Weaver wrote:Tortured_Genius wrote:Final piece of good news. Check out the weapon documentation on wikileaks sometime. The stuff on there (mostly pertaining to the Fat Man bomb) makes it very, very clear that making nukes is the sole preserve of nation states with highly developed engineering facilities.
Do you have link to this? Until quite recently, it's been against laws and regulations for me to go poking around that site ...
This leads to the sucker I remembered:
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/How_Britain_got_the_bombIt was declassified in the late 90's, reclassified in 2002, attempted take-down in 2008..... All a bit of a joke really since it's all old known physics. The bit I also remembered:
The real problem about building one of these designs is the rarity (at least outside of NWS nuclear facilities) of plutonium and polonium, as well as the ability to fabricate sophisticated high explosives to exacting specifications. We’re not talking about IEDs here. To build a nuclear weapon requires a state.
No knocking up devices in garages for Al Quaeda (polluting dirty bombs being a different beast entirely).
Dirty bombs are bullshit. Honest reporting by the media would make it quite clear that these shouldn't even be classed as "fear" weapons, but should be put in the same category as ordinary explosives. The health risk from "dirty bombs" is almost entirely from explosive damage, plus a minuscule lifetime chance of increased cancers. If it wasn't for scare-mongering politicians and complicit media searching for exciting stories, we would never hear about this crap at all.
Think we are getting into terminology confusion here based on our own backgrounds. Having been trained in physics "dirty bomb" to me means things like taking nuclear material and using something like an aerial dispersant method (no bang involved, although possibly a loud fizzz - thermite springs to mind) to cause widespread disruption and fear (Note that: "Disruption and fear"). If anything the worst they could be would be an area denial weapon N.B. The biggest effect of such a weapon would be the cost of cleaning up after it, not the number of casualties caused.
I'd guess with a military background you'd be familiar with NBC precautions and the effects of such weapons on prepared troops (i.e. minimal/none). Your average journalist knows sod-all about the science and possible effects of such devices so will invent the most sensational blather that will sell the most newspapers.
None are so hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe