A recent example of the nutcase Ashcroft exploiting nuclear ignorance.

[NNadir]

"WASHINGTON - The possibility that al-Qaida or its sympathizers could gain access to a nuclear bomb is the greatest danger facing the United States in the war on terrorism, Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) said Thursday.

U.S. officials "from time to time" uncover evidence terrorists are trying to develop nuclear capability, Ashcroft said without providing any specifics. It is not clear whether they have made any progress, but the United States must take the threat seriously, he said in an interview with The Associated Press.


"If you were to have nuclear proliferation find its way into the hands of terrorists, the entire world might be very seriously disrupted..."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20050127/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/ashcroft_interview

In a culture where nuclear ignorance did not prevail, this rather absurd claim would not even get the dignity of derisive laughter.

Because our culture embraces extreme nuclear science ignorance with gusto however, this pablum is taken seriously.

Pathetic.

[mr_hat]

1. Not a flame, but is there no threat that actual weapons

and fissile materials from former-Soviet states and rogue individuals can find their way into the hands of the highest bidder?

Again, just asking whether this is a myth or an actual threat.

[NNadir]

4. There are no "rogue individuals" with high grade fissionable materials.

That is a myth.

Some high grade nuclear fissionable materials (sample sizes) have been found in international commerce, but this is a very different matter than having enough fissionable material to make a nuclear bomb, and having enough fissionable material to make a nuclear bomb is a very different matter than having a bomb. There are very difficult and very expensive machinery and equipment required to make nuclear bombs. This is why even relatively wealthy states like Iran and Libya simply weren't able to go out and purchase a kit to assemble bombs.

Next we have the issue not only of assembling the bomb (without a criticality accident), but we have the issue of delivering, transporting and maintaining a bomb. A nuclear bomb is not only a sophisticated physical device, requiring precise electronics and precise machining, but they also require very sophisticated chemicals, specifically moldable high yielding radiation stable explosives. That's a tall order. In addition, most bombs have trace quantities of plutonium-240, a highly radioactive compound that is relatively easy to detect at the level of a few atoms or neutron sources like Californium-252, which also is detectable at the level of a few atoms. Most bombs are also quite heavy, often weighing hundreds of kilos, even tons. (It is true that smaller lighter bombs have been made, but only by very sophisticated weapons laboratories having the access to data from hundreds of tests, and the experience of thousands of highly educated scientists and technicians as opposed to a few guys in the back room of a motel in Florida.)

Nuclear terrorism is a myth. It is fear mongering of the type that relies on ignorance and gullibility for credence.

(I knew, BTW, that Colin Powell was lying about nuclear weapons in Iraq the moment I heard what he said. So did just about every other nuclear literate person on the planet, including no doubt every military adviser of Tony Blair, for instance.)

Ashcroft, as is I'm sure is no surprise to anyone on this website, is completely full of shit. I repeat, in an educated world he would not be on the stage longer than it takes to laugh one off one.

[mr_hat]

5. Thank you. I wish knowledge were as easy to spread as fear.

[YankeyMCC]

6. I have to admit

I've been sucked into this particular fear mongering, at least somewhat. I think securing nuclear material like the stuff in the Former Soviet union is worth the money. But thanks for taking the edge off the fear with this dose of reality.

One question. What about "dirty bomb" scenarios? These take a lot less sophistication and just need the radioactive material to be dispursed and released.

[hunter]

7. How is a radiocative "dirty bomb" different from any other dirty bomb?

The general public is more afraid of radiocative bombs than other sorts of toxins. I don't know why.

It is the worst sort of "magical" thinking, and it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Go ahead, think of your worst sort of radioactive dirty bomb, and I can think of a more dangerous non-radioctive "dirty bomb" that would be much easier to make.

Sometimes I think all the leaded gasoline and paint we've used here in the United States, and all the mercury-laden coal we've burned, have made us all retarded... (Ha, ha. See if you can get that study funded!)

Singing "Let the Eagles Soar" and fearing aluminum breasts may be some bizarre symptom of heavy-metal poisoning. Maybe we should all feel sorry for John Ashcroft.

[NNadir]

8. This was one of the first scenarios explored for nuclear war, dumping

fission products on German cities. It was discussed by Robert Oppenheimer during the Manhattan Project because the scientists worried that the war would end before they got to kill some Germans. (They didn't get to kill Germans.)

Oppenheimer rejected this course of action because 1) The delivery of the material would involve huge risk to the air crews that dropped it, because they could not possibly carry enough shielding to keep themselves from being killed, 2) It wouldn't kill very many people compared to the risk of carrying the attack out.

What was true in 1944 is still true today. The degree to which materials are radioactive is inversely proportional to their half-lives. The degree to which they are dangerous is directly proportional to the amount of shielding necessary to isolate, transport and otherwise handle them. It is very difficult to imagine scenarios under which potential terrorists could succeed at preventing detection, and very difficult to imagine a sequence of events in which they got access to highly radioactive material and (at the same time) had the money and technology to isolate it, and then (at the same time) had the means to conceal and transport it.

I suppose it might be possible, at great expense, to make a so called dirty bomb, but the chief danger from such a weapon would be the fear and hysteria it would generate rather to the actual physical health risk and death it might actually produce.

This scenario is slightly, (very, very, very, very slightly) less nonsensical than the nuclear bomb scenario, but the weighted risk is no where near the weighted risk associated with turning the United States government (which IS seriously armed with nuclear weapons) over to a bunch of seriously psychotic individuals with bizarre delusions and religious hallucinations. The fact that the latter has already occurred is a measure of why poor educations kill.

[htuttle]

2. Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it.

Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense! Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year!

[ooglymoogly]

3. thats 'nucular' to you