The Real Deal about Suitcase Nuclear Weapons

For three years the Bush Administration has been trying to scare Americans into supporting wars. One of the exuses they have used to support the war in Iraq is that if the war is not fought in Iraq someone might bring a nuclear weapon in a suitcase to America. The Bush Administration has made the act of getting a suitcase nuke into America and setting it off seem like a relatively easy job. This is compeletly false. From what two men said last night on a conservative talk show, getting a suitcase nuke to America and setting it off is a very hard thing to do. The difficulty does not come from our border security, but the training it takes to assemble and set off a suitcase nuke. According to these to men, both of whom worked with, or trained to work with nuclear weapons, it takes years of training to learn how to set off a suitcase nuke. In addition, one person cannot setoff these nukes. It would take a least two or more people to set it off. Futhermore, after a certian number of years there is a switch that renders these nukes useless. So in my opinion all this stuff the Bush Administration has been feeding us about needing to attack different countries in order to assure that noone bring a suitcase nuke to America was nothing more than an unfounded fear tactic to get people to support war and vote for Bush. It seems highly unlikely that anyone will setoff a suitcase nuke in America because of how difficlt it would be.

Believe me.

180

For sure. "A nuclear hand grenade is feasible but difficult to throw."

180

"Documents found strewn on the floor of a Taliban recruitment centre in Kabul, apparently describing how to build a thermonuclear device, . . . - Scary, right?

Or not . . .

". . . .may not be as frightening as they first seem.

The papers were picked out by BBC correspondent John Simpson and
showed, he said, "how dangerous Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network aspired to be".

But the sentences shown in focus by the camera also come from a famous document called "Weekend Scientist: Let's Make a Thermonuclear Device", which was first published in 1979 as a humour piece by The Journal of Irreproducible Results.

The paper was written in response to US court decisions of the time that restricted popular magazines from detailing how to make a bomb. Since all the information is freely available in public libraries anyway, the author said, he decided to provide a humorous "ten easy steps" proving how easy bomb building can be.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991584

http://susannassoapbox.com/njoke.html


On edit: Here are the instructions on How To Build An Atom Bomb:

CONSTRUCTION METHOD

First, obtain about 50 pounds (110 kg) of weapons grade Plutonium at your local supplier (see NOTE 1). A nuclear power plant is not recommended, as large quantities of missing Plutonium tends to make plant engineers unhappy. We suggest that you contact your local terrorist organization, or perhaps the Junior Achievement in your neighborhood.

Please remember that Plutonium, especially pure, refined Plutonium, is somewhat dangerous. Wash your hands with soap and warm water after handling the material, and don't allow your children or pets to play in it or eat it. Any left over Plutonium dust is excellent as an insect repellant. You may wish to keep the substance in a lead box if you can find one in your local junk yard, but an old coffee can will do nicely.

Fashion together a metal enclosure to house the device. Most common varieties of sheet metal can be bent to disguise this enclosure as, for example, a briefcase, a lunch pail, or a Buick. Do not use tinfoil.

Arrange the Plutonium into two hemispheral shapes, separated by about 4 cm. Use rubber cement to hold the Plutonium dust together.

Now get about 100 pounds (220 kg) of trinitrotoluene (TNT). Gelignite is much better, but messier to work with. Your helpful hardware man will be happy to provide you with this item.

Pack the TNT around the hemisphere arrangement constructed in step 4. If you cannot find Gelignite, fell free to use TNT packed in with Playdo or any modeling clay. Colored clay is acceptable, but there is no need to get fancy at this point.

Enclose the structure from step 6 into the enclosure made in step 3. Use a strong glue such as "Crazy Glue" to bind the hemisphere arrangement against the enclosure to prevent accidental detonation which might result from vibration or mishandling.

To detonate the device, obtain a radio controlled (RC) servo mechanism, as found in RC model airplanes and cars. With a modicum of effort, a remote plunger can be made that will strike a detonator cap to effect a small explosion. These detonatior caps can be found in the electrical supply section of your local supermarket. We recommend the "Blast-O-Mactic" brand because they are no deposit-no return.

Now hide the completed device from the neighbors and children. The garage is not recommended because of high humidity and the extreme range of temperatures experienced there. Nuclear devices have been known to spontaneously detonate in these unstable conditions. The hall closet or under the kitchen sink will be perfectly suitable.

Now you are the proud owner of a working thermonuclear device! It is a great ice-breaker at parties, and in a pinch, can be used for national defense.

THEORY OF OPERATION

The device basically works when the detonated TNT compresses the Plutonium into a critical mass. The critical mass then produces a nuclear chain recation similar to the domino chain reaction (discussed in this column, "Dominos on the March", March, 1968). The chain reaction then promptly produces a big thermonuclear reaction. And there you have it, a 10 megaton explosion!

http://winn.com/bs/atombomb.html

Even given the fissile material--which would be nearly impossible to get and transport, you cannot simply detonate TNT around a core to create an efficient thermonuclear reaction. The timing has to be precise, or else you create a dirty bomb (ie a dud), not a thermonuclear bomb.

Building a working spherical device is technically challenging. It's not something your average terrorist group could pull off. They'd probably kill themselves from radiation exposure long before they had anything that would go bang.

Well, don't worry, they fooled Tom Ridge, too:

Quote " . . . late last week white-haired BBC reporter John Simpson included footage of the document in a report from the building, along with pictures of left-behind weapons, explosives, hand grenades and even box-cutters. Anthony Lloyd, a reporter from the Times of London also appears to have discovered the document, since he refers to its erroneous instructions about using TNT to create a thermo-nuclear device. "The vernacular quickly spun out of my comprehension but there were phrases through the mass of chemical symbols and physics jargon that anyone could understand," Lloyd wrote. Soon the Times report was being included in articles by the Associated Press.

In a strange twist, the Times report was addressed in a Thursday press conference by Governor Tom Ridge, director of the Office of Homeland Security. Ridge referred to the discovery of "materials relative to a nuclear threat" and said they were "certainly consistent with statements that he would like to acquire that capacity."

"It is not to say, it does not confirm that he has the capacity," Ridge told the reporters. "It just says that whether it's bin Laden or some other potential foe of this country, we have to be prepared for all eventualities, including a nuclear threat."

http://www.alternet.org/story/11935

Nice to know we have these Geniuses (or transparent Fear Mongerers - take your pick) Protecting Us.

But still the writer fails to make it absolutely clear that you cannot make a bomb without sophisticated technology. It takes more than just the fissile material. Most people might take it on face value--like Ridge did.

I would appreciate a link.

they should really be called "a couple of footlockers" nukes.

http://www.ransac.org/Documents/suitcasenukes090103.pdf

If you're going to have a COVERT OPERATION that initiates an apparent attack on the US or any nation, it is absolutely essential that you have a BACK STORY in place which can be used as an EXPLANATION OF EVENTS. Whether or not this 'explanation' is factual or true is mostly irrelevant as "conspiracy theorists" and "coincidence theorists" will argue the points indefinitely, leading to the overall sense by many that "the truth can never be fully known."

Whether "suitcase nukes" actually exist or not; whether "setting one off" is easy or not is MOSTLY IRRELEVANT. What *IS* important is that people have "heard" that a) they exist and b) they are relatively easy to set off.

THUS when a 'small nuclear devise' is unleashed on a city center resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and possibly millions of casualties and utter horror and devastation broadcast live 24/7 around the world for days and days and days -- YOU WILL ALREADY HAVE PLANTED IN THE MINDS OF EVERYONE THE "EXPLANATION" FOR WHAT HAS HAPPENED. Talking head: "Apparently a suitcase nuke was set off in ___________ today, causing untold casualties and monumental devastation. The President has called for Congress to grant him executive powers as commander-in-chief for preemptive nuclear strikes against any nation intelligence contends may have been involved with the attack or harboring the terrorists group(s) responsible for the attack. Martial law has been declared while the world morns ..."

It's like that. The truth is IRRELEVANT. How the hell would anyone know, anyway? Do differing radiation sources have different signatures -- the way the anthrax was shown to have originated from US military sources, for example? And even if it does, WHO would believe that agents controlled by chains of command within our on society could do such a horrible horrible thing?