IS - We'll buy nuclear weapon within 12 months.
Discussion
superkartracer said:
Plausable stuff...
Even if they can't build a nuke they could contaminate a large area very easily with no real expertise.1) Buy as much radioactive material as possible. Probably not difficult at all if you know the right people. Things like decomissioned medical devices, or spent fuel rods. Whatever you can get your hands on.
2) Grind metals and then oxidise with acids to form water-soluble salts.
3) Mix with explosives.
4) Use stategically placed car bombs to detonate.
This will cause the radioactive materials to be taken by the wind and they will get into the water supply contaminating a large area for a long time. I have no idea how you would perform a clean-up after this.
iambeowulf said:
nelly1 said:
Don't worry. This guy will never allow it...
Didn't he try and steal a thermo nuclear warhead?We need Christian Slater.
Pure Hollywood cheese - worth watching for the Tuscan and Halle Berry's norks
knitware said:
Yes, because getting hold of highly enriched uranium is simple, detonating a nuke is simple?
Google how to build, maintain and deploy nuclear bombs, have a read and relax.
Other scenarios exist. Google how to build, maintain and deploy nuclear bombs, have a read and relax.
You would not really need a nuke, you could obtain certain medical rad sources.
This was just a source passed around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
Imagine several of these together, would they achieve critical mass?.
Or have several co-ordinated suicide bombers with the old backpack bomb with a source
and 10kg of Semtex in a city say London or Paris.
There may be few immediate deaths, but you could contaminate key areas of the city.
Would you be happy to work in such an area, even if it was declared clean.
There was also the case of the teenager in the States collecting smoke detectors the the Americium 241
Sources are also used in the oil&gas industry, for rock density and porosity measurements. So there would be material
avaibale close to home in Iraq.
So the real question is, why has this not happened already.
superkartracer said:
knitware said:
It's takes billions in cash and some rather clever people [/footnote]
Nope, it's actually very easy ( this is why people with some knowledge are scared ) , the hard part is making the material (enriched uranium ( (( and expensive bit )) // - Quite easy to build a Hiroshima style "gun" fission device - using a pre-existing artillery gun
The physics of a gun-type fission device are actually pretty simple, on the surface. Two sub-critical masses of highly enriched uranium at opposite ends of a barrel with a case strong enough to contain the reaction for fractions of a second ( artillery gun )
Behind one sub critical mass is an explosive, this fires the mass into the second mass, and the case holds it together long enough for the reaction to take place and boom. If the case doesn't hold, or something was off with the explosives, you get a fizzle.
Most every nuclear weapon these days is an implosion style device that uses explosive lenses and very precise detonation times to compress a sphere of Plutonium to a critical state. 20 years ago the media broke the story that instead of spheres the US was using footballs for their new weapons and it was a big deal for the public to even know that.
In the case of an artillery gun, it is already designed to stand up to high pressure, though it still may need to be the thickest one you can find. One end is already strongly capped by the breach so all you have to do is construct the explosives and plug the end. It's crude, and will probably have a poor yield, but it's possible.
The schematics for building one are essentially public knowledge at this point and all of the parts are available through legal dealers. The only real roadblock is literally just the enriched uranium
So no, it's not hard at all, but enriched uranium, you don't find it down sofa's but there is plenty stashed around, which is concerning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
^^ you don't even need the above!, just stick two bits together ha ha.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdyUuCVc4PI
Enjoy and sleep well.
The advantage that we had over PIRA (other terrorist organisations are available
) was that they wanted to stay alive.If you are up against an enemy who is prepared to die, or even worse wants to die for the cause, the chances of them getting a home run increases exponentially.
Unfortunately, the only chance we have of stopping it happening is good intel. Apparently, IS has some ex-Iraqi officers in their ranks who know how our security services work (we probably trained them, or at least we trained their trainers
). This means that we have to change the way we gather intelligence. This will mean that there will be complaints and lots of folk saying "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear".Apologies if this has been said before......
The only reason IS has stayed around for so long is because they are being supported by KSA, Qatar et al and they will very soon result in the overthrow of Assad's regime - something the Sunni regimes in the ME want and something that we in the West think is a "good idea".
The only reason IS has stayed around for so long is because they are being supported by KSA, Qatar et al and they will very soon result in the overthrow of Assad's regime - something the Sunni regimes in the ME want and something that we in the West think is a "good idea".
sirtyro said:
To deal with them can't we just find out who is buying their oil and stop this?!? Ok they might have a lot of cash now, but if you can stop people doing business with them then it won't be too long. I can't believe that they are that great at economics.
sadly they are, last year they made atleast £13 million from kidnappingup to £1 million A DAY on oil
up to £1 million a month through extorting the eight million people under its full or partial control
they also have some pretty rare antiques to sell on the black market and are involved in people trafficking from Libya where it can cost 1 person up to £2000
all this means they are worth around $2 billion, and have some very wealthy sponsors in the ME should they need more.
Im not so sure they could get a nuclear weapon, but they surely have the funding to get more ballistic missiles
superkartracer said:
Nope, it's actually very easy ( this is why people with some knowledge are scared ) , the hard part is making the material (enriched uranium ( (( and expensive bit )) // -
Quite easy to build a Hiroshima style "gun" fission device - using a pre-existing artillery gun
The physics of a gun-type fission device are actually pretty simple, on the surface. Two sub-critical masses of highly enriched uranium at opposite ends of a barrel with a case strong enough to contain the reaction for fractions of a second ( artillery gun )
Behind one sub critical mass is an explosive, this fires the mass into the second mass, and the case holds it together long enough for the reaction to take place and boom. If the case doesn't hold, or something was off with the explosives, you get a fizzle.
Most every nuclear weapon these days is an implosion style device that uses explosive lenses and very precise detonation times to compress a sphere of Plutonium to a critical state. 20 years ago the media broke the story that instead of spheres the US was using footballs for their new weapons and it was a big deal for the public to even know that.
In the case of an artillery gun, it is already designed to stand up to high pressure, though it still may need to be the thickest one you can find. One end is already strongly capped by the breach so all you have to do is construct the explosives and plug the end. It's crude, and will probably have a poor yield, but it's possible.
The schematics for building one are essentially public knowledge at this point and all of the parts are available through legal dealers. The only real roadblock is literally just the enriched uranium
So no, it's not hard at all, but enriched uranium, you don't find it down sofa's but there is plenty stashed around, which is concerning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
^^ you don't even need the above!, just stick two bits together ha ha.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdyUuCVc4PI
Enjoy and sleep well.
You forgot to mention the Initiator that provides the fast Neutrons that turn the fizzle into fission...Quite easy to build a Hiroshima style "gun" fission device - using a pre-existing artillery gun
The physics of a gun-type fission device are actually pretty simple, on the surface. Two sub-critical masses of highly enriched uranium at opposite ends of a barrel with a case strong enough to contain the reaction for fractions of a second ( artillery gun )
Behind one sub critical mass is an explosive, this fires the mass into the second mass, and the case holds it together long enough for the reaction to take place and boom. If the case doesn't hold, or something was off with the explosives, you get a fizzle.
Most every nuclear weapon these days is an implosion style device that uses explosive lenses and very precise detonation times to compress a sphere of Plutonium to a critical state. 20 years ago the media broke the story that instead of spheres the US was using footballs for their new weapons and it was a big deal for the public to even know that.
In the case of an artillery gun, it is already designed to stand up to high pressure, though it still may need to be the thickest one you can find. One end is already strongly capped by the breach so all you have to do is construct the explosives and plug the end. It's crude, and will probably have a poor yield, but it's possible.
The schematics for building one are essentially public knowledge at this point and all of the parts are available through legal dealers. The only real roadblock is literally just the enriched uranium
So no, it's not hard at all, but enriched uranium, you don't find it down sofa's but there is plenty stashed around, which is concerning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
^^ you don't even need the above!, just stick two bits together ha ha.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdyUuCVc4PI
Enjoy and sleep well.
Also when the scientists were designing the first Uranium gun type weapon they got a bit stuck as using an artillery barrel would have made the bomb too heavy. Someone then pointed out that the reason an artillery barrel was so heavy was due to it needing to last for hundreds or even thousands of shells, a nuclear device is a once only weapon so cheap steel tube is plenty good enough.
rich85uk said:
sadly they are, last year they made atleast £13 million from kidnapping
up to £1 million A DAY on oil
up to £1 million a month through extorting the eight million people under its full or partial control
they also have some pretty rare antiques to sell on the black market and are involved in people trafficking from Libya where it can cost 1 person up to £2000
all this means they are worth around $2 billion, and have some very wealthy sponsors in the ME should they need more.
Im not so sure they could get a nuclear weapon, but they surely have the funding to get more ballistic missiles
Plus thisup to £1 million A DAY on oil
up to £1 million a month through extorting the eight million people under its full or partial control
they also have some pretty rare antiques to sell on the black market and are involved in people trafficking from Libya where it can cost 1 person up to £2000
all this means they are worth around $2 billion, and have some very wealthy sponsors in the ME should they need more.
Im not so sure they could get a nuclear weapon, but they surely have the funding to get more ballistic missiles
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleea...
sirtyro said:
To deal with them can't we just find out who is buying their oil and stop this?!? Ok they might have a lot of cash now, but if you can stop people doing business with them then it won't be too long. I can't believe that they are that great at economics.
Most of it is smuggled into Jordan, Turkey via Syria, and the rest goes Iran via Kurdistan. It's facilitated by corrupt officials and border guards who look the other way. 
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/19/-sp-i...
pingu393 said:
It's very easy to make a bomb go bang. The hard bit is to not be there when it does.
I'd modify that to: It's very easy to make a bomb go bang - making a really good bang is difficult and expensive.So the hard bit is making a really good bang - making it happen at a time and place of your choosing (and as a side effect: not going bang at some inconvenient moment/location) isn't really difficult and as others have suggested, not necessarily a concern for the group in question.
If it so easy to make a nuclear bomb why have so few states built one? Why no terrorist groups or revolutionary armies?
It's been seventy years now since the world knew they existed, perhaps it is actually a tricky thing to do.
The worries over ex soviet stuff have been around for twenty five years now. Surely someone would actually have declared ownership by now if they were being traded?
Then there is the delivery system. It is easy to talk about how it could be smuggled in but it would have to be missed at every step of acquisition, storage and transport.
It's been seventy years now since the world knew they existed, perhaps it is actually a tricky thing to do.
The worries over ex soviet stuff have been around for twenty five years now. Surely someone would actually have declared ownership by now if they were being traded?
Then there is the delivery system. It is easy to talk about how it could be smuggled in but it would have to be missed at every step of acquisition, storage and transport.
cymtriks said:
If it so easy to make a nuclear bomb why have so few states built one? Why no terrorist groups or revolutionary armies?
It's been seventy years now since the world knew they existed, perhaps it is actually a tricky thing to do.
The worries over ex soviet stuff have been around for twenty five years now. Surely someone would actually have declared ownership by now if they were being traded?
Then there is the delivery system. It is easy to talk about how it could be smuggled in but it would have to be missed at every step of acquisition, storage and transport.
International agreements to stop nukes being built. Or, more significantly, stop high enrichment uranium production. Worked fairly well so far, but who can foretell the future?It's been seventy years now since the world knew they existed, perhaps it is actually a tricky thing to do.
The worries over ex soviet stuff have been around for twenty five years now. Surely someone would actually have declared ownership by now if they were being traded?
Then there is the delivery system. It is easy to talk about how it could be smuggled in but it would have to be missed at every step of acquisition, storage and transport.
llewop said:
I'd modify that to: It's very easy to make a bomb go bang - making a really good bang is difficult and expensive.
So the hard bit is making a really good bang - making it happen at a time and place of your choosing (and as a side effect: not going bang at some inconvenient moment/location) isn't really difficult and as others have suggested, not necessarily a concern for the group in question.
It's not that expensive (relatively). I'd estimate that £10k could cause >£100M damage to UK economy. It was around £10k of bought stuff (the rest was nicked) that nearly brought down one of the twin towers in 1993.So the hard bit is making a really good bang - making it happen at a time and place of your choosing (and as a side effect: not going bang at some inconvenient moment/location) isn't really difficult and as others have suggested, not necessarily a concern for the group in question.
If that had been successfully set off in the centre of London or under Canary Wharf it would be much worse than the mess left after PIRA bombed Manchester in 1996. They targeted Manchester because London was too well defended and they didn't want to be caught. I don't think IS would be so worried about a stretch in Belmarsh (unless they knew they would be force-fed pork by scantly clad female warders clothed only in torn up Korans).
IS are interested in money and territory, not launching major attacks on the West. They hate Shiites, Yazidis, Kurds etc more than they do us - sure we'll see lone wolf attacks by people claiming to have been inspired by IS (like in Sydney) but there is no evidence to suggest IS are going to go down the Al-Q route anytime soon.
superkartracer said:
Nope, it's actually very easy ( this is why people with some knowledge are scared ) , the hard part is making the material (enriched uranium ( (( and expensive bit )) // -
Quite easy to build a Hiroshima style "gun" fission device - using a pre-existing artillery gun
The physics of a gun-type fission device are actually pretty simple, on the surface. Two sub-critical masses of highly enriched uranium at opposite ends of a barrel with a case strong enough to contain the reaction for fractions of a second ( artillery gun )
Behind one sub critical mass is an explosive, this fires the mass into the second mass, and the case holds it together long enough for the reaction to take place and boom. If the case doesn't hold, or something was off with the explosives, you get a fizzle.
Most every nuclear weapon these days is an implosion style device that uses explosive lenses and very precise detonation times to compress a sphere of Plutonium to a critical state. 20 years ago the media broke the story that instead of spheres the US was using footballs for their new weapons and it was a big deal for the public to even know that.
In the case of an artillery gun, it is already designed to stand up to high pressure, though it still may need to be the thickest one you can find. One end is already strongly capped by the breach so all you have to do is construct the explosives and plug the end. It's crude, and will probably have a poor yield, but it's possible.
The schematics for building one are essentially public knowledge at this point and all of the parts are available through legal dealers. The only real roadblock is literally just the enriched uranium
So no, it's not hard at all, but enriched uranium, you don't find it down sofa's but there is plenty stashed around, which is concerning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
^^ you don't even need the above!, just stick two bits together ha ha.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdyUuCVc4PI
Enjoy and sleep well.
Uneducated rubbish.Quite easy to build a Hiroshima style "gun" fission device - using a pre-existing artillery gun
The physics of a gun-type fission device are actually pretty simple, on the surface. Two sub-critical masses of highly enriched uranium at opposite ends of a barrel with a case strong enough to contain the reaction for fractions of a second ( artillery gun )
Behind one sub critical mass is an explosive, this fires the mass into the second mass, and the case holds it together long enough for the reaction to take place and boom. If the case doesn't hold, or something was off with the explosives, you get a fizzle.
Most every nuclear weapon these days is an implosion style device that uses explosive lenses and very precise detonation times to compress a sphere of Plutonium to a critical state. 20 years ago the media broke the story that instead of spheres the US was using footballs for their new weapons and it was a big deal for the public to even know that.
In the case of an artillery gun, it is already designed to stand up to high pressure, though it still may need to be the thickest one you can find. One end is already strongly capped by the breach so all you have to do is construct the explosives and plug the end. It's crude, and will probably have a poor yield, but it's possible.
The schematics for building one are essentially public knowledge at this point and all of the parts are available through legal dealers. The only real roadblock is literally just the enriched uranium
So no, it's not hard at all, but enriched uranium, you don't find it down sofa's but there is plenty stashed around, which is concerning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
^^ you don't even need the above!, just stick two bits together ha ha.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdyUuCVc4PI
Enjoy and sleep well.
Amazing what you can't learn from wiki(something) or YouTube. Good scare stories for the tin hats though and self-perpetuating by Google experts.
Edited by knitware on Sunday 24th May 23:34
Edited by knitware on Sunday 24th May 23:36
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff