problematic situations have been addressed roundabout the time that Pakistan made overtures to the U.S. in the events leading up to the liberation of Afghanistan.
A recurring comment in this thread is that, technologically, the Islamics are still "back in the 30's". Fair enough. But look how far they've come along in recent years. They weren't a threat so long as they had mostly guns and swords. But then they learned how to steer airplanes. That's progress.
It's more of a change in scope of the suicide bomber tactics, really. And considering the Kamikaze attacks of 1944, it wasn't original either. Yes, al Qaeda chose to use planes instead of cars. This was likely done because they saw how miserably a car bomb failed in the 1993 attack on the WTC.
Again, if the construction of a working nuclear weapon, regardless of its "crudeness" by modern standards, "can be accomplished in one's garage" (in Prime Choice's words), there is sufficient cause for alarm. This is a feat which no longer can be considered "unattainable" and out of the reach of the Islamics.
So long as the fissionable material is not readily available in sufficient quantities, there isn't much to worry about in terms of an al Qaeda A-Bomb. Now a dirty bomb...that's a different story.
They don't have to build a 1990's or 2000-class weapon. All they have to do is make the stride from the "thirties" to the "forties".
All the more reason to continue taking out rogue nations. In that, we are not only denying al Qaeda their haven, we are denying them resources critical to such an enterprise.
An undergrad taking a 200 level class.
Here is another good site for the Manhattan Project although it is more devoted to the history of the program.
1. 37 lbs = 1/3 of 110 lbs. If a shipment were divided into three equal parts, this would leave two of those parts missing right now.
Is 74 lbs enough to do anything?
Apart from use in a dirty bomb, nope. Well, not without weaponry of the sophistical that the U.S. possesses, anyway...
2. Detonating bomb over Manhattan is definitely more efficient. Now couple this with the stories of Al Queda having fully qualified airline pilots and you have the next generation suicide bomber.
Yep.
Have you read the actual article in the Washington Post.
Drudge has misrepresented the info of the Washington Post article in order to get the scoop.
I refuse to split hairs over this pointless detail when my main point in the first place was; There is no easy way to produce a fusion bomb.
You seem to be well versed on this subject, so why spread unnecessary panic amongst the people who are not?
My point is; If a Terrorist group manages to obtain enough radioactive material to produce a DIRTY BOMB, the results will be serious but not devastating to the degree of a Nuclear Device. A DB might effect an area of several city blocks but it will not achieve the mass destruction or geographical contamination that the Terrorists are looking for.
Actually, U-238 and U-235 are beasts unto themselves, the same as Pu-239. What makes U-235 difficult to harvest is that it's invariably mixed in with U-238 in Uranium ore. The refinement process utilizing weak magnets helps separate the U-238 from the U-235.
I refuse to split hairs over this pointless detail when my main point in the first place was; There is no easy way to produce a fusion bomb.
Again, as I pointed out previously, I was not discussing fusion bombs. I was discussing fission bombs.
You seem to be well versed on this subject, so why spread unnecessary panic amongst the people who are not?
I'm not spreading panic. If anything, my point is this: yes, the means of constructing a fission device are readily available, but the one crucial element (sufficient quantities of fissionable material) are well outside the grasp of terrorists in this present day. That's the bottom line. Maybe it makes people uncomfortable (as it should), but it only helps drive home the point that we are doing the Right Thing(tm) in taking out rogue nations who either have -- or could have in the future -- the capacity to produce the crucial ingredient: weapons-grade Uranium and/or Plutonium in critical mass quantities.
My point is; If a Terrorist group manages to obtain enough radioactive material to produce a DIRTY BOMB, the results will be serious but not devastating to the degree of a Nuclear Device. A DB might effect an area of several city blocks but it will not achieve the mass destruction or geographical contamination that the Terrorists are looking for.
Are you aware of how long Nagasaki and Hiroshima were deemed uninhabitable? They both had fission bombs dropped on them in August of 1945. Yet by the start of October of 1945, we had nearly 70,000 of our own troops occupying those two cities. Today, both cities are quite inhabited.
Contrast this with what we'd have in the event of a dirty bomb: particulate radioactive material distributed across a wide area; inhalation of which would make for serious health problems in both the short and long term.
And al Qaeda doesn't care one bit about which one to use; they'll consistently opt for the one that is most likely to succeed. Between the two, the "dirty bomb" requires far less sophistication and is far less likely to fail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.