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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

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.


Stop thinking the perfect device............try guntube for example.

triggers for the explosive are not the big issue..............controling "when" the device is active is the civilian control.

A suicide version of an a-bomb is really easy. You are thinking long term stockpile technology.

To be effective in a terrorist attack the nuke only has to go boom, small yield and dirty is just fine.............super efficient and 'clean" is where the US and many others have gone with research.




posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
Stop thinking the perfect device............try guntube for example.


Well that rules out plutonium then. Gun devices cannot use plutonium. Whihc leaves HEU which would need a large quantity in the order of 10's kg's. Not easy to come by at all.


triggers for the explosive are not the big issue..............controling "when" the device is active is the civilian control.


I still don't understand your point. What is civilian control ? PAL Failsafe devices really aren't relevant to this thread if that's what you're talking about.


A suicide version of an a-bomb is really easy. You are thinking long term stockpile technology.


Nope I am thinking of a basic WWII, Mk I or Mk III design.


To be effective in a terrorist attack the nuke only has to go boom, small yield and dirty is just fine.............super efficient and 'clean" is where the US and many others have gone with research.


Once again my arguments relate to WWII A-bomb technology - they had to be overengineered by a large margin to make sure they exploded. Hence, so would a basic terroisist device - which begs the question where would they get so much fissile material.

Once again though the design on the internet is crap and vaguely shows you how a nuclear weapon works. All teh finer points have been left out. Without those finer ingredients a nuclear weapon will not work period, it will just scatter radioactive debris, no chain reaction.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Once again though the design on the internet is crap and vaguely shows you how a nuclear weapon works. All teh finer points have been left out. Without those finer ingredients a nuclear weapon will not work period, it will just scatter radioactive debris, no chain reaction.


Then how do you explain the Pakistan and Indian bombs? How about digging up unexploded bombs from Urbakistan ranges. All those failed devices just left underground because it would be certain death to dig up?

Suicide bombers have no such problems with human life. If they die, they go to heaven.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
Then how do you explain the Pakistan and Indian bombs? How about digging up unexploded bombs from Urbakistan ranges. All those failed devices just left underground because it would be certain death to dig up?



Why would it be certain death to dig them up?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by thermopolis
Then how do you explain the Pakistan and Indian bombs? How about digging up unexploded bombs from Urbakistan ranges. All those failed devices just left underground because it would be certain death to dig up?



Why would it be certain death to dig them up?


The testing grounds of old soviet union is full of unexploded bombs. Some fizzed, some just failed. Some slow cooked...........the underground caves dug were sealed because the leakage was significant. Shielding was not used on test bombs.

There is significant material that could be recovered but the radiation poisoning would kill the miners.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
There is significant material that could be recovered but the radiation poisoning would kill the miners.


Thus making it a pretty futile endeavour then, right? what purpose would it serve to go there just to die without accomplihing anything?



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by thermopolis
There is significant material that could be recovered but the radiation poisoning would kill the miners.


Thus making it a pretty futile endeavour then, right? what purpose would it serve to go there just to die without accomplihing anything?


OK, terrorist one digs up the material and dies. Terrorist two transports the material and dies. Terrorist three physically builds the bomb and dies. Suicide bomber explodes the bomb and they all meet at the "virgin" pool.

Death killing evil americans gets bubba-bin-terror-boy into Islamic heaven.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
Then how do you explain the Pakistan and Indian bombs? How about digging up unexploded bombs from Urbakistan ranges. All those failed devices just left underground because it would be certain death to dig up?


What do you mean India and Pakistan
They have had research programs for years if not decades. Indi exploded her first bomb in 1974. Are you likening terrorist technology to India and Pakistan ? No comparison whatsoever.

LOL, what failed devices in Kazakhstan
There is only one device which was left unexploded due to the breakup in the Soviet Union, that is buried under hundreds of meters of concret and rubble. To suggest someon would dig it up is just plain stupid.

Your arguments really aren't coherent at all and seem to constantly change after you've been proved wrong.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   


The testing grounds of old soviet union is full of unexploded bombs. Some fizzed, some just failed. Some slow cooked...........the underground caves dug were sealed because the leakage was significant. Shielding was not used on test bombs.

There is significant material that could be recovered but the radiation poisoning would kill the miners.


That doesn't even make sense, why test them and then not recover the weapon to see why it did not go off? Isn’t that what testing is supposed to be?

EDIT: rogue1 you get my wats vote.
EDIT2 : I can't spell.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Uni_Brow]

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Uni_Brow]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

LOL, what failed devices in Kazakhstan
There is only one device which was left unexploded due to the breakup in the Soviet Union, that is buried under hundreds of meters of concret and rubble. To suggest someon would dig it up is just plain stupid.

Your arguments really aren't coherent at all and seem to constantly change after you've been proved wrong.



Ahh, just becuase you type something does not make it correct.

There are vast quantities of uncontrolled materials in "stan-land" and many others including Pantex, Rock Moutain, Oak Ridge, Savanah, on, and on. There is too much data out there on making bombs to pretend it does not exist or can't exist.

One more time........the problem is NOT the physics of the bomb it is the control of the fuse/trigger system that cost big $$$.

Long term safety of the device IS NOT a concern of the suicide terrorist.

There are many more that ONE device that failed to explode over the last 60 years...............



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Ok well i thught i would throw in my thoughts here.

The governments of the world often toss out reports about how easy material may be to get a hold of. My problem with all that as mentioned by other people is that it isn't easy to set the damn stuff off.

Nuclear weapons are designed very carefully because if you just detonated it then you wouldn't be able to completely destroy all the uranium and as mentioned earlier even weapons made very carefully by governments spending a hell of a lot of money and using the best minds and techniques sometimes don't work properly.

In the end a dirty bomb would probably be more of the way that terrorists would go but that shouldn't mean that we should all the complacent about the issue.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I think the idea that someone can make a home made bomb is laughable. There is loads of things on the Internet but that doesn't mean it will work.

The only danger from stolen plutonium is if someone makes a dirty bomb out of it and that will be a localised effect anyway! (darn it reality 84 just beat me to that point lol)

Things like the Manhatten project cost billions and are done by super powers for a reason. Building nuclear bomb is hard, really really hard. It is not something you can do with millions of smoke detectors. You need sophisticated explosives and if they are aligned even slightly incorrectly the bomb will not explode.



[edit on 22-3-2006 by enslaved83]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
How do we know they aren't being helped along by some foreign power.
This may sound like a stupid question,but does all nuclear weapons exploded have a fingerprint. The radiation can it be traced to where the uranium came from.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
Ahh, just becuase you type something does not make it correct.


Well I am correct.



There are vast quantities of uncontrolled materials in "stan-land" and many others including Pantex, Rock Moutain, Oak Ridge, Savanah, on, and on. There is too much data out there on making bombs to pretend it does not exist or can't exist.


What uncontrolled matterials ? The US doesn leave HEU and PU lying arounf uncontrolled



One more time........the problem is NOT the physics of the bomb it is the control of the fuse/trigger system that cost big $$$.

Long term safety of the device IS NOT a concern of the suicide terrorist.


WTF
What the hell are you talking about, what is the ' control ' of the trigger meant to mean

Long term safety has nothing to do with building a working nuclear weapon. As I have pointed out many times in this thread, you can't make a nuclear weapon from plans on the internet. You couldn't even build a WWII weapons off supposed plans on the net. This orginal weapons didn't have any controls over them either.

PAL has got nothiong to do with your argument, so stop bringing it up, you're not making sense.


There are many more that ONE device that failed to explode over the last 60 years...............



Like I said, how are they going to dig one up
they are buried hundreds of meters underground, you need spewcialised drilling rigs to even attempt to start digging, and it would take you weeks if not months. Then of coursse most if not all of these weapons would have gone off, they just wouldn't have priduced a nuclear yirled. Therefore after diggin down hundreds of meters, you'd have to seperate atmoised plutonium from all the rock and dirt. Impossible



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Here is just ONE example of lost materials

www.heartofamericanorthwest.org...

Also where USSR fell, vast numbers of nukes remain unaccounted. Try the Federation of American Scientist website. Tired of doing all the work..



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
Here is just ONE example of lost materials

www.heartofamericanorthwest.org...

Also where USSR fell, vast numbers of nukes remain unaccounted. Try the Federation of American Scientist website. Tired of doing all the work..


LOl do you read your links, the plutonium in quesiton is mixed in with other wastes, completely impossible for a terrorist to seperate


I see your avoiding the main part of your argument that nukes can be made from plans off the net. I assume you realise you're wrong.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

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.


Remember AQ Khan? If a nuke comes to the US it won't be stolen from Russia or Switzerland, or from a recipe on the internet- it will come from Pakistan... a moslem country that is just one well-placed bullet away from bin Laden's control. That is the true nightmare.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by lkwalk]

[edit on 22-3-2006 by lkwalk]



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
If terrorists want to use a nuclear weapon, then they wouldn't bother building one, they would try to steal one, though once they steal it, I'm guessing it would have alot of safety 'things' to stop it from exploding.

End of story. No terrorist is going to build a nuclear weapon. It's impossible.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
If terrorists want to use a nuclear weapon, then they wouldn't bother building one, they would try to steal one, though once they steal it, I'm guessing it would have alot of safety 'things' to stop it from exploding.

End of story. No terrorist is going to build a nuclear weapon. It's impossible.



They won't need to steal one. Pakistan already has hundreds. And I agree- no terrorist is going to build one. They won't have to.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
What's all this with Pakistan? Does everyone think that they would give one to a terrorist organisation or something?

If America found out that a specific country had intentionally supplied terrorists with a nuclear weapon, that country would be ripped from the face of the planet.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join