Can Terrorists Build a Nuclear Bomb? 737
kjh1 writes "Popular Science is just chock full of good articles this month. One in-depth article addresses the question many are afraid to acknowledge is a possibility - can terrorists acquire the raw materials and then deliver a nuclear bomb? A good read that explains the difficulty in doing all of the above, while pointing out calmly that it is still possible." From the article: "Most experts with whom I spoke said that a nuclear terror attack is plausible but not inevitable, and that there's no way to precisely gauge the odds. 'I don't think the public ought to lose a lot of sleep over the issue,' says nuclear physicist Tom Cochran of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "
Only the incredibly naive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lose sleep? No. Sleep with one eye open? Damn right.
dirty bombs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only the incredibly naive... (Score:4, Insightful)
So far so good... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Only the incredibly naive... (Score:2, Insightful)
Cat amongst the kitchen (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Do they need to? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Do they need to? (Score:3, Insightful)
This article completely glosses over all of that.
Asking the wrong questions... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do they need to? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like me saying "I overclocked my 4 gig processor to 5" Do I need it? no, it's just to say it and sound special
Re:Do they need to? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a terrorist group is able to build a dirty bomb that causes mass casualties why would they want a nuke?
Because dirty bombs aren't designed to cause mass casualties. Their main effect is fear; with the popular in terror of anything 'nuclear', they are ideal for cowing a whole population. Hell, you don't even need to detonate one; just the thought of a dirty bomb is good enough to terrorize people. The current mindset in the USA is ample evidence of this.
They can also render an (albeit-small) area of real estate uninhabitable for a lengthy period of time. This of course can lead to a significant amount of economic fallout.
Terrorists? (Score:3, Insightful)
What would you use such a powerfull bomb for?
To prepare occupation?
The only thing such a bomb is useful for is to create fear, terror in your enemies' hearts.
I won't be losing any sleep (Score:5, Insightful)
Best Defense: Westernization (Score:1, Insightful)
What is the defense against the use of a nuclear weapon by a terrorist? The answer is not a missile shield. Even if the shield is 80% effective, one successful nuclear bomb would be devastating.
The best defense is, in fact, to Westernize the globe so that everyone joins the Western world. For example, if Middle Easterners accept Western values, then they will value human rights, democracy, etc. If the most pressing issue of the day in Syrian become "Gay Marriage: Yes or No?" instead of "Suicide Bomber: Here We Go", then the world is safe. A Westernized Damascus itself would hunt down any nutcases trying to build a nuclear weapon.
I'm not trying to be a troll, but Western culture is the finest in the world. A Western acquaintance who adopted a Korean orphan is proof of the compassion and goodness of Western values. That Korean orphan, shunned and left to die in Korea, eventually attended MIT.
The women in the Middle East are even worse off. The brutal treatment of women in the Middle East speaks volumes about Middle Eastern culture.
Re:Terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hysteria? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh. I guess not.
Probably easier to buy one (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only the incredibly naive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not understanding why one is your enemy is even worse.
I decentralized myself 12 years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why build when you can buy or steal? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, why would terrorists want to even try this? Assuming they wanted a real nuclear detonation rather than a dirty bomb, isn't the possibility of purchasing or stealing an intact, complete weapon of more concern? Reading this [cfrterrorism.org] doesn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies about the former Soviet Union. And remember, the Pakistanis and North Koreans have the expertise, know-how, materials, and a desperate need for hard currency.
Re:Hysteria? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your sunny Denver day doesn't create a radioactive environment. The Chernobyl cloud did. Kids playing outside were not only "roasted", but also inhaled/swallowed the stuff. Same happens when eating those mushrooms and deers.
Spot the difference?
Re:Asking the wrong questions... (Score:5, Insightful)
And I thought Saudi Arabia was a very rich country. Silly me.
You know, the terrorist leaders are all wealthy men. Arafat was a billionaire, ditto bin Laden. Why aren't people like you demanding they share THEIR wealth and improve the condition of THEIR people?
Not a Holocaust (Score:5, Insightful)
First the bomb is likely to be detonated at ground level, or a few stories up in a garage. This limits the blast damage significantly. Assuming an urban environment, tall buildings would also limit the devices blast effectiveness. US and Soviet bombs of the Cold War were several *mega*tons, and were detonated several thousand feet in the air. With a terrorist's bomb you will not see the massive air burst followed by a blast wave that topples buildings and vaporizes people for miles.
The most dangerous effect from small bombs detonated at ground level is fallout. This would likely be enhanced by the very structures that limited the blast radius. Surrounding buildings would force radioactive dust and debris up, making the likelihood of winds blowing the fallout over a larger area higher.
Indeed, a nuclear detonation in Manhattan would destroy several blocks and kills tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. Such an event would be devastating to our economy and to the lives of millions. IMHO this is something completely different from Cold War style nuclear scares. A nuclear war between the US and Soviet Union would have killed hundreds of millions of people, billions in the after effects. Here, the likelihood of you being personally and directly harmed by a terrorist nuclear weapon is relatively low when compared to the effects to the economy on a national (and global) scale.
Re:Nut Job States (Iran) (Score:3, Insightful)
To response to your other trolls: Iranians are Persians, not Arabs. Also, this has nothing to do with ethnicity or skin color. It has to do with character and morality.
Re:Building a NUKE (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the design of the Hiroshima bomb. In its favour, it is so easy to build that the US didn't even bother testing it before they used it.
Nukes that are portable enough to let off in any location are much more complex (and have a limited shelf life - i.e. they need maintenance to remain usable). The simpler forms of plutonium-based bombs (a sphere of Pu surrounded by highly engineered high explosive lenses - this is the implosion bomb design used for all fission nuclear weapons from Trinity and onwards) have a Po-210 initiator in the centre (a very strong alpha emitter). The trouble is Po-210 has a very short half-life, so leave your bomb in storage for 100 days or so and it probably won't work.
Re:Best Defense: Westernization (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, the problem is not as simple to solve as "let's westernize them" - look how well that went in Iraq.
IM (very) HO, America needs to deal with terrorism by analizing what makes it appear in the first place instead of assuming it spawns in the vaccum, with people that hate the Western "for their freedom".
Re:Best Defense: Westernization (Score:3, Insightful)
Noooo, he wanted change now, so we decided to go piss everybody off, kill several tens of thousands (regrettable, oh so regrettable, but hey, that's war, kids!), tie up our military in a grand neoconservative experiment, and piss away every last ounce of goodwill and "I wanna be like you guys" we'd spent several decades building.
We were so well on the way to westernizing the world. Now, we've turned ourselves into the very kind of monster we're trying to defeat. We've gone from being the world's beacon of freedom, democracy and civil rights to "oh, shut up--at least we're better than Saddam was!"
Just wait. It has yet to get really bad.
Re:Best Defense: Westernization (Score:2, Insightful)
What we _all_ need to do is to learn to value each others as equals. That goes from the Mullahs in Saudia Arabia tellling women to cover themselves completely, to the Baptist Preachers in Alabama telling women that their place is behind their man.
Re:Asking the wrong questions... (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe, but so was the destruction of the WTC. And something like that is much easier to accomplish. Besides, I don't think it is the image that appeals, so much as the effect.
They don't care about contries, their only faith is to allah.
Did you know that Islam actually preaches tolerance, among other things? Muslims are not incited to violence by the teachings of the Qu'ran.
How would you like to do that? By not telling people what is happening in the world?
By making a positive change to US foreign policy? Some things, we can only wish for, I know...
Re:Best Defense: Westernization (Score:2, Insightful)
Is people that think their culture is "better" who make it this bad.
The first question I would ask you is, who decides which culture is better?, or, who has the right to say so? you're right, each person should decide which culture is better, but for him/herself, not for somebody else.
Secondly, have you ever thought how would you feel if somebody else wanted to impose his/her culture to you based simply on the fact that he/she believes it is better than yours?
Haven't you thought that maybe the eastern world think tehir way of living is the best?
Unfortunately, we're victims of our own nature, a big majority of people are blinded by ignorance, and use any excuse they can find to achieve their ends. Some use the "democrazitaion" of the "axis of evil", others the "anhihilation" of "infidels".
The fact is that there will always exist a good excuse to try to impose one's views, as a matter of fact I'm doing exactly that, it's unavoidable.
As much as some people would like to live in peace, there will always be somebody that will find a way to manipulate people in order to achieve their goals in a destructive manner.
IMHO there is one solution that might work, but this is just a dream, and this solution will not come without education.
If we were educated to accept people's differences, if we were educated in order to accept the good things that other cultures have to offer, if we were educated in finding and rejecting what is so wrong with our own culture, then we'd be much better off.
Of course problems would still be present, but in a much less dangerous manner, that's for sure.
Unfortunately, those same people that manipulate others will never allow them to think for themselves.
Re:Hysteria? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't remember any expected death rates, but I recall that there was big fuzz about not letting your kids play outside for a longer time, and if they come back in, clean them thoroughly -- almost a Dr. No kind of scenario.
Hysteria? Maybe. But I still object the comparison of a radioactive cloud with a sunny day in Denver.
Re:dirty bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I for one am not the least bit worried about New York City or San Francisco being vaporized. I live in the Mid-West. In neither case would the fallout drift overhead.
Are you worried about the impact on your life, livelihood, financial security, freedom (i.e. after martial law is imposed in the US), etc. that the loss of New York City would entail? You should be.
Re:Best Defense: Westernization (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure that he woke up one morning and decided to go piss everybody off, yeah that seems like a logical decision that a world leader would make. Several decades??? We were hated long ago for being a superpower, this was long before the current administration. So my question to all the people that say we are as bad as some of the islamo-facist states that exist, then why don't you move to another country if this is so horrible? Put your money where your mouth is.
Re:Best Defense: Westernization (Score:2, Insightful)
Like you, I certainly find the plight of women in the middle-east appalling. However, when viewed from the outside, many might say that Western culture is also deeply flawed. A random sample of these issues might include:
In most Western countries there remains a huge gulf between the wealthy and the poor.
Women in Western societies often feel compelled by the media to conform to a given body shape and appearance. It still seems that many base the value of a woman on her appearance.
Men in Western societies are often defined by their job and earning capacity.
The elderly are often disregarded and ignored. Perhaps this is because they no longer possess beauty or earning power, or perhaps people don't want to be reminded of infirmity or death.
A major portion of a individual's existence in the Western world is concerned with the accumulation of wealth and possessions.
I'm not trying to voice reactionary views, or suggest that I would rather live in a non-democratic state. However, regarding our Western culture as a being vastly superior and virtually flawless would seem to be dangerous. If we look carefully at the past, we might see that we share more in common with the previous fallen civilisations than we would like to admit. So you should not find it surprising if there are those who might fail to welcome the idea of being "Westernised".
Re:And now, a message from our sponsors (Score:5, Insightful)
"We in the US media wish to shield you from this world. We bring you only news stories from your own country,
The top two stories on CNN. The headline and the one on the top right.
1. Blasts rock Baghdad, kill 20
2. Putin: Iran not developing nukes
Top stories on Fox news:
1. Attacks Target Shiites in Baghdad
2. Putin: Iran Has No Nuke Plans
The US reports plenty of world news. I know while any post that says (something in the US = bad) is modded up here, this is just silly. When the Tsunami happened, it was 24/7 Tsunami coverage here. When the Russian Schoolchildren were held by terrorists it was basically 24 hour coverage. Sorry if CNN doesn't report soccer scores from around the world, but America doesn't care about trival stuff from around the world.
unless the story furthers the goal of making you even more freightened. Besides, who wants any real news about other countries?
The BBC is available in America, the fact is people are more interested in their local news than world news. Sorry if this bothers you. It isnt' a media consperacy though, it's just a free market economy reacting to what people want.
They don't even have NASCAR in those strange lands!
I guess you are trying to generalize about southerns now, since NASCAR's following is mostly in the more rural section of the country.
Do you really care about what happens in a place without NASCAR, unless they are IMMINENTLY ready to attack! Like SHARKS, and ASBESTOS, and POWER LINES!!! News at 11!!!!!!"
Please. Yes, people care more about trivial events in their own country than trivial events around the world. When something big happens, it is covered ad nausem.
The article has inaccuracies but ... (Score:2, Insightful)
It says that 100 lbs (about 45 kg) of U235, enough to achieve critiacl mass is the size of a bowling ball but it's the size of a grapefruit. Other sources say that 50 lbs is needed for critical mass but it's not clear what degree of enrichment was used for the calculatons and whether depleted uranium or other neutron reflector is used. A neutron reflector effectivly lowers the amount of fissionable material needed to achieve critical mass.
Fabricating a U235 device should be fairly easy after enough U235 is obtained especially compared to a PU device.
Even if the detonationn would be a spectacular fizzle there would be deaths and radioactive contamination and the psycological impact would be tremendous.
Re:Asking the wrong questions... (Score:3, Insightful)
Iraq demonstrably did not have nuclear weapons. They were invaded and their leader deposed.
The USA reservers the right to use nuclear weapons in self defense. Other countries believe they have the same right. So they are urgently developing nuclear weapons to protect themselves.
Consequences shmonsequences. There are none. Join the nuclear club, and get yourself a seat at the table with the other big boys.
Re:Exactly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Dirty bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
A device would not have to be very large or have a 12 kiloton yield to do alot of damage. Property would most likely be lost at ground zero, the real threat would be the iradiated area and secondary fallout carried on wind currents. Imagine one going off in Central Park large enough to iradiate the total area of the park. How many residents would be in that area at any given time?
This worries me more than bieng caught in the blast from an ICBM, at least then it flash, your dust. But a death from radiation poisoning, that is terrifying.
Re:And now, a message from our sponsors (Score:5, Insightful)
Grandparent: unless the story furthers the goal of making you even more freightened.
You: The top two stories on CNN. The headline and the one on the top right. 1. Blasts rock Baghdad, kill 20 2. Putin: Iran not developing nukes
I don't see how stories about insurgents in Iraq (essentially equivalent to terrorists, and spun as a threat to the US) and nukes in Iran disprove the original point.
As to people being naturally more interested in their local news, well, sure. But the tendancy is far more pronounced in the USA. There may be any number of reasons for it, but it's certainly the case. Let's compare the top stories on news.bbc.co.uk, for example: Aside from the Baghdad explosion, the top two stories are about Nepal and the Congo.
Care to rebut?
BS Alert! (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to call BS on this one. There've been, what, ~3500 terrorist-caused deaths in the US in the past decade? With your math, there must have been 35,000,000 US car accident deaths in that same decade. Traffic deaths, however, are closer to about 40,000 a year -- not 3,500,000 a year.
Re:dirty bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello? You're talking about people who plan suicide missions.
Looking in the wrong direction (Score:1, Insightful)
Terrorists building nukes isn't the problem. They may (probably) already have them from the former soviet union. What about the so called missing suitcase nukes?
An interesting introduction [jrnyquist.com] to the possibilities.
I might observe... (Score:1, Insightful)
Again, the computers are an aid for the easiest part of it. Understanding the geometry you need, that's pretty available. But being able to precisely machine the parts, accounting for things like thermal expansion, that requires real professionals. People who've invested a lifetime in cultivating a very special set of skills. CNC machines might make some of it simpler. But there is a wide gulf of know-how that a lot of people aren't accounting for.
The people with these kinds of skills don't have the kind of go nowhere lives that lead a person to cast their busted hand in with Osama. They're not some dumbasses with a BS in engineering, and an inability to get laid. They've got a decade or two of insight that practically defies reduction to the printed word.
All in all, it's probably much simpler to steal or buy a nuclear weapon than to build one.
Re:Only the incredibly naive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they need a target for their displaced aggression. The evils of the West are no worse or better then the evils of the Rest. The west is the islamic scape goat. Sure the West takes advantage of the middle east and supports brutal regimes, but those regimes are no worse then the ones they install themselves (IRAN). The injustices the west (the US) does is no worse then the ones they do to themselves (Iraq Massacre of kurds). The only difference is we're not muslims which makes us easier to hate.
Re:The curve of binding energy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dirty bombs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Exactly. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Even easier if (Score:5, Insightful)
In a real nuclear bomb development program, you don't want to waste your hard-to-get HEU/plutonium on a fizzle. So, what is generally done is you take a material with similar properties to your nuclear fuel build test bombs with it (in the case of uranium, you'd use DU). Then, during the collision, you analyze the impact (for example, with high-speed X-ray analysis). This in itself requires a good amount of equipment. Even with all of the "parts" on hand, a proper atomic bomb development program will still take at least half a year and a lot of resources.
Hijacking fuel rods? That'd work for most US nuclear submarine fuel rods (which are highly enriched), but not conventional power plant fuel rods. You'll only have a few % of U235 - you might as well just refine from scratch. If you're talking about spent fuel rods, you can get plutonium out of them, but you have to worry about the differences between Pu239 and Pu240; you don't want to have to separate them, or again, you might as well just start from scratch. Plus, you have to deal with all of the other dangerous radioactive "junk" that builds up in spent rods.
A truck full of spent fuel rods would, however, make for a nice way to irradiate a large area. Put them in a big vat and set two timers: One to dump as much nitric and hydrofluoric acid as you can get your hands on into the mix to dissolve the cladding and possbly some of the fuel, and the second to dump a large tank of gasoline in a couple hours later and ignite it to help burn the radioactive compounds into the air. You should be able to cause a US-based chernobyl that way. Cleanup would be catastrophically expensive, as it was for Chernobyl; and while mass irradiation events aren't frequently filled with mass casualties, the area that they contaminate is rendered uninhabitable for several hundred years (not 10s of thousands or millions like anti-nuclear nuts pretend, mind you, but still a long time).
Re:Exactly. (Score:2, Insightful)
Handling a lump of plutonium can be done safely with reasonable precautions. However, machining plutonium is incredibly dangerous, contaminating a large area with dust unless done with appropriate respect. Plutonium dust is deadly in amazingly small quantities (inhaling 30 micrograms may be fatal). It's not some magic poison that can't be dealt with, but a machine shop with good veltilation won't cut it.
OTOH, for a terrorist who considers those workers (and their neighbors) expendable, it's not an issue I guess.
Re:Even easier if (Score:2, Insightful)
What is a Terrorist? (and not the US version) (Score:1, Insightful)
I hadn't realized that Slashdot had degraded into fear mongering. Really.. what's next? The latest discussion over "orange alert"? haha...
Re:Best Defense: Westernization (Score:3, Insightful)
And keep in mind, before September 11th, there was a previous attempt to topple the WTC. I believe the bombing (which I believe was under the Clinton administration) was supposed to cause one building to collapse into the other.
Human nature didn't radically change on 9/11. The biggest change was that we--the United States--discovered that we really were vulnerable to terrorism. Terrorism wasn't born on 9/11; it just felt that way for most Americans.
9/11 did make a big difference--but it's hardly a repudiation of the steady, impressive progress we'd been making ever since the days of the Cold War. We didn't win the Cold War with missiles--we won it with culture. The Berlin Wall was not torn down by NATO tanks--it was torn down by people who wanted what we had to offer. That intangible, American essence of freedom has been, and always will be, far mightier than any army we could ever field.
There are always going to be people who are willing to resort to deplorable, senseless, vicious crimes against humanity to get their way. We can minimize it, but we cannot eradicate it--and the more we're willing to use any means nessecary in trying to eradicate it, the faster the ranks of the enemy will grow.
We just can't kill 'em fast enough. This war cannot be won on the battlefield.
Perhaps... (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps if our injustices were vastly less bad - or even not committed at all! - then it would be harder to redirect discontent against us. Saying "but he's just as bad!" won't convince anyone we're the good guys. If we do bad things to the people of a country, we're giving extremists in that area all the ammunition they need to paint us as the "real" bad guys.
If we didn't make ourselves a convenient scapegoat, the corrupt regimes in the area might undergo change from within, something that I think almost everyone can agree would be positive.
Re:Only the incredibly naive... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are going to act like the world's self-appointed policeman you had better be squeaky clean, immune to corruption and free from self-interest - or else all the mistakes, all the bad judgements you make and most definitely all the hostile and destructive acts you commit will be held against you in the most venomous way possible.
The widespread hatred of the US was inevitable, given its foreign policy. It doesn't require the Islamic world to be jealous, or freedom-hating, or innately anti Western. It only requires them to be human, to have a shred of dignity or pride; to own a scrap of ambition to be their own masters free from the oppression of an interfering foreign state. Even in an evil dictatorship, people will still go to war to fight for their country even if they do so half-heartedly.