TERROR OF BIN LADEN'S 20 BACKPACK NUKES developing

While it's possible that somebody who does understand scientific concepts more sophisticated than the ignition of a camel-dung fire sold them some nasty stuff, it seems more likely that they saw 'em coming a mile away and sold them a bunch of worthless crap.

I suggest you search the Internet for "Pakistani nuclear scientist." At some point there were 100's of articles on FR about the dozens of top Pakistani nuclear scientists detained by the Pakistani government after 9/11. As I recall the group included a man considered to be the the father of the Pakistani atomic bomb. They were detained and questioned by the CIA and after they made frequent visits to Afghanistan to meet and work with Bin Laden.

You can rest easy since the scientists claimed to have only visited Bin Laden for "humanitarian" reasons, and to work on the construction of a flour mill

"Bottom line: There is absolutely no doubt that a nuke can be built without a trigger. Such a weapon would need periodic electronic maintenance, but not replacement of the fissionable material."

No doubt that the fissionable material lasts long-enough to not fit into the time-frames that I have mentioned so far in this thread, however, lets not confuse "fissionable materials" with that of the radioactive materials used to build the triggers/initiators.

Even a casual perusal of the periodic table of elements will confirm that Polonium and most isotopes of Beryllium have relatively short half-lives (days). In fact, I've posted both onto this thread (or one of the copycats) already.

Likewise, the booster component tritium has a half-life that takes normal amounts of time into consideration. Its slightly longer half-life of 12 years begins to jeopardize the nuclear chain reaction after little more than 8 years of deterioration into He3.

Yes, the cores/pits of nuclear devices last much longer than all of the above, but lets not confuse cores/pits with triggers and boosters.

Lets also not try to say that building a bomb WITHOUT a trigger is simpler than using a trigger; it isn't.

One more thought: why am I the only one of the two of us posting sources? Surely you can post some reputable sources to back up your claims, right?

Lets also not try to say that building a bomb WITHOUT a trigger is simpler than using a trigger; it isn't.

This part we agree on. Making a small and reliable bomb is NOT as easy as making a larger bomb. I also said I did not think Iraq, North Korea, or Al Qaida could do it. Russia could. So could we.

Somehow this thread became focused on the idea that you CANNOT make a small nuke without including neutron emitters with very short half lives as part of the design. That is NOT true, although I will readily grant that it requires higher technology (especially if the nukes are small).

As far as posting sources, I have never looked for sources on the net. I learned my stuff from actual hands-on experience in the Air Force.

However, you might find a list of what's unclassified interesting to check out:

(what's classified and what's not)

PING!

Thanks for your words of truth and wisdom, shining like a lighthouse in the freerepublic night. Some people yell about suitcase nukes when they really just want to fight.

Unfortunately, the claim is that the suitcase nukes were built with less protection. Let's hope that claim is false.

It is quite unlikely that any rational power (and the Soviets, though evil, were rational enough) would build and deploy nukes without the best possible safeguards, for obvious reasons.

Admittedly, this begs the question of what "best possible safeguards" Soviet tech was up to building. On the other hand, "suitcase nukes" would be inherently limited by the lifetimes of their neutron initiators, even without any additional safety mechanisms.

Somehow this thread became focused on the idea that you CANNOT make a small nuke without including neutron emitters with very short half lives as part of the design. That is NOT true, although I will readily grant that it requires higher technology (especially if the nukes are small).

Even if one stipulates that it is theoretically possible for an advanced nation (i.e. the US or USSR, not some two-bit Third World country) to build a "suitcase nuke" without the aid of a short-lived Neutron Helper[tm], the question remains of why anyone would choose to give up the advantage of a warhead that will quickly go bad if separated from its authorized chain of command. Again, it goes back to the fact that the Soviets were evil, not stupid.

The tabloids and a few of the less reputable on-line webzines often run off at the mouth with these bizarre articles on "suitcase" nukes.

Fear sells, after all. Worldnet Daily hyped the end of the world with the coming Y2K "bug", in fact, and these suitcase nuke tabloid articles are simply more of the same, designed to pump the adrenaline of the lesser-informed, lesser-educated among our population.

Such authors wouldn't dare mention that one of the things that a "suitcase" nuke gives up is shielding, or that the radiation exposure plays havoc with the conventional chemical explosives inside, or that the radiation degrades the electronic circuits, or that highly specialized maintenance is required for them, much less that the booster component renders such bombs into little more than "dirty" devices after slightly more than 8 years, and they certainly aren't going to mention that the isotopes used in the neutron triggers have a useful half-life of days.

No, they aren't going to mention any of those things because that would reduce the number of Chicken-Little (the sky is falling) types of responses by their readers.

These authors want people to "PANIC!", and omitting the most relevant facts in order to stir such emotions is not beneath them.

Of course, these are the same authors who ridicule their own readers behind their backs every time they see some poor creature post one of their various urban legends such as "the Soviets stored suitcase nukes in Western North Carolina decades ago and now rogue KGB agents have sold them to Bin Laden".

It's reprehensible behavior (by the authors of the tabloid articles). Sadly, such behavior will trick innocent readers again and again.

I never said it was true. You're confusing an article I posted with my opinion.

Good point about keeping control of nukes. The United States has fail safe devices designed into all of our nukes that make it absoultely certain that a stolen nuke could never be set off.

However, we do this without relying on a lack of maintenance. The basic idea prevalent on this thread that all of our own nukes need refreshing every 60 days or so is incorrect.

When the initial reports of Soviet suitcase nukes came out in the early 90s, lots of people pointed out the loss of control implied if the Soviets had designed a nuke without the usual fail safe mechanisms. This was one of the most substantial arguments raised against the concept.

Nevertheless, some high level Russian leaders insist that these weapons were built, and that some are missing. In addition, they claim they were built with very primitive fail safe provisions, and a very long shelf life before needing service.

Vladimir Putin claims no nukes are missing. I do not know his stated position on whether suitcase nukes exist.

Presumably President Bush knows the truth of the matter. If so, he hasn't let me in on the secret. Most likely, he hasn't told anyone posting on this thread either.

Another misconception on this thread centers on how large a nuke needs to be. The "steamer trunk" idea is ludicrous. Small nukes most definitely can be built, and several nations have done so (including the U.S.).

In short, we may or may not be facing a threat from small nukes smuggled into our country. But to claim we CANNOT be facing such a threat because of technical reasons is not true.

The United States has fail safe devices designed into all of our nukes that make it absoultely certain that a stolen nuke could never be set off. However, we do this without relying on a lack of maintenance.

Nobody with any sense would rely on short shelf life for security. However, nobody with any sense would deliberately remove the extra safety factor provided by short shelf life, absent a compelling reason to do so.

(I suppose that somebody will pop up with the stories about the Rooskies hiding nukes inside the US. Presumably the Premier loved surprises and was going to unveil this deterrent at the Party Congress on Monday.)

"The basic idea prevalent on this thread that all of our own nukes need refreshing every 60 days or so is incorrect."

On the contrary, however, you've gotten the basic concept wrong.

It's not the nuke per se that needs refreshing and specialized maintenance so much as it is that the triggers for the atomic bombs as well as the electronics for the nuclear devices which both need frequent servicing.

It is a myth that nuclear weapons remain functional forever and never need maintenance.

As posted and repeated (and will continue to be so posted and repeated until everyone who ever visits this thread "gets it") on this thread already, the radioactive elements used in nuclear triggers (e.g. Polonium and Beryllium) decay in mere days due to their short half-lives. Likewise, the booster element Tritium not only decays, but the element into which it decays (He3) is such a powerful neutron sponge that in slightly more than 8 years it can render what was once a functioning nuclear weapon into little more than a dirty bomb.

84

Po

Polonium

209

Polonium

Atomic Number:

84

Atomic Weight:

209

Melting Point:

527 K (489.2°F)

Boiling Point:

1235 K (1763.6°F)

Density:

9.32 grams per cubic centimeter

Phase at Room Temperature:

Solid

Radioactive

What's in a name?		Named for the country of Poland.

Say what?		Polonium is pronounced as peh-LOW-ni-em.

History and Uses:

Polonium was discovered by Marie Sklodowska Curie, a Polish chemist, in 1898. She obtained polonium from pitchblende, a material that contains uranium, after noticing that unrefined pitchblende was more radioactive than the uranium that was separated from it. She reasoned that pitchblende must contain at least one other radioactive element. Curie needed to refine several tons of pitchblende in order to obtain tiny amounts of polonium and radium, another radioactive element discovered by Curie. One ton of uranium ore contains only about 100 micrograms (0.0001 grams) of polonium.

Due to its scarcity, polonium is usually produced by bombarding bismuth-209 with neutrons in a nuclear reactor. This forms bismuth-210, which has a half-life of 5 days. Bismuth-210 decays into polonium-210 through beta decay. Milligram amounts of polonium-210 have been produced by this method.

Polonium-210 is a very strong emitter of alpha particles. A single gram of polonium-210 creates 140 Watts of heat energy and is being considered as a lightweight heat source for thermoelectric power for spacecraft.

Polonium-210 has a half-life of 138.39 days.

Polonium's most stable isotope, polonium-209, has a half-life of 102 years. It decays into lead-205 through alpha decay. Polonium-209 is available from Oak Ridge National Laboratory at the cost of about $3200 per microcurie.

Polonium can be used to eliminate static electricity in machinery that is caused by processes such as the rolling of paper, wire or sheet metal, although other materials which emit beta particles are more commonly used for this purpose. Polonium is also used in brushes for removing dust from photographic films, although the polonium must be carefully sealed to protect the user from contamination. Polonium is also combined with beryllium to form neutron sources.

Estimated Crustal Abundance:		2×10^-10 milligrams per kilogram

Estimated Oceanic Abundance:		1.5×10^-14 milligrams per liter

Number of Stable Isotopes:		0		(View all isotope data)

Ionization Energy:		8.417 eV

Oxidation States:		+4, +2

Electron Shell Configuration:

1s²
2s²	2p⁶
3s²	3p⁶	3d¹⁰
4s²	4p⁶	4d¹⁰	4f¹⁴
5s²	5p⁶	5d¹⁰
6s²	6p⁴

Your point?

U-235 and plutonium are neutron emitters. Put enough of either one together and you get a chain reaction. You do not have to have an initiator to make this happen. It does not matter what the half life of a component is if that component is not a necessary part of the design.

BTW: Modern weapons use initiators partly to increase the yield of the weapon relative to the amount of fissionable material used, and to provide more margin for error when the bomb goes off (reduced possibility of a "fizzle"). In a small nuke designed for stealth placement (i.e., suitcase nukes), the relative inefficiency of the explosion is irrelevant.

"U-235 and plutonium are neutron emitters. Put enough of either one together and you get a chain reaction. You do not have to have an initiator to make this happen."

While true, those statements do not lead to intuitive conclusions. For instance, building a nuclear weapon WITHOUT an initiator is FAR more difficult than building one WITH an initiator. The fact is counter-intuitive to the surface logic.

Moreover, getting a "chain reaction" is a fine way to generate heat and radioactivity, but it is a far cry from generating the super-criticality needed for an explosion.

Furthermore, simply trying to put more and more U-235 or Plutonium together in one mass will lead to a fizzle far more times than it will lead to an explosion due to the neutrons firing at the wrong time as the material comes toward close contact with each other. The technical hurdle involved with the precise timing of the necessary neutron emissions is a non-trivial endeavor, the solution to which is contained in the initiator/trigger.

And that's how you will find that EVERY nuclear weapon is made, with an initiator/trigger (and certainly how every small "backpack" nuke is made, as small size presents even more daunting technical hurdles).

Well, the radioactive materials (contained even in your own link that you posted onto this thread) inside initiators/triggers decay. Polonium's half-life (as posted above) is about 138 days, for instance.

But wait, there's still more: not only do the initiators have a finite life-span, but the electronics that are exposed to the radioactive materials inside the bomb likewise degrade.

Thus, even a FULLY WORKING, ARMED nuclear weapon requires frequent specialized maintenance. Without it, the weapon soon deteriorates into little more than a poisonous dirty bomb.

But the urban myth of the "hidden cold war nukes" makes for great tabloid journalism. What could be scarier than the thought that spies are selling atomic weapons that are already pre-positioned in our own back yards?! Quick, everybody run for the hills, the Sky is Falling!

Great aircraft threat link. Thanks for expanding my knowledge base!
OLA