TERROR OF BIN LADEN'S 20 BACKPACK NUKES developing

Your argument is that it is simpler to make a bomb if a source of high neutron emissions is included in the design. By definition, anything that emits a high number of neutrons will have a short half-life, and may damage the electronics around it (depending on how the neutrons are absorbed).

None of that is in dispute. You can post all you want about half lives, but it is, and will continue to be, irrelevant.

The first relevant point is: CAN you make a bomb without a "trigger" and with a multi-year shelf life. The answer is YES.

The second relevant point is: DID the Russians do so?

If the Russians built such weapons, the question then becomes: Are some MISSING? And, if so, where are they?

It is completely legitimate to contend the Russians never built these weapons, or that, if they did, they are not missing. It is not legitimate to contend that they COULD NOT have built such weapons because it is impossible to do so. It is most definitely possible to do so, and anyone with your research ability must certainly realize this.

BTW: I freely admit the difficulties involved. Furthermore, I'll give you even more ammunition: The U.S. has experimented with small yield weapons, and found that very small yields tend to be much harder to make go bang (fizzles, etc.). That is why I do not think any of the third world punks we are fighting could have done it.

Note to the various patriotic lurkers: The fact that we have done these experiments is unclassified. I do not give out classified information, or information potentially harmful to the U.S. No need for flames about my patriotism.

BTW2: The third world punks we are fighting have access to Pakistan's demonstrated nuke technology. They CAN make a functional bomb if they can get the materials. It WOULD be small enough to fit into a missile warhead (but probably NOT into briefcase).

A weapon such as this could be placed on a ship and detonated in a U.S. harbor. Our best defense against this type of attack is good intelligence.

BTW3: We are NOT able to find/track a shielded nuke by satellite (another common misconception). We CAN spot neutron emissions with the right equipment if we are close enough (the exact range is classified, thankfully). A conventional geiger counter does NOT detect neutron emissions (as I suspect you know).

The primary satellite technology used to find Russian nukes was/is ground penetrating radar. It enables us to find missile silos, not the warheads themselves. It does not work well in all soil/ground conditions.

CONCLUSION: Go ahead and argue that we face no threat from pre-positioned nukes (we both hope we don't, but neither of us knows). But argue your point from legitimate grounds.

" A conventional geiger counter does NOT detect neutron emissions (as I suspect you know). "

Geiger Counter

Geiger counters are instruments that can detect and measure radioactivity. H. Geiger and E.W. Muller invented the Geiger counter in 1928.

With a Geiger counter you can check materials and environment for radioactivity. You could even go prospecting for uranium, if you desire. The Geiger counter may also be used to check for radon in your basement. Radon gas would show itself by increasing the radiation counts over the background radiation.

Radioactivity

Radioactivity is the spontaneous emission of energy from the nucleus of certain elements, most notably uranium. There are three forms of energy associated with radioactivity; alpha, beta and gamma radiation. The classifications were originally made according to the penetrating power of the radiation.

Alpha rays were found to be the nuclei of helium atoms, two protons and two neutrons bound together. Alpha rays have a net positive charge. Alpha particles have weak penetrating ability, a couple of inches of air or a few sheets of paper can effectively block them.

Beta rays were found to be electrons, identical to the electrons found in atoms. Beta rays have a net negative charge. Beta rays have a greater penetrating power than Apha rays and can penetrate 3mm of aluminum.

Gamma rays are high energy photons. This has the greatest penetrating power being able to pass through several centimeters of lead and still be detected on the other side.

This Geiger Counter is sensitive to all three types of radioactivity.

"You say you cannot make a small nuke without a trigger. Theory says you can, but it's not for amateurs. A number of top Russians say they DID."

Ex-Soviets said they made small nukes without triggers, or just said that they made small nukes?

The smaller the nuke, the MORE that you need a trigger.

Triggers decay over a matter of days.

Further, triggers aside, the electronics inside a small nuke deteriorate even faster than those inside larger, more shielded weapons. These electronics ALL require highly specialized maintenance on a VERY regular basis, even for devices that have no triggers (although I'm unaware of any such triggerless devices ever even being made outside perhaps one lab experiment).

Moreover, triggers and electronics aside, the booster component Tritium (which the Soviets and the U.S. both used) deteriorates the entire weapon into little more than a dirty bomb after slightly mroe than eight years.

So stories about functional nukes being "pre-placed" in various hiding places back during the Cold War are laughable from a physics standpoint. Furthermore, stories about small "backpack" nukes being stolen/sold can be disregarded if the story revolves around anything longer than about 60 days prior, presuming that whoever did the stealing doesn't have the means, methods, talent, money, and knowhow to service the electronics, replace the Tritium, and engineer a new, precisely-designed trigger (and anyone who has all of that has no NEED to go stealing old Cold War nukes in the first place).

And that's the kicker: if you have the talent and knowhow and means to precisely engineer the appropriate new nuclear triggers, then you've long-since passed the point where you were able to build your own bombs from scratch.

If you know how to do all of that, then you aren't going to waste your time or money trying to steal old weapons (especially since such weapons might be tricks to trap you); instead, you'll simply be buying U-238 from the Congo (rebels or government factions) or else turning on your own nuclear reactors and/or cyclotrons to make your own fissionable (as well as trigger) material en masse.

If there are any nukes missing (and that's a big if), the most likely scenario for their disappearance is as follows: a high-level group within the KGB simply seized these backpack nukes and has them hidden in an undisclosed location. They did not tell the Russian Army, Alexander Lebed, or the rest of the KGB about this action. We have to keep in mind that these KGB officers are experts at deception and disinformation and it would not be difficult for them to make fifty tactical nukes disppear along with all their associated paperwork.

This kind of innocuous scenario does not get written up in the media because it's not alarming or sensational. The public is more captivated by reading about Soviet nukes sold to Osama bin Laden, even though this is an extremely unlikely event. The next most likely cause for any missing nukes is probably a sting operation as suggested by defenderSD and others.

Yes, it is quite remarkable how people at this website choose to believe in "delusional fantasies." The last time I saw Putin & Bush, they looked quite relaxed and not worred about any nukes in the hands of OBL.

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.