Al-Qaidas Nuclear Option

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The first problem with the B-61

During the frenzy of the Cold War, new nuclear weapons replaced older ones so
frequently that warheads rarely reached teenage years. Now there are no more new
weapons in the U.S. The age of the average warhead among the seven kinds that
the nation stocks, according to lab officials, is pushing 20, with some nearing
30. One of the most serious aging problems is posed by plutonium, the explosive
metal that, when it is tightly compressed by a surrounding sphere of chemical
explosives, triggers the nuclear explosion.
"Bubbles of helium form in it as it ages," explains Joe Martz, program director
for weapons materials at the lab. "It shows more bizarre behavior than any other
metal." He supervises a series of experiments, compressing small chunks of the
man-made element with explosives, to track the changes in its density. "Nobody
knows what 75-year-old plutonium will be like," he adds.

Sure we all know nuclear weapons deteriorate over time, however this doesn't lend credence to your statement that 60% of B-61's would be fizzles.

B-61 warheads are in fact being refurbished, to maintain their reliability.

Known current and future alterations, refurbishments, modifications and possible new designs for the US nuclear stockpile are listed by the weapons types below or in related nuclear weapons activities. Stockpile Life Extension Programs (SLEPs) with major refurbishments are active today for the B61, W76, W80 and W87. [9] SLEPs for the other weapons-types are presently on hold pending “Administration strategic review,” which is due before the end of 2001 with a new Nuclear Posture Review.

www.nukewatch.org...

[edit on 23-3-2006 by rogue1]

Originally posted by thermopolis

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.................

Funny that we needed to get it right twice to cow a smaller population into surrender, then.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The site doesn't change the fact that it STILL only has a 4100 mile range with three stages. Either of those countries would have to build the facilities to handle the missiles, which we would notice. They would have to build fueling tanks, launcher platforms, etc. That's how the Cuban Missile Crisis started, we noticed Cuba building the facilities for the missiles.

I have little confidence in US intel these days.

Iraq went from "slam dunk" on WMD's............to no WMD's.....but now there is new evidence in some 30,000 boxes of Iraqi papers that show there were WMD's. Based on DC's 911 performance..........the data was there but ignored.......Iran could be setting up missles in New Orleans or New York...................

People do not realize we CAN NOT detect nukes unless they are within a few meters of the detection device. It is very likely devices are already in the US.

Originally posted by thermopolis
Iraq went from "slam dunk" on WMD's............to no WMD's.....but now there is new evidence in some 30,000 boxes of Iraqi papers that show there were WMD's.

That's a no brainer. At one point there were WMD's in Iraq. So far noone has shown any evidence there still were after around 1995-1996, not taking the Al Samoud 2 missiles into account which only barely exceeded their allowed range limit and diameter and which Iraq was letting the UN destroy anyway.

Originally posted by thermopolis
It is very likely devices are already in the US.

Sure. There ofcourse waiting for some kind of signal of a terrorist in the media or some hidden message encrypted in a porn picture, so let's restrict the media and the internet. Terrorists would never ever set off a nuke if they had a chance unless told so from some strict hierarchy above.

Oh, and your schoolboy was nowhere near an actual nuclear device. He just had some radioactive stuff lying around from smoke detectors.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Simon666]

Originally posted by Simon666
Sure. There ofcourse waiting for some kind of signal of a terrorist in the media or some hidden message encrypted in a porn picture, so let's restrict the media and the internet. Terrorists would never ever set off a nuke if they had a chance unless told so from some strict hierarchy above.

Oh, and your schoolboy was nowhere near an actual nuclear device. He just had some radioactive stuff lying around from smoke detectors.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Simon666]

Gee never thought of the porn site angle, thanks............

But boyscout data has become somewhat of a "nuclear roswell" story with a lot is disinformation. It could go either way............

Originally posted by thermopolis
Gee never thought of the porn site angle, thanks............

Well after 9-11 you heard a lot about steganography and how there was "evidence" terrorists were using (porn) images to transmit messages. The point is governments exploit terrorist attacks for instating stuff they'd always have liked to do but couldn't get the public warm for: more control of your life, the "liberal" media, internet, porn (always been a thorn in the eye of conservatives) and limiting your ways of thinking. The latter is working quite well for some people over here I noticed.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Simon666]

Differences in difficulty:

The difficulty of a modern thermonuclear (fusion) weapon, which is compact enough to be put on a missile, is very high. In particular the interaction between the fission initiation and the fusion stage is the most complex---the problems being that of extreme fluid dynamics and radiative transfer, not nuclear physics.

There is not a chance that any terrorist could make a true radiation-implosion fusion weapon.

It is not clear that Israel, Pakistan or India have made them either---they are difficult and appear to require significant testing programs. More likely, a 'layer cake' or easier intermediate type of design is what they use if they have some fusion based weapons.

As has been said before, a gun-type enriched uranium weapons is the most practical, but this requires significant physical size and substantial quantities of HEU, which is NOT easy to get

The technology level is that of a sophisticated machining and explosives company, given a HEU supply. This is still not a backyard problem, but not at the level of a thermonuclear weapon (thousands and long term science & engineering development).

Also, a "suitcase" or "backpack nuke" is NOT something a terrorist can make either. Because of its small size, these weapons are made with fairly sophisticated, advanced technology, probably only by USA and USSR and nobody else. It would have to use a complex and advanced trigger, and more importantly, require tritium gas boosting in the plutonium core.

Tritium in sufficient quantities for nuclear weapons is very difficult to acquire and handle. A few million dollars worth can evaporate away with just one tiny leak.

Tritium also decays and hence requires replenishment. It is a very good thing that the length of time since the breakup of the USSR (only possible time to acquire a backpack nuke) has now been sufficiently long. The longer the time, the less likely they will work.

If Bin Laden has some, according to rumor, he is an idiot to not set them off sooner.

Ok all you " it can't be done" folks, if it is so hard to build nukes, why have the NPT at all. Why have a treaty saying you won't build a nuclear bomb, if its so impossible to build one?

The answer is it ain't so hard.................

Originally posted by thermopolis
Ok all you " it can't be done" folks, if it is so hard to build nukes, why have the NPT at all. Why have a treaty saying you won't build a nuclear bomb, if its so impossible to build one?

The answer is it ain't so hard.................

Well in your original post you said that it's possible to build a bomb from plans off the net. That simply isn't possible.

Nukes are very hard to build hence why countries have to invest billions in building and developing them. Something the NPT seeks to counter.

If you can't make the obvious distinction, then this thread is pointless.