Al Qaeda bluffing about having suitcase nukes, experts say

Yes, but, batteries and conventional explosives can be replaced ... if they could get their hands on a suitcase bomb that has a bad battery and needs it's fuse updated, that is still a scary scenario.

The stuff that doesn't last 3 years is not that hard to replace .. the stuff that last longer is.

Yup. We're for some odd reason afflicted with seminar posters who are intent on spouting a line that has no basis in fact, using a variety of logical fallacies, such as explaining the complextity of modern American nuclear munitions, and using that as a "proof" of the impossibility of any crude "go boom" devices.

It's like taking down a modern M16 and explaining all the metallurgy, machining, engineering, and hand-tooling and fitting that goes into its manufacture, and using that as "proof" that we have no reason to fear that a bunch of people with rags on their heads could ever come up with something as daunting as "the rifle."

Of course, we've all seen the news footage of the barefoot armorers of Afghanistan, sitting in their dirt-floored stalls, making fully operational machineguns out of scrap auto parts over a charcoal forge maintained by a kid with a bellows.

Here's my reply from the other thread, to one poster's repeatedly spammed "see post 95" non-replies. (Amazingly, they refuse to address any of these facts, preferring to spam the same appeal to authority (their own!) over and over again):

And lots of solid information, such as Are Suitcase Bombs Possible? and Fission Weapon Designs serve well to debunk reams of feel-good whistlling-past-the-graveyard happytalk.
All is not well, and recognition of this reality is not restricted to "chicken little"/"the sky is falling!" types.
You seem deeply vested in the idea that it is impossible for crude nuclear weapons to be constructed and sucessfully deployed.
I don't know why. I do find it disconcerting, however, and I hope that people don't accept your say-so as gospel. There is plenty of solid information available that puts the lie to the "don't worry, be happy" comfortspeak.
For those who still persist in the belief that it's only the uninformed and ignorant who would even consider the possiblity of nuclear-armed terrorists, I leave you with this excerpt from Christopher Hitchens' too-quickly forgotten article, "The night of the weak knees":
The night of the weak knees

Christopher Hitchens
Wednesday December 5, 2001
The Guardian

Four weekends ago, I really did receive two Friday-night telephone calls from well-positioned Washingtonians. "Leave now," they told me. "There's a tactical nuke on the loose, and it's headed for DC." One of these callers was in a position to know, and the other was in a position where he was actually paid to know. Calls were being placed to an immediate circle of friends to which, in theory, I was flattered to belong. Those who were calling were also leaving - while not informing the rest of the citizens. Why, then, did I resolve to stay? It wasn't just British pluck, strong as that naturally is. I thought, first, that it was unlikely that al-Qaida, if it had the bomb, would have conducted a petty dress rehearsal with United Airlines. I thought, second, that the detonation of a "use it or lose it" freelance nuke could not be predicted for any given weekend. And I thought, third, that I would feel a colossal cretin if I fled and then came slithering back on Monday morning (especially if the nuclear holocaust was timed for Monday's rush hour after all). In the end, I did take the family on a pre-arranged trip to Gettysburg, leaving late and returning early.
Officially, nobody now remembers this night of the weak knees. It rated a brief and embarrassed mention in Hugh Sidey's Time column, and that was it. But I shall not forget how some of those in supposed authority decided that the end had come, and made it a point to keep it to themselves and their immediate friends, perhaps to stop the crowding of the roads. That's how it will be on the day of Armageddon, and that's why the citizen should always plan to outlive the state, rather than the other way round.

From *your* source in Post #21:

4.2.6.2 Terrorist Bombs

The prospect of terrorist acquisition of weapons has haunted the world since at least the late sixties, when international terrorism gained prominence. A variety of opinions have been expressed on the plausibility of these threats. Claims have been made that a terrorist weapon could:

Produce a yield of many kilotons;
Be made with reactor grade plutonium, perhaps even with unrefined plutonium reactor fuel;
Be made by a single individual in a matter of weeks, with commonly available materials (given that fissile material is also available);
Be made small enough to transport easily by car. These claims have even been conflated, so that it is asserted that most or all of them are true simultaneously.

These claims are all conditionally true: they may be valid, but only under a restrictive set of assumptions. And they also conflict strongly. Some are completely incompatible; others cannot be categorically eliminated as impossible in combination, but in any event it seems that no more two of them could be possible under any scenario.

What technologies are plausible for terrorist use? And what types of weapons are reasonable threats?

The most fundamental constraint on a terrorist group is the type of fissile material that is available, and in what quantity. ...

Clearly the most serious scenario is if weapons-grade HEU can be obtained by a terrorist group. Due to the very low neutron emission rate, very low technology can produce a substantial probability of full insertion and high yield detonation.

...

A gun-type weapon is not a major concern if plutonium is used. Such a device might actually produce explosive yields in the range of a few tons, but would not be significantly more destructive than conventional truck bombs.

...

Now and in the future, reactor grade plutonium appears to be the material most likely to be available to a terrorist group. ...

Despite hints to the contrary (for example Ted Taylor's comments in _The Curve of Binding Energy_ among others), it is not plausible that true spherical implosion systems can be developed by a terrorist group. The difficulties in designing and making a working lens system appears to be simply insurmountable.

The following clip was lifted from this Dec 13 2003 article [link]. Kind of makes your point.

Curt Weldon began to summarize where we have been and what information that the government missed or chose to overlook prior to the 9-11 attacks. In dramatic fashion, Congressman Weldon held up a brief case and stated, "You've heard of a 'suitcase nuke', here it is." There was a momentary pause as everyone cogitated what he had said. Weldon further explained, "Of course there is no radioactive material in this particular brief case, otherwise I would have never gotten it here."

Photo By Charles Werner

The Honorable Congressman Curt Weldon

Congressman Weldon alarmingly explained that the Russians developed 132 of these "suitcase nukes" and can only account for 48. The Russians reported that they could have been destroyed or they could have been sold during the breakup of the old U.S.S.R. Weldon also said in a very straightforward way, "I will tell you this as I did on prime time live several weeks ago, based on what I know and what I see, I think there's a 50/50 chance that Bin Lad can produce a dirty nuke." Congressman Weldon asked, "What happened to all of those 1000s of metric tons of Russian chemical weapons? The answer, 'we just don't know.'"

Congressman Weldon then listing the things that need to be addressed to deal with this new domestic threat. "We must develop an adequate domestic communication system. This country needs to understand, to respond to any type of disaster, we've got to have an integrative communication system and we can't rely on you [fire service] to raise the funds to buy that equipment." Weldon specifically noted, "If we don't preserve 24 mhz of public safety frequency spectrum, then you won't be able to have an integrated system where you can in fact talk to all those agencies that you're going to deal with."

Photo By Charles Werner

Photograph of 'Suitcase Nuke'

Curt Weldon also expressed his sincere sadness with the loss of a great personal friend, Ray Downey, FDNY Special Rescue Operations Chief. Weldon said that Downey's vision catapulted the USAR movement forward and made it what it is today. Weldon said now we're going to call them "Downey Teams" rather than FEMA Teams. Weldon also said that they are working on naming a building at the National Fire Academy in honor of Ray Downey.

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.