Not too much to worry

I'm not so worried about somebody building their own nukes as somebody acquiring somebody else's nukes *COUGH*Russia*COUGH* and using them on a city or port.

In Clancy's "The Sum Of All Fears", the terrorists started with an Isreali nuclear missle (and hired a Russian scientist, I believe) and the level of effort to turn it into a bomb was *still* extraordinary (and Clancy didn't include everything)

The precision equipment needed is very expensive and very hard to get a hold of. The expertise to do it right is rare. Creating the working conditions is prohibitive.

Starting with a nuclear missle and building a bomb is like starting with just a computer chip and building an entirely functional PC. The general theory is easy, the details are daunting. You need to know a lot of specific information and get your hands on specific parts and equipment; and those specifics are not easy to come by with nuclear weapons

Yes, over past decades, quite sophisticated electronic interlocks / coded links etc. are a part of all operational devices. And as about everbody realizes now, for an implosion device to work: simultaneity of the multiple detonators is - simply crucial.

Remember too, possession of a functionable 'missile' means that the difficult shaped charges of suitable er 'brissance' are in place. Replacing a sophisticated, coded initiating electronics with one designed for mere: simultaneous signals to the detonators - will do very well. (You might well screw up the extra pre-steps needed for fusion devices to operate optimally.. so ??) Simply scrap the appurtenanaces for arming, protection, prevention. Not 'simple' but: basic electronic theory with a plethora of semiconductor devices to assist one. All the intricate physics has been done.

That said, and given that Pu is unsuitable for a vastly-simpler gun-type device (Pu will pre-maturely explode the device, because of its neutron capture cross-section) - U-235 still abounds: what else ya gonna do with all the Oak Ridge effluent?

THAT is a design project much easier to accomplish with garden-variety materials and no PhD (though that would help). One can imagine it all to death, of course - and the amateur could *never* construct a functional attache-sized device! But.. Even a crummy say "70 ton" yield, in any number of places -

"Not to worry" is the ostrich position. To worry into distraction - the ignorant alarmist's. Something in between seems appropriate.

A.

Post #12,651 by Fearless Freep 10/10/01 12:57:03 PM Reply	Not too much to worry I'm not so worried about somebody building their own nukes as somebody acquiring somebody else's nukes COUGHRussiaCOUGH* and using them on a city or port.* In Clancy's "The Sum Of All Fears", the terrorists started with an Isreali nuclear missle (and hired a Russian scientist, I believe) and the level of effort to turn it into a bomb was still extraordinary (and Clancy didn't include everything) The precision equipment needed is very expensive and very hard to get a hold of. The expertise to do it right is rare. Creating the working conditions is prohibitive. Starting with a nuclear missle and building a bomb is like starting with just a computer chip and building an entirely functional PC. The general theory is easy, the details are daunting. You need to know a lot of specific information and get your hands on specific parts and equipment; and those specifics are not easy to come by with nuclear weapons Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #12,652 by inthane-chan 10/10/01 12:57:56 PM Reply	Yeah, read that book. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #12,723 by Ashton 10/10/01 5:07:51 PM Reply	Generally so, but.. Yes, over past decades, quite sophisticated electronic interlocks / coded links etc. are a part of all operational devices. And as about everbody realizes now, for an implosion device to work: simultaneity of the multiple detonators is - simply crucial. Remember too, possession of a functionable 'missile' means that the difficult shaped charges of suitable er 'brissance' are in place. Replacing a sophisticated, coded initiating electronics with one designed for mere: simultaneous signals to the detonators - will do very well. (You might well screw up the extra pre-steps needed for fusion devices to operate optimally.. so ??) Simply scrap the appurtenanaces for arming, protection, prevention. Not 'simple' but: basic electronic theory with a plethora of semiconductor devices to assist one. All the intricate physics has been done. That said, and given that Pu is unsuitable for a vastly-simpler gun-type device (Pu will pre-maturely explode the device, because of its neutron capture cross-section) - U-235 still abounds: what else ya gonna do with all the Oak Ridge effluent? THAT is a design project much easier to accomplish with garden-variety materials and no PhD (though that would help). One can imagine it all to death, of course - and the amateur could never construct a functional attache-sized device! But.. Even a crummy say "70 ton" yield, in any number of places - "Not to worry" is the ostrich position. To worry into distraction - the ignorant alarmist's. Something in between seems appropriate. A.

Welcome to IWETHEY!