It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Al-Qaidas Nuclear Option

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Rather than try to steal or buy one of thousands of Russian tactical nukes, or nerve gas artillery shells, a WMD terrorist is far more likely to knock off the night watchman, lower the chain link fence somewhere in Switzerland or Italy, and drive off with sufficient materials for a nuclear device. The actual making of a nuclear bomb after that is the easy part; the recipe is on the Internet.


www.spacewar.com...

This article has a very scary but important viewpoint on the upcoming nuclear attacks that so many can "feel" coming like a train wreck. Tie this in with the stupid open border insanity and that cooks up a pretty sour soup for americas or Israels future.




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   
The recipe might be on the internet, but good luck getting the specialized tools, and getting the tolerances just right. If everything isn't PERFECT then a nuclear bomb will fizzle. So even if they steal the fissionable materials, it's no guarantee they could build a device.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The recipe might be on the internet, but good luck getting the specialized tools, and getting the tolerances just right. If everything isn't PERFECT then a nuclear bomb will fizzle. So even if they steal the fissionable materials, it's no guarantee they could build a device.


Good idea, close your eyes really tight and nothing can hurt you.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Oh sorry, I forgot that trying to deny ignorance is frowned upon. That's right, any SIX year old can get their hands on fissionable materials and build a nuclear bomb. It's on the internet so it must be freaking EASY TO DO!

If it's so effing EASY to build a nuclear bomb, explain to me the B-61. There's a DAMN good chance that out of 5 B-61 nuclear weapons, 3 will fizzle. That's 50 years AFTER we started building nukes, and we are STILL BUILDING FIZZLES. But Al Qaeda, is going to somehow get their hands on fissionable materials, and be able to make EFFING PERFECT NUCLEAR WEAPONS EVERY TIME.

More fear mongering at its highest.

[edit on 3/22/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58


More fear mongering at its highest.

[edit on 3/22/2006 by Zaphod58]


They only need to get it right ONCE.................



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Man, I do get some good laughs here.

From the link:


Rather than try to steal or buy one of thousands of Russian tactical nukes, or nerve gas artillery shells, a WMD terrorist is far more likely to knock off the night watchman, lower the chain link fence somewhere in Switzerland or Italy, and drive off with sufficient materials for a nuclear device. The actual making of a nuclear bomb after that is the easy part; the recipe is on the Internet.


OMG! That sounds, like, so easy, you know. I'm ascared.

Because it's THAT easy, right? Those huge fancy laboratories with scientists walking around with their clipboards and their decades of education and research, using big shiny machines to collate massive amounts of data for experimentation are all a SHAM! HOLLYWOOD!

I mean, you just have to stuff some weapons grade plutonium, easily found by bribing some East European night watchman, into the back of your pickup truck, then find yourself an internet connection. And there you go. Maybe print out the instructions if you want. And buy gloves.

/sarcasm off



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I disagree Thermopolis. They need to get it right in a very big way the very FIRST time. They won't get a second chance. And although the 'recipe' is indeed on the internet, actually manufacturing the device is a daunting engineering task. What would make it especially difficult is the simple fact that they cannot test their design and work out the flaws. Any test would be instantly detectable and attract decidedly unwanted military attention from the US and others. Is it a possibility they could do this? Sure. Do they have a decent chance of pulling it off without being able to actually test the device design? Not likely.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo


I mean, you just have to stuff some weapons grade plutonium, easily found by bribing some East European night watchman, into the back of your pickup truck, then find yourself an internet connection. And there you go. Maybe print out the instructions if you want. And buy gloves.

/sarcasm off





OK invincible ones with personal body sheilds similar to thoses on Startgate rem this.

Starting absolute scratch it took the US only 5 years to develope the first bombs. With A Q kahn around and many, many unemployed ex-solviet scientist, are you really willing to be the lives of perhaps billions that building bombs is near impossible?

Let us not forget the high school boy who almost finished a bomb in his back yard with plutonium taken from old smoke detectors.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
thermpolis: (fixed it up a bit)

With Al Qaeda around and many, many unemployed ex-soviet scientists, are you really willing to bet the lives of perhaps billions that building bombs is near impossible?


Ok so now they are going to kill BILLIONS with their godless terrorist bombs, huh?

And now because I laugh at the obvious simplicity of this scenario, I am somehow gambling with the lives of those billions? Are you on medication?


Let us not forget the high school boy who almost finished a bomb in his back yard with plutonium taken from old smoke detectors.


LMAO! WHAT?! You have a link to that I hope. LOL!



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If it's so effing EASY to build a nuclear bomb, explain to me the B-61. There's a DAMN good chance that out of 5 B-61 nuclear weapons, 3 will fizzle. That's 50 years AFTER we started building nukes, and we are STILL BUILDING FIZZLES.


Hmm, just where did you come across this information ? doesn't sound anywhere near right to me. The B-61 is a working nuclear weapon which has been proof tested, where does this statemen of 60% being fizzles come from ?

As for being able to build a nuke off plans from the internet, that's complete BS. There are no designs which tell you the geomoetry of the shaped charges you'll need ( for implosion weapon ), or how to align them - without such knowlege the imposion shockwave won't be symetrical. Also the pit of the weapon ( plutonium core ) has to be precisely milled, so it compresses properly. There are a multitued of other things which are only talked about in vague terms on the interent, but have to be precise for a weapon to function.

So NO, you can't build a nuclear weapon from plans off the net.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Sounds like wishful thinking from a guy with a nuclear mushroom cloud as his avatar. If it was that easy they would have done it by now. It sounds a lot easier than highjacking airplanes at least. And billions? Where are they going to detonate and kill more than a couple million? Provided that any high school kids can build a nuclear device?

I refuse to fear the boogie man...sorry. Maybe you should join the military Therm. Go preemptively kick some ass



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo


LMAO! WHAT?! You have a link to that I hope. LOL!




Thanks for the clean-up, fingers not as fast as brain anymore.

Links

www.geektimes.com...

www.dangerouslaboratories.org...

different angle on the original story

www.hps.org...



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
thermopolis: I read up on your claim about the Boy Scout. He almost made a tiny reactor.

He couldn't have made a bomb. Just the uranium alone, and from YOUR link:


A smoke detector contains about 1 microcurie of radioactivity. One gram (there are 28 grams in one ounce) of 241Am contains 3.4 million microcuries, so a smoke detector contains about one third of a millionth of a gram (about 0.3 micro-grams) of 241Am. Two thousand smoke detectors, then, will contain 2 millicuries of 241Am, which will weigh about half of a milligram (0.6 mg). To put this in perspective, one teaspoon of water holds 5 grams, or 5,000 mg of water, so we are talking about a half teaspoon of Am from 2,000 smoke detectors.

So let's do a reality check. A nuclear bomb made of uranium contains about 20 kilograms (over 40 pounds) of uranium and is the size of a softball.


That's just the fissionable material, the delivery system is even more key.

Nice try though.



[edit on 22-3-2006 by Jakomo]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   
History as written by the persons at DOE has "softened" the truth of what was found back when it all happened. He was closer that DOE wants people to think.

The truth is NUKE's really are not that hard..........stable long term military devices YES. Controlable triggers that can't be over-riden by individuals......yes that's hard too. But a simple atomic bomb of partial yield........not that hard...........

Its the controlable, maintainable triggers that make nukes hard, not the physics...............



[edit on 22-3-2006 by thermopolis]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
Let us not forget the high school boy who almost finished a bomb in his back yard with plutonium taken from old smoke detectors.


LOL, talk about overexaggeration. He wanted to amke a neutron gun not a nuclear weapon. PLutonium isn't found in any civilian use except reactors, americium-241 is what is found in smoke detectors.

The Radioactive Boyscout



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by thermopolis
Let us not forget the high school boy who almost finished a bomb in his back yard with plutonium taken from old smoke detectors.


LOL, talk about overexaggeration. He wanted to amke a neutron gun not a nuclear weapon. PLutonium isn't found in any civilian use except reactors, americium-241 is what is found in smoke detectors.

The Radioactive Boyscout


The change to americium-241 was AFTER this incident.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
History as written by the persons at DOE has "softened" the truth of what was found back when it all happened. He was closer that DOE wants people to think.

The truth is NUKE's really are not that hard..........stable long term military devices YES. Controlable triggers that can't be over-riden by individuals......yes that's hard too. But a simple atomic bomb of partial yield........not that hard...........

Its the controlable, maintainable triggers that make nukes hard, not the physics...............


Complete and utter BS. What exactly is a controllable trigger ?

The physics are actually hard, what do you think someon can get a ball of plutonium and put explosives around it and that's your nuclear weapon ? If so, then you know far far less than what you think you do. Other materials are needed and they have to be precisely machined and assembled.
Back to the explosive lenses, these also have to be precisely set off in sequence, not to mention the mathematics required to accurately shape a spehrical shockwave is immense. This requires to explosives of different burn rates interspersed with each other - there are no plans for this on the internet. Once again just a few problems out of many.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis

The change to americium-241 was AFTER this incident.


They have never used plutonium in smoke detectors
Simple as that. Nothing was changed excpet by your wishful thinking. I was aware of this story rfom the very beginning and he never had plutonium
and he was never building a nuclear weapon.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Complete and utter BS. What exactly is a controllable trigger ?

The physics are actually hard, what do you think someon can get a ball of plutonium and put explosives around it and that's your nuclear weapon ? If so, then you know far far less than what you think you do. Other materials are needed and they have to be precisely machined and assembled.
Back to the explosive lenses, these also have to be precisely set off in sequence, not to mention the mathematics required to accurately shape a spehrical shockwave is immense. This requires to explosives of different burn rates interspersed with each other - there are no plans for this on the internet. Once again just a few problems out of many.


There are many ways beyond a round or oval shaped device to cause a nuclear chain reaction. The US spends billions on "civilian" controlable triggers that fail over time from radiation proximety. These triggers must be maintained to make the bombs work at some unknown time in the future along with complicated delivery devices without killing the crew.

Suicide terrorist don't need such devices for safety.................they just need to make it go Boom............not be stable in an warehouse somewhere or on a ship.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
There are many ways beyond a round or oval shaped device to cause a nuclear chain reaction.


And ? It doesn't matter what shape the pit is, the shockwave still has to be tailored to the shape so there is unitary compression. Just so happens the sphere is the easiest shape to tailor a shockwave. I can't imagine a terrorist using a more complex shape, oor using a floating pit.


The US spends billions on "civilian" controlable triggers that fail over time from radiation proximety. These triggers must be maintained to make the bombs work at some unknown time in the future along with complicated delivery devices without killing the crew.


What are civilian controllable triggers, actually what do you mean by controllable trigger ?


Suicide terrorist don't need such devices for safety.................they just need to make it go Boom............not be stable in an warehouse somewhere or on a ship.


You seem to be ignoring my point about the explosive lenses. For the 3rd time ( read my posts above ), there are no plans on the net to show you how to make an implosive shell of a nuclear weapon, much less how to arrange them. Also the precise triggering of these lenses requires yet more specialised devices such as Kryton switches - hint : you can't find them in the local hardware shop.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join