Posted on 07/18/2005 7:46:43 PM PDT by Fruit of the Spirit
Well, actually, I did quite well in chemistry. A year of the regular Chemistry course and three more semesters of Advanced Chemistry/Independent Study in high school. Then in college I double-majored in Chemical Engineering and Nuclear Engineering for two years until it became obvious that the liberal anti-nuclear activists (useful idiots for the Soviets) had effectively destroyed the nuclear industry. So I switched from Nuclear Engineering to Computer Science and have had a productive career since then. But if you are resorting to ad homonym attacks, I must be winning the argument. And I will be sure not to criticize your spelling.
"The shaped charges, and the timing of the explosion is crucial to successful detonation of the fissile material."
Simple geometry (I did quite well in math, too. Another independent study in Calculus. My first math course in college was Differential Equations). Oh, and some basic physics.
"Plutonium is not particulary radioactive"
That much you have right.
"but does oxydize readily in the air, and produces a fine powder in dong so that contaminates everything and is easily inhaled."
Who said anything about sloppy handling? Simple does not mean stupid.
"Did I mention that it is EXTREMELY toxic?"
That's two right. Back in ancient times on this forum I have said exactly the same thing. Plutonium is far more dangerous as a chemical hazard than as a radiological one (as long as you don't put too much together). Again, simple does not mean stupid.
"Once you have the pit, you have to have the mathematics necessary to know how much overpressure needed to fizz the pit, and have the specilized skills necessary to construct the charges."
No you don't. All you need to know is how the charges were shaped in the device the "pit" came from. After that, pretty close is close enough.
"Not exactly something that is taught in the Madrass."
Yes, of course you are right. All the terrorists are frothing religious fanatics with third grade educations. None of them would ever conceivably be able to learn to drive, or fly a jumbo jet or put together a bomb or anything.
"These things cannot be slapped together, and expected to work."
Again, who said anything about sloppy work? It isn't, nor was I suggesting, like slapping a glob of C4 on a door and having a person sized hole magically appear after the blast, as one might see on TV.
"General nuclear weapon theory is common. Having the resources plutonium to build one is not."
Ever notice that there is no real effort to control the knowledge of how a nuclear weapon works, just the access to the fissile materials? There is a reason for that. You put forth these trivial problems as insurmountable obstacles - keeping the plutonium in an airtight environment, delivering an electrical charge to multiple points simultaneously (the simplest scenario), copying the geometry of a shaped charge - when they really are trivial.
Again this is from FR'er SouthTrack -
Suitcase nukes are SMALLER than ordinary nukes. The smaller the nuke, the shorter the shelf life.
The less shielding that you have, the sooner that your electronics and conventional explosives deteriorate from the radiation.
The less fissionable material that you have, the faster you generally need your atomic trigger isotopes to emit neutrons. The faster you emit neutrons, the shorter your half-life. The shorter your half-life, the less time that you have before the nuke simply fizzles instead of booms. Beryllium trigger isotopes can have as little as a 53 day half-life, for instance. Polonium 210, a Man-made isotope that can *only* be created in nuclear reactors or cyclotrons, has a 140 day half-life.
This is simple physics. Moreover, heavy metals like uranium and plutonium are among the most brittle materials known to man, and the slightest bit of humidity turns them into uranium oxide or plutonium oxide (i.e. worthless rust).
So a "suitcase nuke" from 1991 (the fall of the CCCP) is likely little more than a rusted, shattered, fragmented collection of wiring and explosives today.
They *require* a constant, highly professional level of maintenance that needs to be performed in very, very highly advanced clean room labs.
No maintenance means no Boom.
Again this is from FR'er SouthTrack -
Suitcase nukes are SMALLER than ordinary nukes. The smaller the nuke, the shorter the shelf life.
The less shielding that you have, the sooner that your electronics and conventional explosives deteriorate from the radiation.
The less fissionable material that you have, the faster you generally need your atomic trigger isotopes to emit neutrons. The faster you emit neutrons, the shorter your half-life. The shorter your half-life, the less time that you have before the nuke simply fizzles instead of booms. Beryllium trigger isotopes can have as little as a 53 day half-life, for instance. Polonium 210, a Man-made isotope that can *only* be created in nuclear reactors or cyclotrons, has a 140 day half-life.
This is simple physics. Moreover, heavy metals like uranium and plutonium are among the most brittle materials known to man, and the slightest bit of humidity turns them into uranium oxide or plutonium oxide (i.e. worthless rust).
So a "suitcase nuke" from 1991 (the fall of the CCCP) is likely little more than a rusted, shattered, fragmented collection of wiring and explosives today.
They *require* a constant, highly professional level of maintenance that needs to be performed in very, very highly advanced clean room labs.
No maintenance means no Boom.
Are these technological points? Loose lips and all? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that.
And aside from SouthTrack's (there is no Freeper SouthTrack, did you mean SoutHack?) credentials being unknown to me, I have already agreed with all the stuff you posted from him with one exception (quibble, really) noted below. Perhaps you should read through this thread again when you find the time.
For the forty-sixth time now, we aren't talking about suitcase nukes. We are talking about any kind of nuke being brought into the US in part or in whole. I never saw the big banner saying this thread was limited to the "DISCUSSION OF SUITCASE NUKES ONLY!" Sorry.
Southack (presumptively): The smaller the nuke, the shorter the shelf life.
Disagree. Size reduction (or increase) that requires a technology shift may affect shelf life, but different size (yield) nukes using substantially the same technology will have essentially the same shelf life. In the case of suitcase nukes the effect is negative in that they require regular maintenance and, as noted, the reduced shielding allows the electronics and other components to degrade at a substantial rate. As an interesting note, at least some designs for weapons using tritium (since some people can't seem to get past the tritium thing) for fission-boosting have an exchangeable reservoir for easy replenishment, although this feature may have been sacrificed in the suitcase models.
Look up the half-life of Polonium, a material that does not exist in nature (can only be made in nuclear reactors and cyclotrons).
This is simple physics. Moreover, heavy metals like uranium and plutonium are among the most brittle materials known to man, and the slightest bit of humidity turns them into uranium oxide or plutonium oxide (i.e. worthless rust).
It seems very unlikely most or any of those bombs would even work. Suitcase nukes need very regular maintenance in order to stay operational. You can't just leave it lying around for a few years and then use it. It very likely wont work. Also you have to wonder why Russians would sell Al Queda any nukes that actually work at all. Why bother? Would they really know the difference? Could they test one without us locating the blast? Flame away...just trying to inject some doubts into what I see as a rather hysterical Farah effort at self-promotion (wouldn't be the first).
On the contrary, the well-funded, well-staffed Nazis found that process to be a bit more tricky. QED.
My point is that all nukes, regardless of size, require professional maintenance.
Nuclear triggers can't, due to atomic decay, last very long. That's just a fact of life.
As for nuclear cores/pits...they decay much more slowly (e.g. the Soviets were on a 7 year replacement cycle), but the isotopes that they decay into, though small in quantity early on, greatly inhibit chain reactions.
Furthermore, radioactive decay impacts electronics and even wiring (e.g. resistance, heat, capacitance, inductance). That decay also affects the conventional explosives (this is why the Soviets had to steal Britain's RDX). Even RDX has to be periodically replaced.
Contrary to urban myths, none of the above are easy to remedy in the field. Cutting and shaping fissionable metals is beyond the ability of your corner-store machine shop.
Obtaining trigger material itself (e.g. Po-210) requires full access to a nuclear reactor.
Larger atomic devices *can*, if desired, be built with slightly longer shelf-lives (e.g. using more shielding material), but the desired neutron radiation (which is, by definition, tied to short a half-life) to initiate even the large devices mandates rather constant maintenance cycles.
In short, you need State resources to build new or maintain old nukes (e.g. nuclear reactor for trigger replenishment, clean room labs for machining pits/cores, special conventional explosives, etc.).
Slight errors in shaping the replacement conventional explosives, or in the resistance or capacitance of the wiring, or in a mismatch in the electronics, or in the purity of the fissionable material, or in the decay rate of the chosen trigger materials...will all void a nuke's ability to go "boom."
Still be a "dirty nuke?" Sure. Re-visit Hiroshima? No.
It's not trivial. Nuclear weapon design, in public, has been deliberately sanitized and *over* simplified. But even what is in the Public domain is complex. Here's Fermi's reactor patent for getting a mere chain reaction (note: a chain reaction is insufficient for an atomic bomb):
Scares me though that the New York Times, Washington Post and Washington Times have all mentioned this "plot" by name at one time or another.
Not that they can necessarily strike on the scale described. I certainly wouldn't know whether they can or not.
Would suspect if they do strike it would be on a lesser scale.
Not according to this site:
In order to start the chain reaction, the mass of plutonium must be fused together while a radioactive source emitted a neutron.
Read a little more closely. The "mass of plutonium" is a bunch of separate plutonium pieces that need to be "fused" by being pushed together and held together long enough to go supercritical instead of just going critical and scattering itself around the room. Also, note that the article you referenced also states the mass of plutonium required for a plutonium-only bomb, and that it can be made to go supercritical with conventional explosives that were available in the 1940s. There is no mention of exotic isotopes of artificial elements or the like. It even describes the trigger used and the time required to hold the plutonium together. It then goes on to mention the accessories, such as an altimeter (now why would we need that?) That article actually supports my side of this debate.
"It's not trivial. Nuclear weapon design, in public, has been deliberately sanitized and *over* simplified. But even what is in the Public domain is complex. Here's Fermi's reactor patent for getting a mere chain reaction (note: a chain reaction is insufficient for an atomic bomb):"
What ever you say, I guess, but a chain reaction - a stabile one - is much more difficult than a bang.
Incorrect.
Plutonium doesn't just need to be "pushed together" to go supercritical, and no amount of "reading more closely" will change that fact of Physics.
Fusing together plutonium into a supercritical mass is done with an implosion explosive detonation, not merely storing too much plutonium too close by "piling it" together by hand as you wildly claimed. Further, setting off the chain reaction takes an emitted neutron AT THE PRECISE moment of implosion, a mathematical feat that is not for the faint of heart.
You've repeated wildly discredited urban myths about nukes being "trivial."
Expect to be debunked time and again around here, with links to reputable sites as support.
I'll be stunned beyond all doubt if it happens. I'm deploying my roof deflectors now.
That's incorrect. Laughably, wildly incorrect.
Plutonium has a very long half-life...meaning that it emits very little radiation naturally...meaning that it is less fissionable than uranium...meaning that it doesn't self-initiate.
Pay attention to the half-life.
That's incorrect.
Chain reactions have occured naturally on Earth, something that one can't say for atomic explosions. See this link: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml
Fission, after all, is a natural process. Atoms in many elements emit neutrons on their own.
There are chain reactions,
There are self-sustaining chain reactions,
and there are supercritical reactions (i.e. bombs). Mere "chain reactions" are simple enough to have occured naturally. Check out the link above. It's light reading.
Sigh...
The article *specifically* mentions the artificial, exotic isotopes required...you simply don't know enough about this subject to *recognize* what the article was telling you. Here's the relevant passage:
In order to start the chain reaction, the mass of plutonium must be fused together while a radioactive source emitted a neutron. The way the bomb was design[ed] was that a Beryllium/Polonium mixture, radioactive elements that release neutrons, would be placed in the center of a sphere.
Polonium, by the way, is a manmade element. Po-210 is the Polonium isotope used in the above trigger (held in the center of the sphere). It has a half-life of 140 days, and can only be created in nuclear reactors and cyclotrons (and new Po-210 is *required* to replenish nuclear triggers).
Exactly -
But furthermore one only needs to look at the recent al Qeade bombings in Madrid and the two latest attacks in Great Britain to see that al Qeade does not have anywhere near the technical capacity to revive and or keep up to date any old former Soviet Union Nukes.
That can't even build simple triggering devices that work half the time.
A type of biological or chemical attack is of far greater concern than anything Nuclear. A Nuclear attack by al Qeade in the United States is hogwash.
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.
First Atomic Reactor Patent by Fermi, 1944