|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 03/06/2008 : 21:44:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
...dismissing the issue as fantasy/impossible is an outrage. |
He's clearly not dismissing the issue, he's dismissing the conclusions.
Asking to be shown the evidence upon which those conclusions are based is not saying that it's impossible. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 04:02:49 [Permalink]
|
BigPapaSmurf wrote:| More than a handful of people have been caught trying to smuggle weapons grade material out of the ol' USSR, how many have not been captured? |
To which Dude replied: | Surely you recognize the fallacy in your question? |
I don't think there's a fallacy there. Intercepting weapons grade nuke material from FSU stock shows that there are likely:
1. Customers somewhere.
2. Active middlemen/smugglers.
3. People with access to these materials willing to sell them.
What such interceptions say nothing about is the percentage of smuggled material that was intercepted. You, Dude, seem to assume that this percentage is 100%. If there's any reasonable chance that this figure is higher than 0%, that's a serious problem. Sure, this is Tom Clancy-grade plot material. But so were the 9/11 attacks. (Shades of Clancy's airliner attack on the Capitol Building in Clear and Present Danger. Hell, Al Qaeda is like a real-world equivalent to Ian Fleming's unbelievable S.P.E.C.T.R.E.!)
I once talked with a former US military guy who made a strong case that our military, at the least, had soldiers trained to infiltrate Eastern Europe carrying (quite heavy!) "suitcase" nukes. I believed the guy. The Soviets probably had much the same kind of contingency planning.
The quick and unruly breakup of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact may have presented all sorts of opportunities for fissile material, or complete weapons, to be lost or stolen. Bin Laden and Co., not to mention Hezbollah, doubtless would love to have nukes. They have money. They might get some. The likelihood is probably greater than zero, so my concern is greater than zero.
The likelihood that either of these organizations has any right now is probably very low, simply because if they did, they'd have used them somewhere. I hope some very good diplomacy and spy work is being done to prevent those people from ever getting such weapons.
Does anyone know if there are good technical means to detect fissile material remotely, as, for instance, could detectors in a van or helicopter detect a bomb from a distance of a few blocks? Could a suitcase nuke be detected in a shipping container, or deep in the hold of a ship?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/07/2008 04:22:37 |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 04:25:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Does anyone know if there are good technical means to detect fissile material remotely, as, for instance, could detectors in a van or helicopter detect a bomb from a distance of a few blocks? |
Sure, in general terms it's doable, but "a few blocks" is pushing it, and almost certainly not in a portable/compact platform like a helicopter.
As far as I know, it'd be a huge, expensive installation, and probably be just another procedure slowing down the good guys while the bad guys learn a new trick altogether, or go elsewhere.
ETA: Just did a quick search, here's a link to an IEEE abstract:
Large area imaging detector for long-range, passive detection of fissile material
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 06:34:54 [Permalink]
|
Thanks, John! Indeed, that doesn't appear to be very practical. I was hoping there'd be something much smaller and with a longer range.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 13:13:28 [Permalink]
|
Half said:
What such interceptions say nothing about is the percentage of smuggled material that was intercepted. You, Dude, seem to assume that this percentage is 100%. If there's any reasonable chance that this figure is higher than 0%, that's a serious problem. Sure, this is Tom Clancy-grade plot material. But so were the 9/11 attacks. (Shades of Clancy's airliner attack on the Capitol Building in Clear and Present Danger. Hell, Al Qaeda is like a real-world equivalent to Ian Fleming's unbelievable S.P.E.C.T.R.E.!)
|
What complete nonsense.
There is a "higher than 0%" chance you will contract the black plague and spread it to your entire family, who will spread it to your entire state. The death toll could end up in the millions. Is that a serious problem?
There is a "higher than 0%" chance a micrometeor will land on your head today, killing you instantly. Is that a serious problem?
I'm not saying that the idea of stolen/smuggled fissionables isn't something we should be concerned about. I'm saying that people (even skeptics here, apparently) are over reacting.
There is no evidence that any "suitcase" nukes have ever been made. None.
Enriched uranium, of weapons grade, is difficult to make. It requires extensive infrastructure, lots of money, and very specific skill sets to make. There are a very small number of places in the world capable of making it. When it is made, every microgram is accounted for.
The idea that it can be easily stolen and then smuggled out, and then sold to some person with evil intent, borders on the proposterous. You are suggesting a "9/11-Truth" level of conspiracy involving dozens, if not a hundred, people to accomplish such a task.
This idea that anyone with a couple hundred million dollars can walk into an old USSR member country and walk out with nukes and/or weapons grade uranium is no more plausible than claiming you could do it here in the US. IT IS A PLOT FROM SPY/SUSPENSE MOVIES!
The quick and unruly breakup of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact may have presented all sorts of opportunities for fissile material, or complete weapons, to be lost or stolen. Bin Laden and Co., not to mention Hezbollah, doubtless would love to have nukes. They have money. They might get some. The likelihood is probably greater than zero, so my concern is greater than zero.
|
Again, you assume something that didn't happen. The military units charged with deployment and operation of those devices did not break apart and (going by US standards here) the people in those units have to meet some serious standards. You don't get into them if you have a criminal record or if you fail to meet some criteria for ethical standards. You have to be trusted to use the weapon only when ordered, and to make sure everyone else around you holds to the same standard.
I once talked with a former US military guy who made a strong case that our military, at the least, had soldiers trained to infiltrate Eastern Europe carrying (quite heavy!) "suitcase" nukes. I believed the guy. The Soviets probably had much the same kind of contingency planning.
|
There is a "greater than 0%" chance this person was just talking out of his ass.
Show me some evidence, other than Crazy Ivan Ledbed, that indicates a man-portable nuclear weapon has ever been built, by anyone, ever.
Show me some evidence of unaccounted for fissile material.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be working to prevent these spy novel plots from becomming real, just that the level of hysteria this topic generates is way over the top.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 13:55:20 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
In response to your OP... | Can anyone explain to me how our civilization is at risk from Muslim jihadists? |
...I wrote.... | I don't think radical Muslim fundamentalists pose any great threat to civilization], or even to our country as a whole. But no one can doubt that this group of crazies has the very real potential of inflicting hideous damage on the US if they manage to buy, borrow, steal, or build a nuclear device of enough sophistication to smuggle into the US. |
Your shrugging dismissal of this possibility is troubling to me:
1. You state: | The threat of a nuclear attack on US soil is very remote though. They are difficult to make, and the people with the infrastructure and means to produce them tend to guard them closely. I'm much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver. |
I'm not speaking to the probability of you or me being killed by any method, I'm addressing the possibility of a single event smuggled-device nuclear attack, which logically could only be directed to Washington, D.C. If you live in the D.C. area, your dismissive comment may at least have meaning, otherwise it is nonsense! I am not writing this out of fear that I personally may be nuked!
Others here have pointed out that the "closely guarded" assumption that you make is not necessarily supported by evidence. It is an optimistic guess. There is a case to be made for a pessimistic guess!
2. Next you state: | They are difficult to make, |
Then in your next reply to me you say, | If you have the raw materials, making a basic nuke is literally childsplay. Smash two subcritical chunks of enriched uranium together with sufficient force and ka-boom. |
Which of these contradictory statements do you wish to stand by? I understand the disclaimer "If you have the raw materials," but Iran will shortly have enriched uranium, probably of weapons grade, and I suspect that the "raw materials" are fairly easily purchased, at least as compared to purchasing a finished nuclear device.
Having read the complete works of the acclaimed historian Richard Rhodes , I strongly disagree with your characterization of fission bomb construction as "childsplay" It is a little bit more than "smashing two chunks" of the appropriate uranium 235 or plutonium together! However, a number of nations have mastered this technology and demonstrated test nuclear explosions. How many more may have one device or more is not known.
3. You speak of larger smuggled bombs... | Most of our modern nuclear warheads, the 100megaton fission/fusion city killers, would fit comfortably in a shipping container though. So who needs a backpack nuke? Do you have any idea how many shipping containers enter US ports every day? Lots. |
Yes, I am quite aware of the even greater (in terms of megatonnage of explosive power) threat from the possibility of fission-to-fusion bombs hidden in shipping containers. This unfortunate possibility only raises my concern about smuggled bombs and supports my position that such an event is definitely possible, but the District of Columbia is not a port and the Potomac River does not offer sufficient draft to accomodate a cargo ship. So I feel the highest possibility of this catastrophic event actually happening is via a "suitcase" or backpack, if you wish, fission bomb!
4. How to purchase one?.... | The question you need to ask here is "how could one be purchased?" |
My answer to the question is, "By offering the appropriate combination of services and money to a nation that has one or more of the desired types of devices in it's nuclear arsenal"
Pakistan or North Korea would be the most likely possible sellers. The price would likely be very high, even in the hundreds of billions.
The selling nation would need to very carefully analyze the power calculus pertaining to the US response to a crippling blow to the operation of the US government. The power paradigm of military, economic, political and psychological factors that would ensue from such an attack is intensely complicated!
However, considering the abysmal state of our intelligence gathering, I seriously doubt that we would be able to identify the seller. Several terrorist organizations would probably claim responsibility for the attack so we would probably have difficulty in identifying who actually commited the act as well!
I really seriously doubt that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would order a retaliatory nuclear attack on China or Russia, even if either seemed to be the prime supplier suspect! Pakistan or North Kotea, maybe! But, if the attack plan was properly designed and executed, the US government would have a difficult time identifying the conspirators (seller & attacker) and appropriately retaliating against them!
5. You feel counting may prevent theft:| Every one of these devices ever made is counted many times a day. Have any nuclear weapon owning nations fallen apart so badly that it is plausible to suggest they no longer control their nuclear weapons? Only in spy/suspense movies and republican political fear-rhetoric. |
Again, a nice cozy optimistic guess that in no way is substantiated or denied by the fact that novelists and politicians have had these ideas - Tom Clancy's imagination or John McCain's politics does not control the machinations of Osama Bin Laden or Kim Jong Il
As to the daily counting and recounting, which neither you or I know is true or not, if Kim wants to sell one of his fission bombs, his counters will just count one less the next day!
6. You feel port cities would be the prime targets... | Not relavent. It could go to NY, Boston, Tampa, Miami, LA, etc.. anywhere with a port that recieves freight |
Vaporizing New York or Boston or Tampa or Miami or L.A. would not affect the USA as a whole nearly as much as vaporizing the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and the rest of Capitol Hill together with staggering damage to the Pentagon and most of the entire infrastrucure of D.C. If terrorists get a bomb, it's likely to be a one shot deal, and I don't think they would waste it on Tampa!
7. You accuse me of grasping straws (presumably to construct an SFN-grade straw man) | Grasping at straws is what you are doing here. |
Dude I'm not grasping at anything. I'm trying to get some well thought out opinion as to the probability of such a horrendous event actually happening!
I have no doubt that it is possible! The idea of a bunch of rag-tag Saudi terrorists hijacking four airliners and crashing them into skyscrapers and the Pentagon would have been seen by any reasonable person such as yourself as preposterous prior to 9/11! But look what happened!
I'm not trying to sell some Cheney neocon terror scenario (although I'd bet my socks that McCain will be going down that road at 100 mph very soon!) But to cavalierly dismiss a smuggled bomb - whether it be suitcase or truck size over our virtually unguarded borders, or a megaton fission/fusion big boy in a shipping container, or even one very special extreme high altitude airplane doing a 2000 mph suicide dive into the heart of Washington - I think is optimistically naive, and dangerously arrogant as to our invulnerability; and I am certain that all these various scenarios and a great many more are being taken very seriously by the military, CIA, FBI, etc in Washington!
Most of the probability calculation lies in appraising the advantage accruing to the bomb-selling nation as a result of crippling the operation of the US Government!
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 03/07/2008 14:29:28 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 14:42:26 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| The idea of a bunch of rag-tag Saudi terrorists hijacking four airliners and crashing them into skyscrapers and the Pentagon would have been seen by any reasonable person such as yourself as preposterous prior to 9/11! |
Now, in addition to grasping at straws, you are full of shit. The threat of planes being used as weapons was examined by our government and taken seriously by some (Richard Clarke). Prior to 9/11 I hadn't really given terrorism much thought beyond the occasional crazy like McVey or the Unibomber. So I can't tell you what I would have thought about that idea before then. Maybe I would have laughed at it. Don't know.
| Others here have pointed out that the "closely guarded" assumption that you make is not necessarily supported by evidence. |
No, it is the default position. You have a bomb that can vaporize a city, the default position is that such things are closely guarded by the people who made them.
It is nothing but wild speculation to claim that these bombs were suddenly without guards or defense after November 9th 1989. Because they were, indeed, very closely guarded before then. It is absurd to conclude that the people charged with the security of those weapons would abandon their posts for greed just because their government was in turmoil.
Yes, I am quite aware of the even greater (in terms of megatonnage of explosive power) threat from the possibility of fusion bombs hidden in shipping containers. This unfortunate possibility only raises my concern about smuggled bombs and supports my position that such an event is definitely possible, but the District of Columbia is not a port and the Potomac River does not offer sufficient draft to accomodate a cargo ship. So I feel the highest possibility of this catastrophic event actually happening is via a "suitcase" or backpack, if you wish, fission bomb!
|
So, you are assigning the "highest possibility" of a nuclear attack on the US to an imaginary device. There is no evidence to suggest a "backpack nuke" has ever been made.
As to the daily counting and recounting, which neither you or I know is true or not, if Kim wants to sell one of his fission bombs, his counters will just count one less the next day!
|
N. Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons. They are still trying to work out how to make one.... which means that they are either really stupid or that they are not getting the "difficult" part of the task right, the enrichment of uranium into a weapons grade material.
Which of these contradictory statements do you wish to stand by? I understand the disclaimer "If you have the raw materials," but Iran will shortly have enriched uranium probably of weapons grade, and I suspect that the "raw materials" are fairly easily purchased, at least as compared to purchasing a finished nuclear device.
Having read the complete works of the acclaimed historian Richard Rhodes , I strongly disagree with your characterization of fission bomb construction as "childsplay" It is a little bit more than "smashing two chunks" of the appropriate uranium 235 or plutonium together! However, a number of nations have mastered this technology and demonstrated test nuclear explosions. How many more may have one device or more is not known.
|
It is difficult to enrich the uranium, so if you take my comments in proper context there is no contradiction. Just you being a deliberate ass.
If you are so up on your history then you will know that the gun-type nuclear bomb dropped on Japan in WW2 was never tested. It was, literally, just some conventional explosives and enriched uranium inside a metal case, and it worked by smashing two pieces of uranium together to achieve a critical mass.
So yes, if you have, in your possession, 20kg of highly enriched U233, it would be pretty simple to make a crude fission bomb. The problem lies in obtaining uranium of that grade.
| But to cavalierly dismiss a smuggled bomb - |
See, here is your problem. You are inventing things to pretend I said them.
I do not "dismiss" the possibility of nuclear terrorism. I just put it at the bottom of the list of bad things terrorists can do. The actions needed to ensure it never happens all involve international law enforcement cooperation and monitoring of the places we know can produce weapons grade fissionable materials.
What I dismiss is the ridiculous idea that you can (or could have) go into eastern Europe and pick up a few kilos of weapons grade fissionables. Or that the military of the USSR/Russia failed to maintain control of their weapons. These are fantasy scenarios, melodrama, spy novel plot devices. To conclude that there is a significant chance of those things occurring is a slippery slope of epic proportions.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 15:21:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dude.....
2. Next you state: | They are difficult to make, |
Then in your next reply to me you say, | If you have the raw materials, making a basic nuke is literally childsplay. Smash two subcritical chunks of enriched uranium together with sufficient force and ka-boom. |
Which of these contradictory statements do you wish to stand by? I understand the disclaimer "If you have the raw materials," but Iran will shortly have enriched uranium, probably of weapons grade, and I suspect that the "raw materials" are fairly easily purchased, at least as compared to purchasing a finished nuclear device. |
A uranium nuclear device of canon-type is child's play to construct. However, such devices are neither small nor portable. Take a look at Wikipedia for Critical Mass. Uranium-235 has a critical mass of 52kg. That's only the fissionable material, you'll need probably just as many kg of building material for the rest of the construction.
Plutonium-239 only needs 10kg for critical mass, however, Pu-239 has to be imploded from sphere-shape in order to work. Pu is extremely hard to make Weapons Grade because Pu-240 is an impurity which quickly degrades Pu-239 through spontaneous fission. This means that Pu devices have shorter "shelf-life". The half-life of the isotopes used are no good indicator of how long a nuclear device is prime.
Also, neutron injectors are even more susceptible to degrade due to time.
It's one thing for Hamas to get a hold of a smuggled-out-of-Russia device. It's a completely different thing to have the expertise to diagnose a device and replace the parts that has expired, in order to get it into working order.
Besides, Hamas (or Al-Qaida) leaders are well aware that if thy use a nuclear device the hole world will hit them with hell fury, and likely make sure no one ever want anything to do with them again.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 16:08:17 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote Enough with the unjustified hyperboles, via which you to express pretended offense. You're not that sensitive, are you? If you are, you're far more sensitive than I am to your present jab. And, really now, my nonsense wasn't truly complete, was it?
Dude wrote further:| There is a "higher than 0%" chance you will contract the black plague and spread it to your entire family, who will spread it to your entire state. The death toll could end up in the millions. Is that a serious problem? |
Well, yeah, as you should know better than me, plague continues to be harbored in host wild animals in the USA, and remains a serious potential public health threat. I was given a plague vaccine when I was in the Navy in 1965. People get it from time to time, though it is generally quickly controlled via antibiotics. Plague isn't the huge epidemic strawman you throw out as bait on a hook, but it's a "serious problem."
Like potential nuclear terrorism.| I'm not saying that the idea of stolen/smuggled fissionables isn't something we should be concerned about. I'm saying that people (even skeptics here, apparently) are over reacting. |
That's better. I'm concerned, you're concerned. Well, some may overreact, but could you please point out those cases, and how each person has overreacted to a possible nuclear terror threat?
Overreaction's bad. So is underreaction.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 18:19:43 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| the people with the infrastructure and means to produce them tend to guard them closely. |
What, other than your opinion, is the evidence for this statement? My opinion is that maybe some of them don't, but I have no evidence to support that opinion! Change my opinion with facts!
| Has anyone ever made one? Only in spy novels, as far as I know. |
I have no idea either, which means neither one of us has anything but an opinion. I cannot dismiss it as unlikely, however. If you can show that it is highly unlikely, based on evidence, not speculation, I would be happy to concede your point!
| I think we have had the capability of making 1-kiloton-ish baby nukes for some time. No idea if anyone else in the nuke world has tried. |
Nor I. Again, I guess it is likely. Do you guess that it is unlikely?
| Every one of these devices ever made is counted many times a day. |
I have no reference information on this statement. Do you? I will certainly accept your statement with some credible references!
| Have any nuclear weapon owning nations fallen apart so badly that it is plausible to suggest they no longer control their nuclear weapons? |
I have no idea. Others have suggested so. It's definitely possible until proven or shown to be highly unlikely!
| There is no credible evidence to suggest that any of the very small number of places in the world capable of creating fissionable materials is outside the control of responsible parties. Same for stockpiles of existing weapons. |
But where is the credible evidence that all of these small number of places do have things completely under control? I know of no evidence proving or disproving this assertion!
| Because I have never heard any credible report that suggests the core russian military units in charge of the nuke arsenal failed to maintain control of their weapons. |
They may have or they may not have - you may just never have heard, or there may not be one. I have no idea! It is certainly possible that control and security is lax in Russia. Or not! Who has more than an opinion?
| The response would be the genocide of whomever was merely suspected when we returned the nuke with interest. |
Not if it was not possible to ascertain with a comfortable degree of certainty that whomever was suspected was indeed the culprit.
And I'm certain that MAD still applies to exchanging nuclear attacks with Russia or even China! I doubt very much that Obama or Hillary would go that route. I'm reasonably certain McCain would. And certainly Cheney if he was still president!
| Same as happened when the USSR broke up. The military units in charge of the weapons maintained control of the weapons. |
All I would like is a reference to where this is clearly documented. Until then, it remains an assumption.
| Show me evidence that a nuclear weapon has ever been unaccounted for. Show me evidence where weapons grade fissionables, in sufficient quantity to make a weapon, have even been caught while being smuggled. Show me evidence of the military units responsible for guarding nuclear weapons in the USSR losing cohesion and failing to provide proper security for a nuke. |
I cannot show evidence that any of these things happened. Also lacking evidence that they have not happened, I feel they are possible. I am searching for something to allow me to assign tentative probability to their occurance or non-occurance!
| There isn't even any evidence that such devices were ever constructed. |
I know of none but it does not tell me that they have not been or could not be constructed!
| There is no evidence that any "suitcase" nukes have ever been made. None. |
Nor any evidence that they have not or can not be constructed. It is certainly possible that they exist!
| Enriched uranium, of weapons grade, is difficult to make. It requires extensive infrastructure, lots of money, and very specific skill sets to make. There are a very small number of places in the world capable of making it. When it is made, every microgram is accounted for. |
If that is true, and there are never failures to account for "every microgram", let's see the evidence and I, for one, will accept your point
| This idea that anyone with a couple hundred million dollars can walk into an old USSR member country and walk out with nukes and/or weapons grade uranium is no more plausible than claiming you could do it here in the US. |
I feel there are probably great differences between the security standards here or in Pakistan or Korea or India, or in the bastard countries that used to be part of the USSR. I have nothing to base that on than my opinion. If you have more than your opinion to bolster your statement, state it. I think the figure would be closer to many billions - that's ten times what you hypothecize - not just anyone, probably a Saudi prince or an Arab equivilant, and certainly not "walk in" or out anywhere. I think it would be a great deal more difficult to do it in the US.
| The military units charged with deployment and operation of those devices did not break apart and (going by US standards here) the people in those units have to meet some serious standards. You don't get into them if you have a criminal record or if you fail to meet some criteria for ethical standards. You have to be trusted to use the weapon only when ordered, and to make sure everyone else around you holds to the same standard. |
The American military sources are easy to find. Tell me how to find referents for the other Nuclear Club countries that show their standards are as high as ours.
All that anyone has expressed here Dude is opinion. I still have seen nothing that persuades me that a smuggled-nuke scenarion is either highly unlikely or a definite possibility in the future. There is no substantiation for most of the opinion that has been bandied back and forth here!
Apart from the fact that the null hypothesis does not apply to matters of strict opinion, it is admittedly difficult to disprove a negative. Ordinarily, one must prove the positive in order to do this - which is much of what I have asked you to do here. But there is is no categorical imperative that the lack of disproof of a negative is, in itself, a proof of it's opposite. Particularly when no external objective evidence exists supporting either side and all is speculation! I cannot accept your
default argument in this largley undocumented discourse! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 22:58:39 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
What, other than your opinion, is the evidence for this statement? My opinion is that maybe some of them don't, but I have no evidence to support that opinion! Change my opinion with facts!
|
The absurdity of this statement doesn't deserve a response. Walk your ass down to any nuclear reactor in the world and tell them you'd like to buy some uranium. See how that pans out.
I have no idea either, which means neither one of us has anything but an opinion. I cannot dismiss it as unlikely, however. If you can show that it is highly unlikely, based on evidence, not speculation, I would be happy to concede your point!
|
Why wouldn't you make a man portable nuke? Well, for one, it would have a short shelf-life. Completely unshielded uranium would destroy any detonating system in a short period of time. Being near that much unshielded uranium is also suicidal. To shield such a device would require a significant weight increase, making the thing impossible for a person to carry with ease.
No weapon we, or anyone else, ever makes remains a secret. In the cold war such a weapon would have been powerful for the psycological impact alone. If the US or USSR had made them, the fact of their existance would have been "leaked", if not intentionally then by one of the espionage programs running at the time.
But really. Lets get back to skepticism 101. Unevidenced assertions (in this case your assertion that such a device exists) may be dismissed. What evidence do you have that anyone has ever made a backpack nuke?
Do you guess that it is unlikely?
|
RE making new nukes: No. I know that making such devices is a violation of US law, since we have signed and ratified treaties that ban them. So it isn't a "guess" that such a thing is unlikely.
But where is the credible evidence that all of these small number of places do have things completely under control? I know of no evidence proving or disproving this assertion!
|
I have no evidence proving or disproving the assertion that there is an invisible pink horned mammal in my garage either.
The default position is that these facilities are tightly guarded. You are being absurd, again, to deny this. Skepticism 101 again: Unevidenced assertions may be freely dismissed. Where is your evidence that the military units of the USSR guarding their nuclear weapons and reactors stopped doing so after 11/09/1989? Or do you dispute that they were doing this task before then as well? How far down this delusional path do you go?
They may have or they may not have - you may just never have heard, or there may not be one. I have no idea! It is certainly possible that control and security is lax in Russia. Or not! Who has more than an opinion?
|
Having lived several years of my life in close proximity to the iron curtain, I can tell you that they were not lax on border security.
| Same as happened when the USSR broke up. The military units in charge of the weapons maintained control of the weapons. |
All I would like is a reference to where this is clearly documented. Until then, it remains an assumption.
|
It is you who are making the assertion away from the previous set of conditions. It is you who needs to provide evidence that these military units failed to guard their nuclear weapons. It is well established that the nuclear facilities of the URRS were extremely well guarded, so where is your evidence that this changed drastically enough to let nukes run free on the WMD market?
Apart from the fact that the null hypothesis does not apply to matters of strict opinion, it is admittedly difficult to disprove a negative. Ordinarily, one must prove the positive in order to do this - which is much of what I have asked you to do here. But there is is no categorical imperative that the lack of disproof of a negative is, in itself, a proof of it's opposite. Particularly when no external objective evidence exists supporting either side and all is speculation! I cannot accept your
default argument in this largley undocumented discourse! |
You'd be right, if not for one small nattering thing. It is well established that the USSR had tight internal security prior to 11/09/1989. You are claiming that after that date it is impossible to know if the military in charge of nukes maintained control, which is complete bullshit. The military of the USSR didn't dissolve on that day.
(an anecdote)I happened, by chance, to be enjoying a 4day pass (it was my birthday) in Berlin on that day. The military units charged with guarding/manging the border traffic were somewhat disarrayed, but the core fighting units were in good order, visibly withdrawing from border positions.
You may laugh, but a few of my friends and I were trying to buy stuff from some of these East German soldiers (we bought a CAR for 3 pairs of levi jeans, seriously). None of them would part with their pistols though.
Anyway..
The fact that the USSR had tight internal security prior to 11/09/1989 is not in dispute. What is in dispute here is your assertion that their securty degraded enough to allow the buying and selling of nuclear weapons after 11/09/1989. Show me some evidence.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2008 : 02:27:50 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| Now, in addition to grasping at straws, you are full of shit. |
Thanks for the derogation and insult. Also calling me an "ass" below. I understand your need to use such invective to express anger that you cannot repress or control, but calling me names does not increase your credibility nor sharpen the edge of your argument!
I do not think you are either full of shit or an ass. Largely, I think you express careful and well phrased thought, you are resourceful and even clever and subtle on occasion. Your positions are generally well taken and well-expressed. You grasp the centrality of an idea quicker than most!
Usually, I find agreement with your positions. I happen not to in this thread, but I feel no need to personally attack you or to use scatalogic or execratory nouns referencing you personally in order to express my opinions - as I reserve that language form for those that I either despise or for whom I have no respect, such as Republicans or Christian Fundamentalists. None of the four applies to you!
I would appreciate your showing me the manner in which I am "grasping for straws". I understand that you feel that "taken seriously by some (Richard Clarke)" defines me as full of shit, but I am unable to find any reference to Clarke's precognition other than: | A 1998 White House tabletop exercise chaired by Richard Clarke included a scenario in which a terrorist group loaded a Learjet with explosives and took off for a suicide mission to Washington. Military officials said they could scramble fighter jets from Langley Air Force Base to chase the aircraft, but they would need "executive" orders to shoot it down." |
Hardly a prophetic vision of the events of 9/11! If this it what you are referring to, I do not think it qualifies as substance for calling me "full of shit"
If there are more specific references showing that many had foreseen airliners crashing into skyscrapers, please give them and I will understand that 9/11 was indeed foreseen, and the idea was generally accepted in the perception of government officials and the public in the days and weeks before 9/11!!| No, it is the default position. You have a bomb that can vaporize a city, the default position is that such things are closely guarded by the people who made them. |
In symbolic logic syntax, the default position is referent in common English as The closed world assumption meaning the presumption that what is not currently known to be true is false. Is this what you refer to as the default position in your illustration? If so, I do not see how it applies. Please explain! If not, please give me the reference for your use of "default position" so that I can educate myself as to what you are talking about!.
| It is nothing but wild speculation to claim that these bombs were suddenly without guards or defense after November 9th 1989. Because they were, indeed, very closely guarded before then. It is absurd to conclude that the people charged with the security of those weapons would abandon their posts for greed just because their government was in turmoil. |
Again, I have no idea of how to find appropriate references for the events following November 1989 - as to how well or how poorly the weapons were guarded. Some have stated that there were serious lapses in the security, where are their references? You have stated there were not - where is your proof? "It is absurd" is not proof or substantiation!| So, you are assigning the "highest possibility" of a nuclear attack on the US to an imaginary device. There is no evidence to suggest a "backpack nuke" has ever been made. |
Neither is there evidence that it has not or can not be made. It may be imaginary, or it may be real! There does not seem to be any documentation regarding the existence or non-existence of these devices!
I see them as quite possible in some form or another - at least as to a high degree of portability - and I will continue to feel that way until you or anyone cites evidence showing that highly portable (i.e. "knapsack" size and weight) fission bombs are not feasible!
| N. Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons. They are still trying to work out how to make one.... which means that they are either really stupid or that they are not getting the "difficult" part of the task right, the enrichment of uranium into a weapons grade material. |
References, sources, documentation please! I will dismiss North Korea as a possible source and apologize for my ignorance if you will show me where to read authoritatively about this subject. I have read a great many differing opinions, but they are far from authoritative!
| It is difficult to enrich the uranium, so if you take my comments in proper context there is no contradiction. Just you being a deliberate ass. |
I was speaking of having begged, borrowed or stolen the enriched uranium and proceeding from there to the construction of a cannon-to-target fission device. We asses are slow, dumb creatures that do not express ourselves clearly!
As Rhodes points out in enormous detail, it was a substantial engineering feat to invent and develop the bullet to target fission mechanism involving precise machining and timing, not just "smashing two chunks" of enriched U-235 together! Certainly not "childs play" in any sense of the word!
Thus there is a contradiction, and it is presumptive of you to deny it. Read the exact detail of working out the first "bullet to target" detonation mechanism used on the Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima in Richard Rhodes book, which is the definitive writing on this subject! You will see no mention of "smashing" or "chunks"!
I am curious as to the anal differences between a deliberate ass, and an accidental ass? Appreciate any details you, as an expert, may care to offer?
The "Fat Man" shaped charge implosion mechaninsm for the plutonium bomb was developed simultaneously at Los Alamos, in case the 'opposing cannon' idea didn't work - (originally it was planned to have two guns muzzles welded together and the U235 bullets collide head on!); and was tested at the Alamagordo Test Range in July, 1945 -becoming the first atomic or fission bomb ever exploded! It turned out that the final "Little Boy" mechanism was considered almost infallible, but not nearly as safe as the implosion device!
| If you are so up on your history then you will know that the gun-type nuclear bomb dropped on Japan in WW2 was never tested. It was, literally, just some conventional explosives and enriched uranium inside a metal case, and it worked by smashing two pieces of uranium together to achieve a critical mass |
Well, Dude, you will find, if you care to check what I have been telling you here, that I am indeed "up on my history"
No, it actually was much more than what you describe! The actual Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy, was a cannon, (not a metal case), with a U235 bullet and three composite U235 target rings fitted to it's muzzle. It did not "smash" any thing together, it fired an exquisitely designed U235 bullet from it's breech into three meticulously machined U235 composite target rings fitted to it's muzzle.
It was quite dangerous, prone to accidental detonation, but was virtually guaranteed to work, compared to the somewhat dubious (at that early time) spherical shaped-charge implosion plutonium bomb, which was field tested at Trinity site and later destroyed Nakasaki! That was the Fat Man!
The Mk I "Little Boy" was 10 feet (3 m) in length, 28 inches (71 cm) in diameter and weighed 8,900 lb (4000 kg). The design used the gun method to explosively force a hollow sub-critical mass of uranium-235 (muzzle) and a solid target spike (bullet) together into a super-critical mass, initiating a nuclear chain reaction.
This was accomplished by shooting one piece of the uranium onto the other by means of chemical explosives. It contained 64 kg of uranium, of which 0.7 kg underwent nuclear fission, and of this mass only 0.6 g became energy.
Although occasionally used in later experimental devices, the design was only used once as a weapon because of the extreme danger of accidental detonation. Little Boy's design was highly unsafe when compared to modern nuclear weapons, which incorporate many safety features, designed to anticipate various accident scenarios. The main design objectives of Little Boy were to create a nuclear weapon that was absolutely guaranteed to work. As a result, Little Boy incorporated only the most basic safety mechanisms, so an accidental detonation could easily occur! |
According to the website Nuclear Weapon Archive,[2][3] inside the weapon, the uranium-235 material was divided into two parts, following the gun principle: the "projectile" and the "target". The projectile was a hollow cylinder with 60% of the total mass (38.5 kg). It consisted of a stack of 9 uranium rings, each 6.25 inches (159 mm) in diameter with a 4-inch-diameter hole in the middle, pressed together into a thin-walled canister 7 inches (180 mm) long. At detonation, it would be pushed down a short section of smooth-bore gun barrel by a tungsten carbide and steel plug. The target was a 4-inch-diameter solid spike, 7 inches long, with 40% of the total mass (25.6 kg). Made of a stack of 6 washer-like uranium rings somewhat thicker than the projectile rings, it was held in place by a 1-inch-diameter steel bolt that ran through the rings and out the front end of the bomb casing.
When the projectile and plug reached the target, the assembled super-critical mass of uranium would be completely surrounded by a tamper and neutron reflector of tungsten carbide and steel. Neutron generators at the base of the spike would be activated by the impact.
|
| I do not "dismiss" the possibility of nuclear terrorism. I just put it at the bottom of the list of bad things terrorists can do. |
Dear god Dude, what is at the top of that list? Annihilation of the Universe?| The actions needed to ensure it never happens all involve international law enforcement cooperation and monitoring of the places we know can produce weapons grade fissionable materials. |
Yeah, all absolutely infallible procedures with zero chance of fucking up!| What I dismiss is the ridiculous idea that you can (or could have) go into eastern Europe and pick up a few kilos of weapons grade fissionables. |
You couldn't, and I couldn't. But a pre-negotiated emissary of (for example) Bin Laden or his ilk could, with billions of Saudi supplied dollars; and the fissile materials would be delivered, not carried out!
Despite all your schoolboy perjorative, I still do not see that as not possible! However, I have yet to approximate the degree of probability of such an occurance and I am sorry, Dude you have given me little to tighten that probability window!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2008 : 09:03:40 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
References, sources, documentation please! I will dismiss North Korea as a possible source and apologize for my ignorance if you will show me where to read authoritatively about this subject. I have read a great many differing opinions, but they are far from authoritative!
|
N. Korea attempted to test a nuclear bomb a while back. They didn't get a nuclear reaction.
It was quite dangerous, prone to accidental detonation, but was virtually guaranteed to work,
|
So.... the conclusion about N. Korea is that they are either really stupid (can't figure out how to assemble a bomb who's design was so guanranteed to work it was never field tested before it was deployed in combat), OR they don't actually have weapons grade fissionables. I'll grant you they could have been trying to detonate a more sophisticated type of nuke, but that seems self defeating when their real purpose was to generate a nuclear explosion to use as bargaining power.
| Dear god Dude, what is at the top of that list? Annihilation of the Universe? |
Good old fertilizer bombs. Cheap, easy to make, and unstoppable in the hands of a suicide driver. Not nearly as destructive as a nuke, but much more likely to happen, imo.
Then there is the whole bioweapons thing. You could carry the seed stock of a bioweapon accross any border in the world without detection. The simplicity of culturing weapons grade anthrax, for example, is far more of a concern than imaginary nuclear weapons. The raw materials are ubiquitous, unrestricted, and not suspicious.
The 1918 influenza virus that killed so many millions of people was recently re-cultured. The lab that was done in is not a secure facility. What if someone bribed a specimen out of some poor janitor? Infect 19 suicide warriors with that crap, then send them to work as skycaps in JFK, LAX, and a couple other international airports.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2008 : 13:23:19 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| N. Korea attempted to test a nuclear bomb a while back. They didn't get a nuclear reaction. |
From wiki:The 2006 North Korean nuclear test was the detonation of a nuclear device conducted on October 9, 2006 by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
The director of America's Central Intelligence Agency has said that the test was a "failure" and that the U.S. does not regard North Korea as a nuclear state.[1] North Korea announced its intention to conduct a test on October 3, six days prior, and in doing so became the first nation to give warning of its first nuclear test.[2] The blast is estimated to have had an explosive force of less than one kiloton, and some radioactive output was detected.[3][4] United States officials suggested the device may have been a nuclear explosive that misfired.[3] |
So the Bushie CIA director said it was a "failure". Well, we certainly have to regard that as unquestionable shining truth, untainted by spin or distortion! And then we find.....The apparent low yield of the test has raised questions as to whether it was a successful nuclear detonation, as the North Korean announcement claimed, or whether it was an unsuccessful nuclear detonation. Initially doubts existed as to whether it was a detonation of conventional explosives meant to appear like a nuclear detonation, but detection of airborne radioactive isotopes appears to have confirmed that it was to some degree nuclear.[4] The advance warning of the test sent to the Chinese government reportedly said that the planned test yield was to be equivalent to approximately four kilotons in strength,[18] but most outside estimates, based largely on seismic readings, have put the yield at much less than that.
At a meeting with President Putin, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov stated that "the power of the tests carried out was 5 to 15 kilotons",[19] though this early estimate is now much higher than any other international estimate. An early report by the Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (South Korea) said the blast was equivalent to an earthquake registering 3.58 on the Richter scale,[20] which corresponds to the explosion of 100 tons of TNT. This was later revised to at least 800 tons,[21] corresponding to a blast wave of 4.2. The U.S. Geological Survey also estimates the blast wave at 4.2.[22] (Note that 4.2 is considerably more powerful than 3.58 because the Richter scale is a logarithmic scale.)
According to Jane's Defence Weekly, "initial and unconfirmed South Korean reports indicate that the test was a fission device with a yield of .55 kT ... The figure of .55 kT, however, seems too low given the 4.2 register on the Richter scale. This could suggest — depending upon the geological make-up of the test site — a yield of 2–12 kT."[23] |
....that there seems to be some evidence that there was indeed a nuclear event. Dude, you flatly stated that:| N. Korea attempted to test a nuclear bomb a while back. They didn't get a nuclear reaction. |
There appears to be considerable ambiguity, to say the least, about this event. It also appears very probable, that the North Koreans are much closer than Iran, for example, to acquiring fission nuclear weapons. And I really don't completely buy their highly ballyhood "stoppage" of this research! I think they will have nukes in a few years!
I have not taken a position that there is evidence that a smuggled nuke attack is imminent or could happen in the near (2-3 years) future. It is my belief that the number of sources in the world for U235 are increasing as years pass, and that it is becoming more and more probable that criminals or terrorists will be able to obtain fissionable, weapons-grade U235 in the not-too-distant future!
And no amount of facile "it's too difficult, it will never happen" dismissal will change that ever-increasing probability! It must be seriously addressed by both US and international Intelligence (hah!) efforts, policing, inspections, UN involvement, and most of all, diplomacy - something we have not had in the US for the past eight years!| So.... the conclusion about N. Korea is that they are either really stupid (can't figure out how to assemble a bomb who's design was so guanranteed to work it was never field tested before it was deployed in combat), OR they don't actually have weapons grade fissionables. I'll grant you they could have been trying to detonate a more sophisticated type of nuke, but that seems self defeating when their real purpose was to generate a nuclear explosion to use as bargaining power. |
I believe they will acquire nuclear fission weapons in the foreseeable future! My opinion! | Good old fertilizer bombs. Cheap, easy to make, and unstoppable in the hands of a suicide driver. Not nearly as destructive as a nuke, but much more likely to happen, imo. |
Quite possible, even probable on a one at a time small scale Iraq-street-explosion scale. But it would take hundreds or even thousands of trucks stuffed with ammonium nitrate to explode simultaneously and equal the power of even a small portable nuke!| Then there is the whole bioweapons thing. You could carry the seed stock of a bioweapon accross any border in the world without detection. The simplicity of culturing weapons grade anthrax, for example, is far more of a concern than imaginary nuclear weapons. The raw materials are ubiquitous, unrestricted, and not suspicious. |
Quite possible, not easy or it would have been done before now, has substantial damage potential, but - It lacks the glamour and spectacle, the fantastic theater of nuclear explosions. It does not begin to capture the hearts and minds of muslim extremists (destoy the infidel!) around the world!
And cannot deal the government of the United States a seriously crippling blow comparable to destroying the President, Vice President, most of the members of Congress (including the Speaker of the House), the Supreme Court, a big, big chunk of the Pentagon and it's many associated branches in hundreds of buildings many closer to Capitol Hill than Five (Beltwayese for the Pentagon, I worked there for two years); plus a huge hunk of the most important city in the United States! No comparison as to instantaneous destuctive effect!!
The same goes for any type of bio-attack. Much easier, potentially very lethal, but nowhere near the PR, spectacle, gut-wrenching fear and power emotion-inducing effect on world opinion and maniac recruitment! These factors are very important to the Muslim crazies!
Thank you, Dude for refraining from insult and ad hominem. I appreciate it! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2008 : 18:37:24 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| that there seems to be some evidence that there was indeed a nuclear event. Dude, you flatly stated that: |
If you blow up some plutonium with conventional explosives, you are going to scatter it around a bit. To call that a "nuclear event" is to redefine the term to the point it is no longer useful as a descriptor for really fucking big explosions.
They did not achieve a fission event, and clearly not anything like what they were trying for happened.
RE home brewed bio weapons:
| Quite possible, not easy or it would have been done before now |
You are obviously unfamiliar with the simplicity of coaxing bacteria to grow. Weaponizing adds some complexity, but nothing even you couldn't do in your garage for less than $100 in supplies.
Biotech doesn't require high energy physics labs! The Olympics comittees are worried about undetectable genetic alterations of muscle tissue now, because you can easily grow adeno associated virus, slip in a gene to silence myostatin, and inject it into your body (already been done in the lab, on mice, and published)... without having to invest to much $$ into the process. Maybe $20-40k in lab equipment.
Culturing out some ebola, anthrax, smallpox, or influenza is simple and cheap. Anyone familair with basic microbiology lab techniques can do it. They can also, with minimal effort, learn to separate spores(for anthrax), which is all you need to make it into a weapon.
(editied to add: Of course, none of the biological stuff is going to be a weapon on the scale of a nuke, it is well established that anthrax makes for a lousy WMD, my point is that a terrorist could still use them to create fear. Infect 50 people in NYC with ebola... and people will freak.)
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 03/08/2008 18:42:57 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
"Muslim jihadists"
