American Hiroshima. Discuss.

[greenman3610]

heard this listening to Mike Malloy show via White Rose.
I have not taken this talk seriously because I assumed this was
merely right wing paranoia. The documentation here
suggests that real people with real creds are taking it seriously.

http://www.madison.com/post/blogs/micprog/index.php?ntid=47736&ntpid=2
------

While our intelligence agencies investigate library records of Americans, former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams has found that al-Qaida has obtained between a dozen and seventy fully assembled nuclear weapons with the unlimited cash provided by the booming heroin trade in Afghanistan.  Citing military sources, WorldNetDaily reports that at least half of these weapons were bought from Chechen separatists.  Al-Qaida paid Spetznaz, former Russian special forces, to help locate loose nukes.  Some of these weapons are already inside the U.S., smuggled across the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang.

The goal is not just to kill millions of Americans, but also destroy our economy and end the United States as we now know it.  Harvard University's founding dean of the Kennedy School of Government and former senior Pentagon official, Graham Allison, confirms the reports of the American Hiroshima plan and adds that on October 11, 2001 Bush was informed by the C.I.A. that Al-Qaida had already smuggled a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb stolen from the former Soviet Union into New York City.

[Eric J in MN]

1. The FBI should be devoting most of its resources

to Al Qaeda instead of animal rights groups.

Animal rights groups aren't trying to nuke us.

UBL and Mullah Omar are trying to nuke us.

[bloom]

19. and eco-terrorists

The FBI came out with a pronouncement that eco-terrorists are our biggest terrorist threat.

Actually - I think Bush&Co. are our biggest threat.

IF anyone nukes anyone - I suspect it will be because of Bush&Co.

:nuke:


From: http://billmon.org/archives/002051.html


"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice
President Dick Chaney's office, has tasked the United
States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a
contingency plan to be employed in response to another
9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The
plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran
employing both conventional and tactical nuclear
weapons....

Several senior Air Force officers involved in the
planning are reportedly appalled at the implications
of what they are doing -- that Iran is being set up
for an unprovoked nuclear attack -- but no one is
prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

[Eric J in MN]

27. They said that eco-terrorists are the most dangerous domestic

group, which sidesteps Al Qaeda which is a foreign group.

I wish the public was told how much money and how many officers the FBI devotes to each.

They keep that stuff secret in the name of security, but I believe that informing the public about such things would INCREASE security be leading to public demands to address the most serious threats.

[Maple]

2. If they'd had them

they'd have used them by now.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Not necessarily.

One M.O. of A.Q. is they are big on dates.

August 7 is the anniversary of Hiroshima. Having a project of multiple cities in the U.S. hit on that date is sort of historical blow-back, even though it's AQ, not Japan. Sort of humanity retro.

There isn't much you could do to get ready for it if this is true. Even if you go to another country, if the U.S. economy is destroyed, so too the world economy.

[greenman3610]

4. in following some of the links here

I read further down in the article about nukes in NYC.
the article said, "fortunately, the report was untrue".

that takes some of the wind out of it, but still,
if someone from KSG is taking this
seriously, so should we.
I've always felt that nuclear terrorism was the
ultimate threat.

[Maple]

5. You are big on dates

there is no evidence that they are.

And if the US economy is wiped out, the world will carry on just as it always has.

[happyslug]

10. Has to be an islamic or Arabic based date.

While Hiroshima might be big in our background, it is less of one in the background of Al Queda.

I also agree that if Al Queda has a WORKABLE A-bomb it would have used it already. I suspect Al Queda bought some from the Russian Mafia, but none of them retaining enough fissionable material to go super critical (Thus the reports last year of a "Dirty Bomb", if the amount of Fissionable drops below the level to go supercritical).

Remember how an Atomic bomb works, it is pushing together of sub-Super critical amount of Fissionable material to a supercritical mass, thus starting the Nuclear reaction. This is done by TNT exploding and pushing the fissionable material together (In a uranium type bomb it is just one explosion pushing one half of the Uranium to the other, in a Plutonium bomb it is simultaneous explosion so that the 12-16 sub critical amounts meet together to the supercritical amount and thus the Nuclear Reaction).

I fully expect bin Laden would like to purchase such bombs. but given the fact that fissionable material is always deteriorating (Called its half-Life) I also believe none of the bombs he purchased actually work. Unlike TNT and other explosives, you just can't test part of it to make sure all of it actually work. A-Bombs once used (Even in a Test) it is no longer around to be used. Thus easy for the Russian Mafia to sell A-bombs that look like they will work, designed to work, but not tested in years or even decades. When did the fissionable material fall below the amount needed to go supercritical? I can not tell you, bin Laden can not tell you. No one will know until one goes off.

Thus in my opinion the problem of making sure the bomb will work before one uses such a bomb, would have prevented bin LAden from buying an Atomic bomb. If bin Laden had a bomb, he would not know if it would work. If he tested it, he will have one less bomb AND AMER CIA would know where he was AND that he had the bomb (Leading to the US to use the Bomb).

I will NOT go into he concept of Terrorism which is to terrorize NOT to kill (Through killing is part of terrorizing). Look at the London bombings, people were killed but more people would wounded AND many people NOT near the explosion scared. That is want bin Laden wants and he gets it more from small attacks than using an atomic bomb/

[longship]

17. Initiators?

A bomb won't work, or at least not be reliable without an initiator, a small device that guarantees that a couple of neutrons will fission an atom or two at the moment of supercriticality. This has to happen within a very, very short period of time, but not before then, otherwise predetonation occurs and the bomb is a relative dud, i.e., just a dirty bomb.

For a uranium bomb, the two parts of the initiator come together explosively with the two U235 slugs.

A plutonium bomb works by a collection of explosives which make a spherically symmetric implosion which compress a subcritical plutonium core into supercritical density and simultaneously crushing the initiator at the center to release the requisite neutrons. The design of a reliable plutonium initiator would not be trivial.

These initiators are the most secret thing about the bombs. A stored nuke would not have these nuclear triggers in them and without them the bomb can not go off reliably.

[happyslug]

18. Yes, Initiators are important.

But in a Uranium bomb quite simple, just a blast of TNT behind one half of the uranium needed to to super-critical that forces it into the other half. Simple and effective, can be just an old fashion blasting cap (To set off the TNT).

Uranium is quite stable at any amount less than its sub-Supercritical mass. Plutonium on the other is unstable at sub-supercritical mass of Plutonium, and is only stable when reduced to very small mass (Basically unless kept at a very small mass, Plutonium will start to destroy itself, this is why Plutonium does not exist in nature, in any size large enough to last till today. it would have destroyed itself and in small amounts would have decayed millions if not billions of years ago if it existed in nature).

Thus one can NOT use the simple and effective method of a uranium bomb if you are dealing with plutonium. The mechanism needed is to get the various very small masses of Plutonium together in the Split-second needed to start nuclear reaction so that the Plutonium can go supercritical, but keep them apart so that the Plutonium does not destroy itself. From what I have read the number of masses of Plutonium needed is 12 (Some of this information is classified, I have had only access to un-classified information).

This brings us to the critical key to a Plutonium bomb which is to get these 12 masses of Plutonium together AT THE EXACT SAME TIME so that the resulting mass of Plutonium is above its supercritical level and it goes supercritical (i.e. you get a Nuclear reaction). Thus a Plutonium initiator is quite complex. It has to set off 12 explosive Charges of TNT so that each goes off and pushes the Plutonium behind the TNT to the center of the bomb and all of the Plutonium meet at that center at the same time.

While I can see the Initiators not being kept with the bomb, for a Uranium bomb that is NOT a big factor, all you have to do is add TNT and a blasting cap (In fact the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium type bomb and was NOT tested to see of the mechanism would work, it was just dropped, unlike the Nagasaki/Trinity Plutonium bomb that had to be tested at Trinity to see if the bomb would work as designed when dropped in Nagasaki).

On the other hand the Plutonium bomb the Initiators is much more complex and probably (again I have not access to classified information) kept with the bomb except for the initial switch that sets off the electrical current to the electrical fuses that sets off the TNT). The difficult part would be setting up the TNT charges and I see that staying on the bomb, with only the battery and electrical switch being stored elsewhere. Those would be easy to install compared to the 12 TNT charges. Again possible to replace them with home made switch and battery.

My point here is that the Initiators, while important, are either stored on the bomb or easy to be retrofitted if all you plan to do is set them off while in a truck, a suitcase or a ship.

One last note, we are getting off the REAL subject here, which is does OBL really have such weapons? IF he did he would have used them by now EVEN IF THEY DID NOT WORK. The fear produced by just having them would produce the terror which is what OBL really wants from an A-Bomb. Deaths and Destructions are only OBL's method to obtain Terror, it is terror that OBL truly wants and a mal-functioning bomb would do as much good as a real one.

[longship]

25. I don't think you understood my post

You don't seem to understand what an initiator is.

An initiator is a source of neutrons which at the precise instant of supercriticality gives up some neutrons to start the chain reaction. It has nothing to do with the conventional explosives which assemble the sub-critical components.

Usually, the initiator uses a pair of complimentary radio-active substances which, when combined, emit neutrons, but when separate do not. One would not want stray neutrons attempting to start a chain reaction in the pre-assembled, sub-critical core. But, and this is important, one needs a couple of neutrons to trigger the chain reaction at the point when the assembly reaches super-criticality.

There are natural emissions which can do this, for instance cosmic rays, but in the nano second time frame of the supercriticality one could not be sure that a stray neutron would be available to trigger the chain reaction. That's why every atomic bomb has an initiator. Without it, the bomb would likely just blow itself apart before a chain reaction could begin resulting in a sub-critical explosion. In other words, it would likely be a dud--a dirty bomb.

Also, in a modern plutonium bomb, the plutonium core is a single, sub-critical, spherical piece of plutonium--with an embedded initiator--which is made to go super-critical by compressing it with an implosion. When the spherically symmetric compression wave compresses the core to supercriticality, it also crushes the initiator capsule which then gives up some neutrons to begin the chain reaction.

The multiple pieces in a plutonium bomb of which you wrote are the conventional explosives used to make the spherically symmetric implosion. They are not made out of plutonium, however there may be a plutonium or uranium tamper between the explosive lens and the fission core made of multiple pieces. The supercriticality happens in the core, not that tamper.

The initiator in a uranium bomb is in two pieces, one on each subcritical piece. When the two assemble, at the exact point of supercriticality, the two parts of the initiator collide together producing the needed neutron emission to trigger the chain reaction.

And, this was my point in my original post. Nukes are not stored with their initiators for two reasons. 1. A nuke fused with an initiator is fucking dangerous. 2. The initiator is the most secret part of the bomb's design. Initiators are installed when the bomb is fused for use.

So if a terrorist has a nuke, it is most likely without the initiator. No initiator? No nuclear explosion. It's a dirty bomb. Lots less dangerous, but no less terrorizing.

[shadowknows69]

24. August 7th is also my wedding anniversary

can we please bump the nuking up until the next week? I'd like to have one last Anniversary skrog with the missus before the end.

[Erika]

6. It is insane to think they will not hit us again.

They will and Bush has done little to stop it. His world corporate buddies are the winner in a terrorist attack any where including our country. W's loyalty to the U.S. is only in the context his corporate world buddies will gain.

[Maple]

8. They don't need to

The US is doing a fine job of scaring itSELF to death.

Not to mention removing 'freedoms' and bankrupting the country.

[neweurope]

7. They seem to know every last detail about Al Qaida...

down to the color of their socks. Why, I wonder, can't they catch them, though?

Don't believe a word of it. If a nuclear device should ever get off in the US I'd think of the Bologna train massacre... and certain Anthrax cases.

--------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to the Hague!

[Maple]

9. Yes they do

Curious,no?

[randomelement]

11. Al-Qaida is nothing if not patient

They'll wait until we (or our proxy Israel) nuke Iran (small, tactical one) to take out Iran's nuclear program. Once that happens, they'll consider the gloves are really off (I believe bin Laden did make the statement that they would not use nukes first). I've read some scary scenarios that have NY and LA as the first targets with either the Russians and/or the Chinese joining in with a surprise strike or two to kick us while we're down (I mean, it's all about the oil, isn't it?). It'll be followed up with a multiple aerial burst over the country (EMP) to bring everything to a screeching halt - we'll be sitting ducks. (ABSOLUTE PURE SPECULATION HERE FOLKS, SO TAKE THIS WITH A HUGE GRAIN OF SALT!!) Of course, if President DipShit gave a damn about us instead of his oil buddies, we would be moving to more sustainable energy sources, but we've all seen his "Energy Policy" haven't we? The kicker, of course, is that he gets to hunker down with his buddies in that deep little tunnel he has available while those of us left alive (if any) fend for ourselves .... but then, we're not the "haves" or the "have mores" are we -

There is one small consolation if the above or something similar occurs - it would mean the fundies were right. And if they were right, then Bush and his cronies will have a MUCH bigger problem to deal with ...

[Hello_Kitty]

12. Aw jeez....and I was in such a good mood tonight...

Sigh...

[Maple]

13. Relax

It ain't gonna happen. Retain your good mood.

[Hello_Kitty]

14. Whew! Thanks. I feel better now.

Back to my laundry...:hi:

[randomelement]

15. I agree with Maple - keep the good mood

Remember I said PURE SPECULATION! I myself am looking forward to the hockey season and I'll be damned if some rumors about some bombs in the hands of some people is going to spoil the mood. There's all kinds of crap out in "the internets" about this stuff - doesn't mean any of it is true. Now go have a beer .....

[Hello_Kitty]

16. You're right

And if it happens there's nothing we can do about it anyway. Cheers :toast:

[Silverhair]

22. That is NOT reality based.

We STILL have lots of missiles in silos and at sea. No way will Russia & China join in. For them to do so would give us an identifiable target to vent our rage on. They would be turned to glass and still have plenty left over for Iran and a few other nations.

OBL would certainly use nukes if he had them, but everybody else would run for cover.

Even under a Democratic President, somebody would catch HELL if a nuke was popped on our soil. That's why I found Clancy's novel, "The Sum of All Fears" to be so STUPID and UNREALISTIC. Denver, CO gets nukes and Americans are satisfied with only terrorist getting beheaded? Yeah - Right - NOT.

A nuclear attack on America will mean retaliation on somebody. It may not be the right somebody, but it will be somebody.

BTW - Just because I predict something does not mean I advocate it.

[bassman79]

20. Just remember: When the terrorist attack, give up your freedoms

[Bucky]

21. I read up to the point where it said "WorldNetDaily." Then I laughed.

Folks, WorldNetDaily is run by Freepers with better grammar skills. Sorry, but if bin Laden had a dozen working nukes, New York, Washington, Riyadh, and Teheran would be glowing by now. And fuzzface would be sitting around the cave trying to figure out what to do with his 8 remaining nukes. He sure as hell wouldn't be blowing up buses in London.

This is about as credible as the Weekly World News. Pay it no attention whatsoever.

[The Traveler]

23. Bushistas lack professionalism

So this is quite possible. Thia kinda of disaster is facilitated when government is infested with yes men and idealogues. The Bushco ideology causes them to maintain a porous southern border, enabling exploitation of the desperate. Unfortunately, it also facilitates the penetration of America by its enemies. Instead of protecting our borders, we have invaded another country that had no involvement in the 9/11 attack and posed no credible imminent threat. In the name of security, the Bushistas have passed laws enabling the government to check up on our library selections. Sealing our borders is contrary to the ideology of the free marketeers ... but apparently surrendering the liberty and privacy of individual Americans in the name of security is not.

All this is of course logically absurd ... but logic is not taught in our schools these days and the majority of people just don't get it.

The Bushistas are playing a dangerous game in their quest for imperium. Unfortunately, our heads are the ones that have been placed on the chopping block.

[VOX]

26. This is all over the Internet lately. And it's 7/8 scare-mongering crap...

Check the sources: WorldNetDaily? It's a psychotically right-wing rag! As for "former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams," check amazon.com for his book titles and their content. He is a lightweight hack of the first order, and is hardly a reliable source.

But really, just what faction benefits from this kind of scare-mongering? The right wing, obviously -- its entire underpinnings of control depend completely upon maintaining a frightened populace.

Since acts of global terrorism are on the increase, and since our physical presence in the Middle East has stirred up a hornet's nest, 1/8 of this type of scare-story should serve as cautionary -- because, sadly, it's only a matter of time before another event occurs. Very doubtful that it would be nuclear, though -- probably more along the lines of what happened in London, and perhaps it can be prevented or thwarted beforehand.

Americans must remain vigilant, but should never live their lives in fear.