Al-Qaida's U.S. nuclear targets

WorldNetDaily ^ | July 18, 2005 | JOSEPH FARAH

[calenel]

"I first explained Polynium/Berylium triggers (something you initially had the nerve to call non 'exotic.')"

You didn't explain them. You mentioned them. I explained them. Wouldn't you think that if you actually knew what they were, you might be able to spell the names of the elements used to make them? Polonium. Beryllium.

As for Polonium, it is a naturally occurring element that was discovered over a century ago. It is fairly rare and has lots of isotopes, and as a result it is far easier to manufacture po-210 by bombarding bismuth than by trying to separate it from the naturally occurring ores and all the isotopes from each other. So, call it exotic if you want. You still haven't provided any support for your position.

[calenel]

So I guess there was a little bit of a 'bang' after all.

There was no compression wave to hold the critical mass together long enough for a bigger bang. This is totally consistent with what I have been saying. You just don't get it. There was a critical mass of U-235 (not plutonium in this case) that managed to release a lot of radiation and cause some damage to the lab equipment. A small 'bang'. It didn't hurt anyone because they were a quarter mile away. Where are the high explosives? Where is the 'exotic' polonium/beryllium trigger? They aren't there because they aren't needed (for a small 'bang').

[Southack]

That's a ridiculous argument...that just because a few laboratory metal supports were bent...that somehow atomic triggers and precise timing aren't required for a meaningful weapon.

You're grasping for straws in your ill-fated quest to somehow frighten all of the U.S. into sharing your old Y2K bunker with you.

Won't work.

[calenel]

"That's a ridiculous argument...that just because a few laboratory metal supports were bent...that somehow atomic triggers and precise timing aren't required for a meaningful weapon."

You have been claiming that plain old fissionables could not go 'bang' without high explosives and triggers and other things. That example debunks your claim.

"You're grasping for straws in your ill-fated quest to somehow frighten all of the U.S. into sharing your old Y2K bunker with you."

I was on the other side of the Y2K argument. I don't have some hidden agenda, all I've done is ask that somebody prove that it isn't possible for AQ to detonate a nuclear weapon in the US, because my background leads me to believe that it is possible. I want to be proven wrong. You have consistently failed to prove your claim that it couldn't be done. You have provided only a few links and those mostly supported my position rather than yours. And at every turn you have erected straw-men and quoted out of context, just as you did in the post to which I am responding.

I'm not trying to frighten anyone, although that may happen as a consequence of the discussion. It is not, however, my purpose. The fact that you have to make an assertion as to my motives so you can attack them shows the weakness of your argument. You are whistling past the graveyard.

[calenel]

"That's a ridiculous argument...that just because a few laboratory metal supports were bent...that somehow atomic triggers and precise timing aren't required for a meaningful weapon."

Moving the goal posts now, eh? But no matter, I never made the argument "that somehow atomic triggers and precise timing aren't required for a meaningful weapon." I have provided a description of technologies available that are sufficient as well as possible sources for some of the more difficult components.

[Southack]

"Moving the goal posts now, eh? But no matter, I never made the argument "that somehow atomic triggers and precise timing aren't required for a meaningful weapon." I have provided a description of technologies available that are sufficient as well as possible sources for some of the more difficult components."

The damage shown in the picture in post #135 is insufficient to cause alarm or concern...yet you have attempted to use that tiny "bang" to extrapolate that Al Qaeda could somehow build an atomic bomb before Iran or North Korea.

Won't happen.

Al Qaeda's current technical expertise and financial means could build a conventional BLU-82 type ANFO bomb, possibly even several. Al Qaeda *may* also be able to fabricate some rudimentary chemical and/or biological weapons.

Likewise, Al Qaeda has the personnel available to *deliver* a weapon given to them by a rogue state such as Iran or North Korea.

But Iran (and probably North Korea, though that is debatable) has not *yet* overcome the technical hurdles necessary to fabricate and assemble an atomic bomb. These are NOT insignificant hurdles. The entire military might of NAZI Germany couldn't overcome them.

However, Iran has vastly greater resources than Al Qaeda. Iran will overcome these technical hurdles **before** Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda, for instance, does not possess a working nuclear reactor (required for producing bomb-quantities of Po-210). Iran, in contrast, has several nuclear reactors (though fortunately so far they've only got their small Tehran University test reactor working).

That's a deal-stopper. No working nuclear reactor means no atomic bomb fabrication. In fact, it also means no **maintenance** of an existing (say, stolen) atomic bomb. That alone limits the shelf-life of a purloined atomic bomb to less than 140 days max.