Al-Qaeda has tactical nuke

[x-g.o.p.er]

Poll numbers go down.......

Fear goes up

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/392006.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brainshrub]

2. Welome to DU

:toast:

[KissMyAsscroft]

3. Ahhh...

This is the ten millionth time they have said they have nukes...

Its really impossible to know unless they use one or film it.

I tend to believe that if they truly had one they would release proof and use it as a form of extortion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Ha Aretz is pretty reliable

but there are two thigns to say aobut this story

Their source is Al Hayat, a London based Arab Paper, which has been used by Al Qaida to disperse tapes... aka this is not first hand knowledge

Two... and most important... where did Al Qaida obtain this suitcase nuke? Iraq? Nope, N. Korea (which would be a good guess) Nope

The Ukraine, from people willing to sell to the highest bidder... weren't we warned of this if we did not buy all their crap at the end of the Cold War? Oh yes, anything but clinton has worked wodners once again... oh and this, if true, is the first time in history a Terror group uses MAD... and another Bush Failure.

[Taeger]

13. Yep

Clinton was buying up the surplus to stop any proliferation. Bush put an end to that once he entered office.

So if a nuke goes off in New York, we all know who to blame.

[Fla_Dem]

63. Should blame Clinton's intelligence

"Al-Qaida has possessed tactical nuclear weapons for about six years"

[Ediacara]

66. Then why didn't they use a nuke

against the Khobar Towers, or the USS Cole, or the World Trade Center, or heck at Tora Bora?

IF al Qaida has had a nuke for six years, why haven't they used it? They've had plenty of chances to, why the hesitation?

[Fla_Dem]

70. Just because you have it doesn't mean you have to use it

We have not used one in 50 years, does that mean we don't own any ?

[Ediacara]

72. But are we a desperate cash strapped hateful shadowy terrorist group?

There's a HUGE difference between the US having and not using nukes and al Qaida having and not using nukes.

[Fla_Dem]

74. I don't believe that Al Qaida

is nearly as cash strapped or as desperate as our current regime makes them out to be.

[Ediacara]

76. They are not a nation with tons of time and money and nukes at their

disposal either. If they had a nuke for the last 6 years, it would have been used.

[NickB79]

81. Use it or lose it my friend

All the nuclear warheads the US has stored for 50 yrs have been serviced and maintained around the clock by a small army of experts to keep them in working order. You CANNOT simply store a nuke in a cave or bunker somewhere for 6 yrs and just expect it to go boom when you push the button. The radiation from an enriched uranium or plutonium core quickly degrades the high explosives used to initiate the nuclear reaction, and the tritium fuses used to activate it. Even the radioactive core itself degrades over time. These are not parts you pick up at the local hardware store and install yourself.

If Al Queda had the money and resources to buy a nuke from a former Soviet country, they would surely have had the money and common sense to research this fact. Hence, it would be much more likely they would use within a few years of obtaining it to be absolutely sure it would detonate. If they've been sitting on it somewhere for 6 yrs, they would have had a very hard time finding the equipment to keep it in working order. Just like the idea of Saddam burying chemical and biological weapons in the desert, it fails to consider that these all have limited shelf lives even under ideal conditions.

[arcane1]

5. well, that answers my question...

of what they would come up with after Bush's horrid MTP performace..

here we go

Tommy Franks is happy

[Forkboy]

6. Well I guess we'll find out the veracity of this story

one way or another.

[Wickerman]

7. Well, thanks George

while you were getting your war off in Iraq, killing our youth and eliminating a generation of civillians in Iraq all for oil, you let Al Quaeda get bigger and scarrier. If you were so fucking stupid I'd say you did this on purpose for some unkown and even scarrier political/fiscal/demonic gain. Out of Al's house, you mental midget!

[demdave]

9. They reportedly obtained the nuke in 1998.

So it sounds like thanks Bill.

[Darkseid69]

10. if they obtained a nuke in 1998

They would have used it instead of two airliners to crash into the World Trade Center

[Media_Lies_Daily]

23. Bingo.

[Atlant]

46. When you play chess, do you always attack with your queen first?

Don't you sometimes play your pawns first?

Atlant

[Ediacara]

52. Well.....

To continue your analogy..... if your queen has a clear shot at checkmate, and your pawns all have a difficult traverse, you'd go with the queen.

[Atlant]

57. The Pawn attack seems to be doing just fine.

The Pawn attack seems to be doing just fine. (Combined with
the fact that the opponent is doing 90% of Al Queda's work
for them, what with vastly decreased liberty, increased
religiosity, the media spreading terra, etc.)

I'd hold the queen in reserve for a while, yet.

December 2004 might be an apt time to expect that.

Atlant

[Voice_of_Europe]

54. Checkmate with Queen

hmm...

why warn your enemy by attacking with pawns when you can win with your queen?

Comparisons don't always work...

Then again... Terror is not about winning anyway... Terror never wins... but it goes on and on and ond....
Bin Laden knows he can't win, he doesn't even want to win... Terror is only about striking fear.
Their goal is not to invade and conquer the US but for the US to leave middle east...

[Zero Gravitas]

67. checkmate?

sorry even nuking DC or NYC wouldn't be a "checkmate".

[Ediacara]

69. it's a flawed analogy

so sue me

[Occulus]

75. Oh yes it would

nuclear attack = martial law.

Osama would be gleeful.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[calimary]

17. Actually, it'd be thanks Ronnie and george 1 - if indeed it was

after the Cold War ended. The Cold War ended with Glasnost and the Berlin Wall coming down - during Reagan/bush1. It should have been started on THEIR watch since they were in charge here when it all came down over there.

[Ediacara]

19. then why did the go to the trouble of 9-11?

If I had a nuke, I'd rather use that than a risky plan with flight school, hijacking, passports and all the rest. So what if you only hit one target, you'd hit it so much harder than any number of planes could!

EDIT: not that I'm saying that they "don't" have one now... just that the idea they've hung onto a nuke since 1998 and not used it, while at the same time attacked the US and US interests at least three times in the last six years is impossible to believe. If they had a nuke in 1998 they would have used it.

[TheLastMohican]

44. There were no nukes in Ukraine in 1998

Last nuke headed for Russia in 1995 in an tri-lateral agreement between USA, Russia and Ukraine.
Wow, the they are looking for scapegoat in Ukraine now. Better man those S-300 AA complexes before the "liberators" in their B-2s come flying over head.

[aquart]

11. Didn't George cut the funds for buying up old Russian deadlies?

[bluestateguy]

8. Well

I don't know if this report is true or not. If it is not, it is likely another scare tactic. If it is, it shows an appalling neglect of the Al Qaeda infrastructure due to to our misguided war in Iraq.

[leesa]

12. Right. Ho Hum. Of course, we all know who has 200-400 nuclear

weapons aimed at their neighbors, don't we?

[Jim Sagle]

15. Since those are for defense, what's yer point?

[tkmorris]

32. So is our military

What's your point?

[Voice_of_Europe]

56. hmm... flawed logic

Weapons are ALWAYS for defense until you are attacked.

In Bin Ladens mindset he has already been attacked and has every right to defend himself


Weapons are weapons!
Question is not Defense or Offense... the result is the same: People die.
Question is: USE or NOT USE

[salin]

14. Well perhaps if we had stay focused on the al qaeda front

(if this is true - the story itself says it is not confirmed)... then it would have been found. Ah - but we had to pull monetary, military and intelligence resources out of Afghanistan and off of international work on the hunt and efforts to dissemble alqeada - so we could do George's War in Iraq. Oh - and in the process we turned the once cooperative international community that was more proactive in working with us against Al Qaeda - into a skeptical more slow moving community (esp with regards to idenitification and arrest through legal means of alqeada resources.) Thanks again George.

[Taeger]

16. If a nuke was dropped on the United States

If Al Queda dropped a Nuke on the US, that would be it for the Middle East. We would have to invade AND occupy the entire region. We would likely HAVE to nuke Pakistan with B-2s in order to pre-empt any launch from that Islamic nation.

We would have to scour EVERY whole and crevice and lay waste to ANY area that offered resistance. You bet your ass there would be a draft. It would be something short of World War 3.

It's scarry shit, but US government should make this VERY CLEAR.

[will work 4 food]

18. If they had a nuke

they would have used it. To have it for 6 years is bullpuckey. The maintenence alone would have led to it's discovery.

[AndyTiedye]

20. BUT THAT IS JUST WHAT PNAC WANTS TO DO ANYWAY!!

>We would have to invade AND occupy the entire region.

(edit, add quote)

[Sinistrous]

21. Can you spell

THE PERFECT COVER?

[PsychoDad]

22. Why invade the ME?

According to the administration, Al-Q has cells Everywhere... Many in Europe... EVERYWHERE... Including The USA.

Invading the ME would only deplete the resources here in the Homeland to protect from the entrenched cells that are, by their own words, already here, ready to strike at the heart of america at any moment.

Unless, of course, these are all lies like the WMD were.

[rincons land]

24. because they gots the oil

n/t

[PsychoDad]

26. Oh, That's right....

Slipped my mind :silly: Nevermind.

[He loved Big Brother]

43. Do you ever have anything to say besides "n/t"?

Just curious.

[RainDog]

27. why invade the ME?

a few strategic reasons-

Israel would like to have a ME which does not threaten their existence, and Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. for various reasons, like this idea too.

the ME has the oil which America needs to fuel its economy, and since oil extraction is peaking, or will soon, oil will become more expensive and a more expensive thing.

if the US controls the ME, the US controls Europe, too, via the oil.

muslim terrorists are associated with the ME, not as much with Asia, and Osama is the national symbol of terrorism for us.

so, the pre-emptive doctrine of Bush would logically mean that we would start WW 3 in order to rid the world of terrorists who could threaten this country. (whether this is a rational goal is debatable to many in the military and at the US war college...who thinks that war is the wrong approach to terrorism, btw, while "police action" is the proper approach..)

it is a continuation of "the great game" started by the British/French competition to control the ME at the beginning of last century. The area, and eurasia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan...) is seen as pivotal for any nation which wants to be an empire, and in order to sustain an empire, the area must be controlled.

[Aidoneus]

29. try not to sound too eager when proposing such campaigns

while I don't doubt that they'd like to do such things as you describe--hell, doing that already in Iraq and Palestine (and just look how well that's going..), using servile agents to carry out such in most of the rest--, you sound a bit enthusiastic about it.. I don't have the heart to ask what that would actually accomplish (though it sounds very familiar, as if some nation already tried that on some other continent already..), but I won't interupt this bizarre spectacle any further than I already have.

[0rganism]

35. Do you suppose the current administration would get re(?)elected then?

Because I know damn well that they have nukes.

Let's say they pop a "tiny" one in some inconsequential liberal city, like Oakland or Santa Cruz. 10000 people die in the blast, thousands more irradiated and burned. Blame middle east terrorists, like Al Qaeda.

Sets off a major action against the Middle East, to "drain the swamp". On the home front, jingoism of a sort unseen before in this country, and a complete crackdown on all civil rights.

Think it's impossible? Is it completely unbelievable?

Fear these pigfuckers. They will kill us if they think they have to. That's why I'm not so overjoyed anymore by W's dropping poll numbers. He's damn certain he'll get re(?)elected, and I'm pretty sure his handlers don't care how.

[Minstrel Boy]

37. If it happens

I hope most people here, at least, won't be fooled. But I don't know what else to reasonably hope for, if it comes to that. And the more his numbers drop, the more I fear it may.

As I said in another post, if there's a mushroom cloud somewhere over America this year, Bush's fingerprints will be on the smoking gun.

[0rganism]

39. Which leads me to ask you...

...what's the best way to immigrate to Canada? Should I have a job lined up beforehand and get in on a work visa, or head up there and hope for the best?

Maybe I cash out in Portland, buy a Quick-E-Mart in some backwater Alberta town, and get my family up there ASAP?

[Minstrel Boy]

40. One of my fears - which, three years ago,

I would have thought groundless - is that Canada, as a supposed "transit point," is at just as much risk as the United States. Maybe more. Innocent bystanders tend to be punished for their proximity to a crime scene. And after all, to the architects of our doom, Canadian blood's still cheaper than American, and nuking Toronto could warrant Bush's invoking martial law as much as blowin' up San Francisco real good.

The thing is, nobody's safe anywhere from this gang, and I put nothing past them.

Info on immigration from the Canadian government:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.html

[0rganism]

41. And Canada would be first on the list for Anschluss

of course, it's been deemed poor form to compare the current fascist-leaning administration with its obvious historical ancestor...

[Voice_of_Europe]

65. Heim ins Reich

You'd probably bring Canada in... except Quebec...
Maybe Australia too...

[Voice_of_Europe]

62. Lashing out at everyone..? Taking over the world..?

What you're describing sounds like a rabid dog snapping everyboyd in range.

invade and occupy the entire region??
Which countries? On what grounds? Who is guilty and who not? Why not just nuke the entire middle east?


There is no incoming rocket. No warning time. No launch detection.
You just have a peaceful city that goes boooom. You have absolutely no evidence as to who did it and there won't be much evidence left either.
On what grounds do you attack sovereign countries one after the other?
Also Iran? What about the Saudis? Are they friend or foe? Don't you think with all their money they secretly bought some nice WMD's meanwhile? Something biological preferably... a nice small vial of something ...

I mean HELLO!!?? Even I as a reasonable humble little Swiss guy would start to think about we should build nukes too if we are to deter a crazed US war machine...




To continue your little episode:
It wouldn't stop there... war would draw closer and closer to Europe and Russia. And who knows how many French nukes secretly point towards north america meanwhile. Probably Russia and Europe would have to pre-empt US world dominance! Don't forget that the Saudis sell us OUR oil too! Can't have US own the middle east...hehehe..

[NickB79]

82. Definitely follows Bush's pattern so far

"On what grounds do you attack sovereign countries one after the other?"

Good question. A lot of us were wondering the same thing when the US invaded Iraq last spring. Apparently the answer is "Shut up and do as we say, slaves!"

[RainDog]

25. Can someone help me understand this?

the article says that the nuke was probably attained via the Ukraine?

but didn't Al Q. hate the USSR, of which the Ukraine was part, etc. and fight against these very people? And didn't the Ukraine hate them right back?

And who or what in the Ukraine? An arms dealer, ala Khassogi, or the Russian mafia, or what?

And during this time, wasn't Osama (and his faction of Al-Q, at least, hunkered down in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban, who, again, fought against the Soviets?

Why would Al Q go to the Ukraine for such a weapon, if they have one, when the secret police (ISI) in Pakistan openly supported them, even during the 2001 war with the U.S.?

Why would they go to the Ukraine when Pakistan and certain Saudis had already gone through the process of obtaining nuclear weapons, etc. via BCCI, and with Reagan and Bush's tacit approval?

here's a bit on that one, btw, from the two Time magazine reporters who first noted the importance of this issue from their book, Outlaw Bank. (Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne)

"...but what about the nuclear weapons issue? Reagan, "intent on continuing military aid to Pakistan during the Afghanistan (mujahadeen/Osama bin Laden as Reagan's allies) war, turned a blind eye b/c U.S. law prohibited military aid or sale to nonnuclear countries known to be developing nuclear weapons.

In 88 and 89, Bush danced on the edge of truth about Pakistan, saying it did not "possess a nuclear explosive device" to justify continuing MASSIVE support for Pakistan, b/c Pak, bush said, only had "unassembled components."

As soon as Russia pulled out of Afghanistan, Bush said unassembled components violated the rules and cut off aid.

Beatty and Gwynne, in Time Magazine, were "the first to assert that BCCI was instrumental in Pakistan achieving unofficial Nuclear Club membership.

Via BCCI, Pakistan had received sophisticated American military technology that Congress NEVER AUTHORIZED. Adham's remarks re: an atmomic bomb may have been suggesting that it wouldn't be in the Bush administration's self-interest to probe too deeply into how Pakistan, and BCCI, came to possess such military capacity.

The Sheikh knew that BCCI was "the creation of a real life Dr. No, whose empire brokered ballistic missiles, illicit pharmaceuticals, stolen military secrets, heroin, and hot money, leaving a trail of corruption across two decades and seventy countries. And of all people, Adham had reason to know that the (Bush) White House knew it too, and had known about it for years." "

--so again, my question...why would Al Qaeda have to go to former enemies when they had allies with nuclear material?

[Chicago Democrat]

28. Why didn't they use it by now?

If they had it since 1998. It makes absolutely no sense. So I hope and believe at least that part is not true.

Fear is the mind destroyer.

[Merlin]

30. This is EXACTLY what HOWARD DEAN warned us about!

He said, over and over again, that Bush is leaving us LESS protected than before because, among other things, he has failed to fund the program Clinton launched to buy down the old Soviet arsenal of nukes.

Bush should be impeached over this!!!

[Jack Rabbit]

31. Horsepucky

The report has not been confirmed.
However, the sources said Al-Qaida doesn't intend to use the weapons against American forces in Muslim countries, "due to the serious damage" it could cause. But that decision is subject to change, the sources said, if Al-Qaida "is dealt a serious blow that won't leave it any room to maneuver."

I do not believe for a minute that if al-Qaida had such a weapon they would not use it. They have no conscience; they have nothing but hatred for America and Americans; they have no fear of death.

If they had such a weapon, we would already know it.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ediacara]

53. oh nevermind

the post I am responding to was deleted.

[pinniped]

33. The BS meter just pegged max.

n/t

[andy12]

34. python

has to do another bit from in search of the holy grail where they ask the french if the would like to join their quest in search of the for the holy grail...no we already have 2 holy grails and some nukes and a whole bunch of wmd's we sold to those who hate those who renamed anything french...freedom...I empty my...


people actually believe this shit..wow

[Minstrel Boy]

36. If true, it's probably missed a lot of maintanance

and is nearing the end of its service life. Though it's more likely to be false.

From the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm) by way of Kurt Nimmo (http://kurtnimmo.com/blogger.html):

"The open-source data on suitcase nukes is sketchy and incomplete... Without additional data, it is impossible to say with an acceptable level of certainty whether any number of these weapons was stolen during and following the breakup of the Soviet Union... Available evidence suggests that these stories were most probably not true, and that they were generated by incomplete information or ulterior motives. The probability that such weapons could be used by terrorists (assuming some were stolen) appears even lower.... In addition, there was very little specialized expertise and know-how outside Russia, whereas portable nuclear devices were apparently very complicated in design and required highly skilled professionals to oversee their production and assembly... the period of greatest risk was in the early 1990s, the stolen devices, if any, have already missed as many as 20 routine component replacement procedures and are probably nearing the end of their service life. Consequently, it is nearly certain that they will be unable to produce the design yield and maybe will not be able to produce any yield at all... In effect, portable nuclear devices, if stolen, will hardly be usable, at least not in the fashion that they were originally designed for. They could be, of course, dismantled to extract weapons-grade plutonium, which could then be used in a cruder nuclear device or for a 'dirty bomb'...."

If there's a mushroom cloud somewhere over America this year, Bush's fingerprints will be on the smoking gun.

[Atlant]

47. Then again, unless it's a "boosted" nuke, it probably doesn't need much.

Then again, unless it's a "boosted" nuke, most of the
"Preventative Maintenance" could probably be missed
with no big effect on performance; just keep fresh
batteries in the thing (and some of the nukes apparently
use methods other than batteries to produce the electricity
needed to trigger them).

How long do the pulse neutron ("trigger") tubes last?
(AFAIK, they generally use tritium, so at some point, the
half-life of the tritium would render them useless as well,
*ASSUMING* that the portanukes even use them. Then again,
a recent article from LBL describes a neutron generator
that uses a deuterium-on-deuterium reaction; that one
wouldn't have any half-life effects:

http://www.lbl.gov/Tech-Transfer/techs/lbnl1583.html)

Hoping that any given nuke is a dud seems to me like a hope
that's likely to be blown to smithereens when push comes to
button.

Atlant

[radfringe]

38. been tracking the correlation since last year

http://radicalfringe.freeservers.com/custom2.html

[0rganism]

42. One question tho -- what are the "Exploding Socks"?

Not that I doubt it, but I may have missed that incident. Sometimes I reach my "news limit" early in the day.

[jeanmarc]

45. Wasn't Bin Laden duped into buying phonies?

I remember a story where someone took Bin Laden's money for nukes and didn't deliver. About the same time as well. If they've had them since 1998, you would have thought they would have used one of them at Tora Bora. This article smells of horsecrap.

[Don_G]

50. If They Can Bring It Up On The Internet

And click on the "Print" feature of their browser, then Al-Queda literally has a tactical nuke in their hands and Asskrap has an excuse to lock up another few thousand people as verified by "Intellegence Sources."

[happyslug]

51. I Doubt it.

Given that Tritium has a half-life of 12.5 years and to have a Hydrogen Bomb you have to use an Atomic (Uranium Based) bomb to produce the needed neutrons to explode the H-Bomb, the real issue is the critical mass of the Atomic Bomb that produces the Neutrons.

Now these Suit case based bombs may just be Atomic Bombs (NOT H-bombs) and thus Tritium is not needed, just Uranium or Plutonium . In such a case the critical mass of Plutonium and/or Uranium 235 needed to go super critical is the true limiting factor. To be “Weapons Grade” Uranium or Plutonium must be over 99% Uranium 235 or Plutonium.

Simply put the real issue is How much Uranium or Plutonium is left in these bombs? The problem with both is how to make sure you do not have a “critical mass” before you want the bomb to go “Super-critical”.

Remember an Atomic bomb works by putting enough fissionable material (Uranium 235 or Plutonium) in one place that the mass can sustain an ongoing nuclear reaction (called going Super-Critical). With Uranium this is simple, you just blast (Using TNT) ½ of the Super-Critical amount into the other half (Using Conventional TNT).

With Plutonium it is a little bit more difficult for Plutonium being a man-made element does not like itself even in small sub-critical amounts. Thus you have to divide the Super-Critical amount of Plutonium into portions that do not destroy itself. This is generally 1/12 of the Super-critical amount. Thus with Plutonium you have to time the explosion of all 12 (or more) subsections so that ALL of the Plutonium meets at the same time so that it goes super-critical. If just one of the 12 gets to the spot second early or late the bomb does not go super-critical. Thus Plutonium based bombs are harder to make and maintain (But you can use Plutonium instead of U-235. Most Uranium is U-238 which does not go super-critical, but U-238 can be made into Plutonium easier than it is to separate U-235 from U-238. Given these differences BOTH types of A-bombs have been used since 1945, the Bomb dropped on Hiroshima being a Uranium type bomb with the Nagasaki bomb being a Plutonium based bomb).

Most suitcase types bombs are suspected to be Uranium type bombs, just easier to make and maintain. Some people have described Plutonium based suit case bombs also but these would need to be updated more often than the Uranium type bombs not only in the Strength of the Plutonium but also to make sure the electrical current is ample to run the TNT explosives needed to combine the Plutonium to super-critical mass. Remember if the current is weak you may not set off ALL of the TNT at the same time (Needed to produce the super-critical mass).

Now the real issue is HOW much Plutonium and/or Uranium 235 is still in these bombs? As I said earlier “Weapons Grade” is over 99% Plutonium and/or Uranium 235. After a few years these weapons will down grade do to the break down of the Plutonium and/or Uranium 235. At some point the total amount of Plutonium and/or Uranium 235 will drop below the amount needed to go super-critical. At that point you still have TNT propelling Plutonium and/or Uranium 235 together that will NOT cause a Nuclear Explosion BUT will throw Plutonium and/or Uranium 235 all over the place (In effect a “dirty bomb” i.e. nuclear material being thrown all over the place BUT not nuclear explosion).

My point is that all of the talk of someone using a “Dirty Bomb” may just be want the CIA is willing to discuss because the CIA KNOWS AL Queda has purchased such weapons from the Former USSR, but that these suitcase bombs are no longer capable of going Super-Critical. Since the bombs can not longer go super-critical but still contain a huge amount of TNT which can still explode and spread the remaining Plutonium and/or Uranium 235 over a wide area.

Remember Al Queda may know the above and does not care if the Suitcase bomb goes Super-Critical or not. AL Queda by exploding it near US forces (Or in the US) would cause even greater terror if the suit case bomb do NOT go Super-critical (i.e. people run away from the area of the Explosion instead of being killed. Such movement may do more harm to our Economy than an actual atomic blast). Another way to look at it, is if such a bomb went off in the US other countries may just use such an incident to withdraw their funds from the US. Either way Al Queda wins.

In my opinion IF AL Queda has these bombs, Al Queda knows they may no longer be able to go Super-critical but what Al Queda is waiting for the right target to use them to spread terror. Terror not destruction is what Al Queda wants and for the purpose of Spreading Terror these suitcase bombs are still usable given the right target. To use them against the US Forces in Iraq or Afghanistan would NOT produce the needed terror (Unless the bomb would work as A-Bombs which I do not believe even Al Queda thinks they can). Thus if Al Queda has these bombs they will be used against US Targets NOT US forces in the Mid-East.

Please note the fact that Al Queda has NOT used them implies to me Al Queda may NOT have them. If Al Queda had them the best time to use them was right after 911. They were NOT used (Or if used the use is NOT being admitted to by the US, i.e. the US may have intercepted some of them coming into the US but refused to admit that the US has intercepted any).

Thus given the above restrictions I do not see AL Queda using these Suitcase bombs in the Mid-East, they only usability is against the US. Given NO such attack I doubt AL Queda has such weapons.

Half Life of Tritium:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=47941

[Atlant]

61. Your science is wrong in several critical ways.

While the half-life of Tritium is, indeed, short, the half lives of
Plutonium-239 and Uranium-235 are 24,100 years and 710 million years,
respectively, so I wouldn't worry too much just yet about any loss of
potency due to the radioactive decay of the fissile material.

Also, the reason that U235 is typically used in "gun" mechansim and
Pu239 is typically used in "implosion" devices has to do with the
relative reaction rates versus the self-disassembly of the bomb.
Pu239 reacts VERY quickly with a single shake (binary multiplication)
of the reaction taking just a few nanoseconds (~10). In a gun-type
mechanism, a Pu239 bomb would self-disassemble before much of the
Plutonium had fissioned, leading to a fizzle. In Uranium weapons,
each "shake" takes substantially longer, enabling a gun device to
have a useful bang for the buck.

Portanukes are almost certainly Plutonium bombs owing to the
much lower critical mass of Pu239.

Here's a good general reference on Nuke technology:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm

Atlant

[happyslug]

77. I was trying to keep my explantion simple.

Generally both systems were used, my point to a Uranium Bomb is that a Plutonium bomb requires not only enough fissionable material to go "boom" but sufficient electrical system set off the TNT to get all of the Plutonium together all at one time. A Uranium bomb only requires a review of its fissonable material.

Further while Plutonium has a half life of 24,100 years, that only means in 24,100 years 1/2 of the Plutonium is gone. That does not mean it will take 24,100 years to drop the amount of Plutonium in a bomb to a level that it will NOT go Super-critical. The point where a bomb cease to be able to go supercritical do to the lost of fissonable material occurs at a point WHY before 24,100 years. The exact point is classified (as far as I know and I have no acess to classifed information). This point in more critical for a small nuclear device than for a larger device.

My Point was that the weapon probally can not work as a fissonable bomb (Or no one can be sure it will operate a a fissionable bomb). Given that restriction, it would be better for Al Queda to use it against the US Proper (For against a US Target whether the bomb works or not works is less important than it just blowing up i.e. if the bomb goes super-critical OK, if it does not that is still OK for Al Queda).

Thus my point is if Al Queda had these weapons after 9/11, they would have used them after 9/11 NOT hold them back to use them against US Forces. Against US Forces the bombs, toi be effective, MUST work as fissionable bombs. Just spreading Plutonium all over Iraq will NOT hurt America (remember I am looking at the use of such a weapon from Al Queda position NOT the US Position).

[Atlant]

78. In 1000 years, 3% of the Plutonium disappears.

> Further while Plutonium has a half life of 24,100 years, that only
> means in 24,100 years 1/2 of the Plutonium is gone. That does not
> mean it will take 24,100 years to drop the amount of Plutonium in
> a bomb to a level that it will NOT go Super-critical. The point
> where a bomb cease to be able to go supercritical do to the lost
> of fissonable material occurs at a point WHY before 24,100 years.
> The exact point is classified (as far as I know and I have no acess
> to classifed information).

Okay, let's do the math. In 1000 years, about 3% of the material is
gone (0.5^(1000/24100) ~= 0.97). Do you think that will matter?

How 'bout in 100 years? In that case, about 0.3% of the material is
gone (0.5^(100/24100) ~= 0.99713). Do you think that will matter?
I doubt it.

And, of course, in about 10 years, only about 0.03% of the material
is gone. I'm pretty certain *THAT* won't matter.

As I said, don't count on the half-life of the fissile elements to
save us. If it's boosted or uses a typical neutron-emitting trigger
tube, maybe the half-life of the tritium will save us, but I bet a
clever terraist can lay hands on a bit of tritium pretty easily
(at least enough to rejuvenate the neutron trigger). Hint: Guess
what powers those glow-in-the-dark-forever signs on aircraft and
the like? They're called "betalights".)

Atlant

[happyslug]

80. It might

Again I do not have access to the needed Classified data as to what point an A-bomb does not work (Nor do I want access to such information). Given that the US and the USSR has almost always used 99.99% Plutonium in their bombs I suspect even a slight drop may stop an A-bomb from going Super-Critical (Remember as the material decays, the decayed element can absorb more neutrons and help prevent the entire mass from going super-critical). The smaller the bomb the less material you start out with and thus the greater the likelihood that such weapons reaches a point of NOT going Super-critical (Either through loss of Fissionable material to decay, or absorption of Neutrons during a nuclear reactions that would prevent or reduce the full effect of going supercritical.

Thus I suspect this will occur quicker with suit case sized weapons than with larger A-bombs. Given all the messages of of “Dirty Bombs” I suspect this is the position of the CIA. Thus again my point, if Al Queda had these weapons AND beleive them to be 100% reliable, they would have used them by now. If AL Queda did not have faith in these weapons AL Queda would have used these Weapons after 9/11 instead of keeping them in reserve for use in the Mid-East. Either way the weapons would have been used IF Al Queda had them.

[Voice_of_Europe]

64. Which is the reason for the Nagasaki Bomb

"Givven these differences BOTH types of A-bombs have been used since 1945, the Bomb dropped on Hiroshima being a Uranium type bomb with the Nagasaki bomb being a Plutonium based bomb."


The US wanted to TEST THE OTHER bomb on Nagasaki although the Japanese Emperor already signaled Japan's surrender.
The second one should have never been dropped... now it all makes sense to me!

[happyslug]

79. Dates:

Hiroshima Bombing: August 6, 1945
Soviet Invasion: August 8, 1945
Nagasaki Bombing: August 9, 1945
Offers to Surrender August 10, 1945 (But this was JUST an offer to talk NOT an offer to surrender)
Surrenders: August 14, 1945. This is when Japan finally accepted defeat and surrendered. Note is is FIVE days after the Second Bombing, EIGHT days after the First bombing and 6 days after the Soviet Invasion.

The real reason Japan Surrender was the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria. Up until that invasion Japan had the hope that the US and USSR would get into a fight over Europe and each would than negotiate with Japan for assistance against the other. In such a situation Japan could pull something out of their total defeat.

People tend to forget HOW many people died in the March 1945 Tokyo Fire bomb raid. The deaths exceed clearly Nagasaki and probably exceeds Hiroshima (Do to propaganda since WWII, the Fire bomb raid deaths tend to be discounted and Hiroshima’s deaths magnified to magnify the effect of the atomic bombing. Both Japan and the US have BOTH adopted this policy for different reasons. Japan to show its suffering from being bombed, and the US to show the power of Atomic Weapons).

In reports from early 1945 the US had already decided that Japan would NOT surrender until the USSR invaded Manchuria and destroyed this myth of war between the US and USSR. This is AFTER the US already knew it had at least the Uranium bomb and would have the Plutonium bomb by August 1945. The US even rushed a Plutonium bomb to be shipped out BEFORE it was tested in July 1945 (Both the Uranium and Plutonium bombs were shipped out on the Same Ship). This was to be able to drop the Bombs BEFORE the Soviet Invasion and thus before the Surrender of Japan (The US knew it would take the Russians about three months to move their army from Germany to Japan. Germany surrendered May 7, 1945, three months later was August 1945).

One of the problems the US Air Force had in August 1945 was the fact it had no more targets to hit with its firebombs. The Commander of the Air Force attacking Japan asked permission to bomb the Five Cities he was forbidden to Bomb (These had been reserved for Atomic Bombing but no one told the Air Force units attacking Japan). Thus the Atomic Bombing would NOT be that effective except on these five cities (The other three would have been hit in November when the next three A-bombs would be Ready, in time for the Invasion of the Japanese Home Islands). Japan could have taken these A-bombing (and the planned Gas Attack on Tokyo set for the same period). Remember Japan was already taken more punishement in the form of the ongoing B-29 Firebombing, the Attacks from Carrier based Airplanes and even our Battleships firing at coastal installations (and anything within range of the Battleships 16 inch guns i.e. 20 miles).

Thus the Atomic Bombing had little impact on the reasons Japan Surrender, the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria meant that the US and USSR would work together in the post-war era and Japan could not play one against the other and stay free from both.

One aside, during the 1930s the Japanese had adopted a severe form of Fascism. They thought nothing of killing any and all opposition. Thus by the time of WWII the only organized opposition within Japan was the Communists and their Cell organization. The Head of the Japanese Communists was living in Moscow. Thus the Japanese right wing Government was looking at Soviet Troops across the strait separating Japan from Korea by no later than the First of October (The Red Army reached Port Arthur by September 1st and was entering Korea by that date). If the Japanese Government did not Surrender on August 14th, 1945 they were looking at Soviet Troops in the Home Islands in any invasion set for November (Which the Japanese Military also calculated when the US would invade). If Japan surrendered in August Soviet Troops would be tied up in Manchuria till October and thus the US would be the sole country to occupy Japan. The US hated Communists as much as the Japanese Right Wing so the US would NOT put the Japanese Communist party in charge of Japan (But the Soviet Union would, or at least in the Soviet Occupied sections of Japan). Thus the WWII Japanese Government preferred occupation by the US than a joint US-USSR occupation. To get a US Only Occupation that meant surrendering in August (Which the Japanese did).

My point here is that the real cause for the Surrender of Japan was the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria. Even if NO A-bombs had been dropped the Japanese would still have surrendered on August 15, 1945. If the Japanese waited the Japanese were facing an joint US-USSR occupation when the Japanese preferred sole Occupation by the US. Thus the fact that the US dropped TWO bombs is meaningless, the US did not have to drop even one AND THE US KNEW IT. The sole purpose of the A-bombing was to impress the Russians of the Power of the US not to get the Japanese to surrender.


WWII by date
http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist122/Part3/WWIIChron.htm

Dates in History:
http://www.datesinhistory.com/

[slack]

55. bullshit

no further comment.

[Drifter]

58. And all we have is ...

a tactical idiot.

Cheers
Drifter

[Bandit]

59. I believe Pakistan is made up of Al Qaeda sympathizers.

We just had a huge story about the head nuclear scientist of Pakistan giving nuclear technology throughout the mideast. Why would we doubt that Al Qaeda would be left out if they had money. I think Pakistan should have been the country attacked for WMD and not Iraq (if we had to attack anyone at all). We are just being played for suckers by them now. The adults let the kids play at the whitehouse and we will all suffer greatly.

[Guinness]

60. This is where Bush Sr. and Clinton failed.

After the end of the Cold War, very little was done to account for all the Russian nukes, and now many of them are likely being sold on the black market.

In Afghanistan, our government abandoned its old allies and allowed that country to descend into chaos where anti-American terrorists run free.

Combine these two screwups, and we've got a recipe for disaster.

[Bandit]

68. Did you read any of the threads?

It was stated in several threads that President Clinton had established a buy-out program where as the US was purchasing any and all nuclear arms and technology that we could get our hands on. We figured (and correctly so) that it would definitely be cheaper for us to buy everything up in the first place then have to deal with it in enemy hands. One of Bush*'s first acts was to discontinue that program.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AffirmativeReaction]

73. Is it a tactical nuke?

Or a tactical nuclear weapon related program activity?