Replies

I read a bunch of stuff on nukes after 9/11. Here's my observations on the nuke/Al Qaeda story:

Low enriched uranium (LEU) won't explode so it can only be used for a dirty bomb. Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is explosive but it takes a large amount. According to fas.org, Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima, used 64kg of 80% enriched uranium. South Africa's nukes used 50kg of 80-93% enriched uranium. These were gun-type bombs, the easiest to make. Implosion-type bombs need less but are difficult to make.

There is no chance that Al Qaeda could have made an atomic bomb. They would have to buy or steal one. Regular warheads, like those on ICBMs, are impossible to set off. The real threat is from those suitcase nukes (Atomic Demolition Munitions, ADMs) since they don't have the safeguards that the larger warheads do. The good news is that ADMs used advanced techniques and require servicing to stay potent. It's doubtful that Al Qaeda has the capability to service them.

So, IMHO, the main threat is from dirty bombs. Since people freak out when anyone mentions radiation contamination, their main threat is terror and panic.

I think that a more scary threat is that Al Qaeda will send several "Smallpox Samirs" to fly around the USA on commercial airliners infecting people. The infection would spread fast and be widespread.

Thanks for the explanation. Considering what we saw of Al Queda "labs" in Afghanistan (chemical components mixed up in Windex bottles, in buildings made of mud), it's clear that a group of thugs on the run cannot make a bomb. Probably the only way Al Queda could get a real nuke is if a state handed them one on the condition Al Queda did their bidding; but it's probably doubtful a state that possessed nukes (which might number only a few warheads, since these would probably have to have been stolen from the former USSR, and not developed in their own labs) would turn them over to Bin Laden and his band of loose cannons.