Slashdot Mirror


What's Being Done About Nuclear Security

KrisCowboy writes "Wired.com has an interesting article about Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's speech about the defensive measures being taken at the Nuclear Energy warehouses. 'Atomic storehouses, vulnerable to terrorist attack, will be emptied of their radioactive loads,' he promises. Keeping in mind the recent Slashdot story about a Hafnium bomb, more security measures are needed, and fast."

45 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. Whatever by acxr+is+wasted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Atomic storehouses, vulnerable to terrorist attack, will be emptied of their radioactive loads,'

    Hmph, to put it where exactly?

    --
    "Come on, let's go drink till we can't feel feelings anymore."
    1. Re:Whatever by Allen+Zadr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I was thinking exactly the same thing. Everyone has the same battle-cry, "Not in MY state."

      Of course, it could stay in New Mexico, but they don't want it either. Well, I guess it's time to talk about sending it into the Sun!

      --
      Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
    2. Re:Whatever by HolyCoitus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess the perceived difference being that someplace else would not be vulnerable to one of the countries many enemies accessing it? Because, you're right, it's not like we can just make the waste magically vanish. It has to go somewhere.

      --
      That's scary.
    3. Re:Whatever by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      But it could blow up on the way there! Remeber Challenger?

      1. Challenger was not carrying nuclear materials.
      2. Depleted nuclear materials cannot blow up.
      3. Non depleted fissionable materials cannot blow up without being packed inside a traditional explosive.
      4. Fissionable materials are stored in neutron inhibiting material to prevent fission.
      5. Accidental fission results in lots of heat and radiation. No boom.
      6. Old style reactors could experience boiler explosions. (e.g. Chernobyl) This is on the order of an industrial disaster rather than a nuclear bomb.
      7. Fission bombs need to be carefully shaped and triggered by explosives to blow up.
      8. Fusion bombs (e.g. H-Bombs) require a fission bomb + a closed neutron reflector + a container of hydrogen/tritium. Remove any of these and fusion cannot occur.

      Any questions?

    4. Re:Whatever by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So are you saying that if the Chalenger or a similar spacecraft were to explode with nuclear material on board there would be no danger?

      That depends. If it was carrying something like an RTG, then no, no danger. RTGs are packed in nearly indestructible casings that have been tested in multiple launch failures.

      If it were carrying unprotected nuclear materials, then there is a danger of it raining down and causing several cases of cancer. However, I can't think of any reason for the shuttle to do this. Even if it did, the shuttle's trajectory takes it over the ocean so that the likeliness of human injury is as low as possible.

      If the Challenger were carrying a bomb, then the above danger might apply. There's also the theoretical chance of an accidental detonation, but it's far lower than the chances of the bomb failing to explode when activated.

      Does that answer your question?

    5. Re:Whatever by bfischer · · Score: 3, Funny

      How about we outsource it to India?

    6. Re:Whatever by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      1. TRGs are insanely heavy.

      That's sort of the point. :-) Usually the RTG has a few pounds of plutonium, a pound or two of electronics, then about 50 or so pounds of shielding.

      2. Allthough they are made to withstand a train crash or a plane crashlanding, I don't think they can take a Challenger style explosion and then a free fall from 5000+ meters. I remember reading something about them beeing vulnerable to certain angles of impact.

      No, these are designed for unprotected reentry, unlike the "black boxes" used for determining the cause of aircraft accidents. The Nimbus B crash was actually very much like the Challenger incident. Even if the radiological material was released in the impact, its environmental impact would be near zero. Plutonium is an Alpha emitter and thus cannot penetrate the skin. It's only dangerous when it's ground up into a fine powder and inhaled. Thankfully, this is a very difficult thing as plutonium is VERY solid stuff.

    7. Re:Whatever by Mekkis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let me repost a comment I made from the Hafnium story. Depleted nuclear materials are still DEFINITELY dangerous. Heightened security stateside sounds like a case of closing the barn door after the horse got out...
      Hey, kiddies. We're worried about the evilbadnasty terrorists getting their hands on rogue nukes from the former USSR that might be floating around out there, or worse, constructing their own 'dirty bomb' with internet-fueled recipies, sneak it into the land of the Great Satan and start nuke-nuke-nukin' on heaven's door in the name of Allah. Bush & Co. are shrieking 'For God's sake, don't let those crazy Muslim fundamentalists get hold of nuclear materials!'
      Problem is we've already given them all the material anyone could ever want or need to make a 'dirty bomb', delivered right to their sandy li'l front doors courtesy of the United States Armed Services. That's right, kiddies, we're talking about DEPLETED URANIUM, that nuclear fairy dust that's now littering Iraq and Afghanistan by the megaton! Thanks to the fabled generosity of the good ol' USA, it's possible to drive around and pick up this stuff with nothing more than a shovel and a dedication to a deity stronger than your fear of radiation poisoning.
      A dedicated Boy Scout could easily make either a low-yield nuclear bomb using enough 'spent' uranium to make a subcritical mass (remember, Mouseketeers, that 'spent' fuel rods are still highly radioactive and it just takes a lot more to reach subcritical mass than ordinary uranium) OR even more easily, mix the DU with conventional explosives to make a bomb with a radioactive plume capable of poisoning an entire city for decades!
      Fun Fact for th' Day: The most recent draft of the Geneva Convention considers depleted uranium to be a 'weapon of mass destruction', as its effects linger for decades to centuries after a war has ended, causing such amazing things as severe birth defects, mental retardation, cancer and other ailments endemic to a high degree of radioactive contamination. Any nation employing DU in its weapons will be considered to be in serious breach of the Geneva accord. (Ho ho ho! Not that the US actually gives a damn about those silly Swiss! There's profits to be had, and it's a convenient way to dispose of all that nuclear waste that would otherwise require safe disposal!)
      Check HERE and HERE for more info.

    8. Re:Whatever by cfuse · · Score: 2, Funny
      Hmph, to put it where exactly?

      Isn't the current plan to put it into bunker busters and rain it indescriminately on any country with oil?

  2. So much for RTOFA.... by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 5, Funny
    Keeping in mind the recent Slashdot story about a Hafnium bomb, more security measures are needed, and fast.
    Yes, better get right on that. And while you're at it, make sure you hide all the palladium and water so those crafty terrorists can't make a cold fusion bomb...
    --
    [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
  3. Ironically... by unterderbrucke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Atomic weapons storage being centralized will probably increase rather than decrease risk of terrorism.

    1. Re:Ironically... by Zordak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the only danger is that if somebody does breach security, they would have access to more material. With lots of sites, there are lots of different security systems, meaning more potential points of failure. It's not like it's a distributed system where you have to get all of the material for it to be useful. By consolidating, you reduce your number of potential points of failure and have a single system to concentrate on. Think about it, if you have some highly-critical data, and somebody getting any of it is pretty much as bad as somebody getting all of it, would you rather have it sitting on one computer that you lock down like crazy, or on a couple of hundred that you have to try to lock down individually?

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    2. Re:Ironically... by loraksus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You missed his point, there would be literally thousands of trucks / convoys needed to transport this across the country. Each being a target.
      Considering a .50 Cal BMG rifle can be bought by civilains with little or no background checks for as little as $1700 (with ammo for about $1 a round), this is a pretty big concern. 50 BMG will penetrate damn near anything and will have a nice range to boot. If you're bored (or if someone else is) figure out the kinetic energy that a 650 grain projectile has at 900m/s

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    3. Re:Ironically... by gantzm · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not sure, what exactly was your point? That we shouldn't be trucking this stuff around, or that individuals shouldn't have access to rifles that fire .50 Cal rounds ?

      If you believe the problem is the rifle, you are in for a big surprise. Preventing access to those rifles will stop nothing. Any group that is willing to hijack a truck full of nuclear waste is probably more than capable of assembling a small machine shop and building their own weapons.

      If I wanted to crack one of these waste caskets I'd build a small bore canon (maybe 2.5 inches) that fired a round (maybe 2 inches) in a nice sabot to really speed things up. One doesn't need fancy self loading canons, just a pile of 10 single shot canons strapped in the back of a pickup.

      But, maybe your point was just not to be trucking to stuff around in the first place.

      --


      Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
    4. Re:Ironically... by UrgleHoth · · Score: 2

      Your arguement assumes that an attacker happens to know the time and place, and vehicles containing the nuclear material. Let's assume that somehow they do.

      Having said that, there are standard safetly precautions set for transport of hazardous materials, such as:

      n Type B packages for materials with the highest levels of radioactivity--such as used nuclear fuel. They are designed to provide radioactive protection and nuclear safety under accident conditions. These packages must survive simulated accident conditions--water immersion, a 30-foot drop onto an unyielding surface, severe penetration and extreme heat--and must also prevent a nuclear reactionduring normal and accident conditions.

      ...

      Stringent Requirements For Used Fuel Shipments

      The structural integrity of shipping containers for used fuel has been verified in several tests well beyond regulatory requirements. Representative containers have been loaded onto a truck that was made to crash, first at 60 mph and then at 80 mph, into a 700-ton concrete wall backed with 1,700 tons of dirt.

      The containers have been broadsided by a 120-ton locomotive traveling at 80 mph and dropped from a height of 2,000 feet onto extremely hard ground. Additionally, they have been burned in a pool of aviation fuel for 1½ hours at temperatures of more than 2,000 F. While dented and charred, the containers were neither ruptured nor significantly damaged.


      From here

      --

      Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
    5. Re:Ironically... by loraksus · · Score: 2, Informative

      maybe your point was just not to be trucking to stuff around in the first place.


      yeah. Many targets.

      A copper plate with a fair bit of rdx / tnt behind it would also work. 1 pound accelerated to mach 4 or so should do about enough damage to anything to make it leak.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    6. Re:Ironically... by pyrrhonist · · Score: 3, Informative
      50 BMG will penetrate damn near anything and will have a nice range to boot.

      Okay, I've read a couple of your responses, and you really need to check your facts before posting.

      Other Sandia tests evaluated a terrorist attack, subjecting a container to a device 30 times more powerful than a typical anti-tank weapon. The test resulted in a quarter-inch-diameter hole through the primary containment wall. The NRC estimates that the hole produced by the test would have resulted in the release of less than 10 grams--one-third of an ounce-- of used fuel. The container's protective shielding would prevent a large release of radiation.
      So basically, a 50 caliber projectile won't do shit to these containers.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    7. Re:Ironically... by Jardine · · Score: 5, Funny

      So basically, a 50 caliber projectile won't do shit to these containers.

      Perhaps if we used some sort of nuclear weapon to break open the container.

      What we'll need is materials to build a nuclear weapon, then we can move it by truck close enough to the convoy. Once in position, we can set off the nuclear weapon, breaking open the container of spent fuel!

      Then all we'd have to do is gather up the spent fuel and we'd have the makings of a dirty bomb. It's foolproof!

    8. Re:Ironically... by pyrrhonist · · Score: 2
      I was talking about the driver compartment in order to stop the vehicle.

      What are they going to do after they stop the vehicle? It's escorted by armed guards, and tracked by satellite.

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  4. Transportation? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Atomic storehouses, vulnerable to terrorist attack, will be emptied of their radioactive loads ... and transported thousands of miles across America's vulnerable road system, which are vulnerable to terrorist attack.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  5. Hafnium bombs? You're worried about hafnium bombs? by Behrooz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Keeping in mind the recent Slashdot story about a Hafnium bomb, more security measures are needed, and fast

    Talk about going off-topic. Isotope bombs, which are not even feasible at this point and require a pretty massive technological base to even think about playing with, really aren't what we should be worried about regarding storage of nuclear research materials. In fact, I'd say the nuclear materials and research inside the US are probably better locked-down than just about anywhere else.

    Hell, the most-likely nuclear terrorism scenario in my estimation is someone purchasing a radiation-therapy machine and randomly zapping people with lethal doses from inside a truck-mounted setup. Given a cool million to purchase some used medical equipment, you don't even need to try to steal nuclear material from federal facilities.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  6. Re:oxymoron by Bobdoer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd opt for "government intelligence" in this case.

  7. The real question is .... by chris_sawtell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What are the other nuclear powers doing?

    To the powers that be in: China; France; India; Israel; Pakistan; Russia; The United Kingdom; and the United States.

    What else are you doing to prevent the unthinkable happening?

    A serious question to which the rest of the world expects a serious answer.

  8. IP on one side, "security" on another by Thinkit4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well you can't launch model rockets now without a permit because of "national security". You can't use a computer because of "intellectual property". From libertarian we come, to libertarian we'll come back! Soon we'll listen to the latest audio files on our computer while tinkering with the latest thing that makes a big boom.

    --
    -I am an elective eunuch.
  9. fearmongering by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All this stuff about 'securing our nuclear stockpiles' is so much hogwash. The stockpiles are pretty secure as it is, it would take more than just a few guys with guns to get to anything that's bomb grade. IN THE US. The really dangerous stockpiles are the ones that have little or no oversight at all or where oversight was only added after the horse already left the barn. Countries like, but not neccesarily limited to Pakistan, Iran, former USSR, India and so on are far more of a risk in this respect than the US. In Africa there are natural nuclear reactors where the 'yellowcake' can be dug up by a bunch of determined guys with shovels and a lack of desire to live. It wouldn't take a whole lot to pack a container full of this stuff, a timing mechanism and a bunch of diesel for a very large dirty bomb that can be set of by remote in a shipping yard or so. Not that it would kill a lot of people, but it could shut down a major harbour for a long long time. Of course the countries that are most likely to be at risk are also partners in the so called war on terrorism so we can't really offend them. And when that islamic coup happens in Pakistan (anybody have any odds on that ?) it will be *far* too late to get moving. Nuclear proliferation has gone way too far to put the genie back in the bottle unless there will be a genuine international effort to round up *ALL* the fissionable material (including that in the US) and to place it under international (UN) oversight. The current reasoning seems to be that only 'democratic' countries can have it, unless you manage to join the nuclear club in secret because then you become untouchable. And those are the real weapons of mass distruction we're talking about, not some imagined gas cannisters or non existant Iraqi bombs...

    1. Re:fearmongering by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Countries like, but not neccesarily limited to Pakistan, Iran, former USSR, India and so on are far more of a risk in this respect than the US.

      You think India -- the world's largest democracy (in terms of population) and a generally civilised and well-educated society -- is a security risk because they (may) have nuclear weapons? Would it be inappropriate at this point to remind you which is the only country in the world ever to have dropped one for real, and also the country that supplied a rather large proportion of the serious firepower so-called rogue states now possess?

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:fearmongering by jacquesm · · Score: 3, Interesting
      India and Pakistan have been on the brink of an all out war for quite a while now (the Kashmir conflict). Yes, they are a risk. More so than say France, Brittain, the US or China. Probably less so than the former USSR but a risk none theless.


      Your point about the US supplying a large proportion of the serious firepower that so called rogue states now possess is well taken, in fact historically the US seems to have most of its trouble from places where they have meddled in the past. If not for the Afghan debacle a CIA operative called Usama Bin Laden would never have gotten as far off the ground as he did. But then we'd have had a - god forbid - communist Afghanistan (for about 8 years or so until the USSR imploded). See Iran, Korea, Iraq (ask the British about that one) and so on.

    3. Re:fearmongering by davejenkins · · Score: 3, Interesting

      round up *ALL* the fissionable material (including that in the US) and to place it under international (UN) oversight.

      The UN?!?!? Please no!

      These are the same assholes that grafted billions in the Oil-for-food programme, and put Syria on the Human Rights Commission. What a joke organization. I wouldn't trust them with anything more lethal than a police baton and a water cannon.

      Equivalancy among nation-states is an illusion. Not all states have equal power, resources, nor equitable governments. As such, defaulting to the UN is rarely a solution.

    4. Re:fearmongering by 1Oman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah we all know that nuclear power plant security is infallible. But wait maybe its not. But I'm sure they will find this stuff or maybe not.
      And then there is always this to worry about.

    5. Re:fearmongering by shadowbearer · · Score: 3, Informative

      You think India -- the world's largest democracy (in terms of population) and a generally civilised and well-educated society -- is a security risk because they (may) have nuclear weapons?

      May have??

      India conducted it's first nuclear test in 1974.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  10. The 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to nukes. by g0hare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everybody should have one. Then we'd all be safe.

    --
    Vote Quimby!
  11. End of the world by whiteranger99x · · Score: 3, Funny

    At the rate we're going, the whole world will end up much like THIS if we're not careful :P

    --
    Join the TWIT army now!
  12. Not "nuclear" by MightyPez · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nuculure. Use some strategery, morans.

  13. And the real answer is... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No matter how much you do, some fraction of your vital infrastructure will always be vulnerable to a sufficiently powerful and well-organised attack. If you protected every critical piece of infrastructure in a country -- all the power stations, water supplies, transport routes, government hubs, etc. -- then you'd expend far more resources than are practical on security, and having so many people in the system would cause weak links anyway.

    Ultimately, you can't prevent an unknown enemy from committing an unknown act forever. All you can do is your best to stop it (and that's better done starting from intelligence rather than raw defensive power at every vulnerable point) and your best to clean up the mess (e.g., by having back-up generators in key places like hospitals in case the power does go out).

    A more serious question that I'd pose, given the above harsh-but-true assessment, is how much could quality of life in general be improved if all the resources being diverted in the name of "fighting terrorism" were invested in hospitals, schools, etc. in the first place.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  14. As far as powerplants go.... by dfenstrate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some time ago, post september 11th, the Nuclear Regulatory commission decreed that the security at nuclear power plants was not enough, and that it should be increased.

    Ok, that's all well and fine, as much as I hate the nanny state, that's what they're there for, and we have to deal with it.

    So, these security upgrades, required by the NRC if we are to continue generating nuclear power, where initially scheduled to be done by this coming october.

    This was a reasonable timeframe at the initial order.

    Except every month or two, they'd increase or change the theoretical attack our security would have to be able to repel.

    And then never move the completion date back to allow time to make adjustments for their continual meddling.

    So now, at my plant, we have a huge security capital project that needs to be done in 5 months, because the NRC just finished up their requirements, finally, two months ago. The engineering and construction firms obviously need time to design a system to meet the NRC standards, and prepare for it's construction.

    So basically we're spending 15 million dollars on a rush job because the NRC has no fucking clue how businesses work, and allow no time adjustment for their indecision.

    And the funny part is that even if a team of terrorists got past our already substantial security (both physical and personell), they'd have no fucking clue how to cause any damage that would extend beyond the plant or spread radiation to the public- figuring out such a thing requires years of studying the plant's most intimate workings.

    Fuckin NRC.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  15. Free Radiation Therapy Machines in 3rd World by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hell, the most-likely nuclear terrorism scenario in my estimation is someone purchasing a radiation-therapy machine and randomly zapping people with lethal doses from inside a truck-mounted setup. Given a cool million to purchase some used medical equipment, you don't even need to try to steal nuclear material from federal facilities.

    It's worse that you think. A number of years ago (maybe 10 to 20?), the radiation detectors at Los Alamos went off when a delivery of patio furniture passed by. Turns out the cast iron in the furniture contained Cobalt-60. Tracing the shipment back, they found that the furniture had been made in Mexico from scrap metal. Someone in Mexico had sold a radiation therapy machine as scrap.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re: Free Radiation Therapy Machines in 3rd World by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


      > It's worse that you think. A number of years ago (maybe 10 to 20?), the radiation detectors at Los Alamos went off when a delivery of patio furniture passed by. Turns out the cast iron in the furniture contained Cobalt-60. Tracing the shipment back, they found that the furniture had been made in Mexico from scrap metal. Someone in Mexico had sold a radiation therapy machine as scrap.

      Great for tanning both sides at once, eh?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  16. Wow by Rura+Penthe · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Keeping in mind the recent Slashdot story about a Hafnium bomb, more security measures are needed, and fast."

    I don't know where to begin with this. We should be more afraid because of technology we don't even have yet (and may never have) might get into the hands of terrorists? Do they have some massive R&D lab hidden in the mountains near Pakistan? And what does a theoretical isotope bomb have to do with our current nuclear stockpile?

  17. An interesting story by Digitus1337 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My family and I were on vacation in the north-eastern United States a couple of years back. My dad wanted to check out the Three Mile Island vistor center, as he's a bionuclear physicist and is really geeked up over that kind of a thing. We had one of those Hertz rental cars with the GPS helper, so we checked and the visitor center was on there, so we told it to take us there. We pulled in where it told us to, into a street that wasn't much bigger than a driveway. Within a matter of moments we were boxed in by a few Humvees (not the street-legal models, the big should-have-treads things), and have guns pointed at us from all around. We're told very persistantly to slowly get out of the car and put our hands on the hood. We did so, they took our pictures, ran our fingerprints, called in two trucks full of troops to help the obviously overpowered platoon that was trying to keep a family of four under tight watch. Safeties were off, we were potential enemies. After an hour or so (and a search of us and the car) they let us go, told us to never came back, but were nice enough to point us in the direction of the -real- visitor's center. It was closed for the day -_-.

    1. Re:An interesting story by UrgleHoth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As I understand it, this is the first tier of security for sensitive sites (even before getting to any physical barriers). This is why I think even if there were centralized storage of nuclear material/weapons, that the risk if general contamination by ground vehicle bombing is very low. Also there are SUAs (special use airspace) labelled prohibited which do not allow ANY unauthorized travel.

      --

      Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
    2. Re:An interesting story by dfenstrate · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow. What a bunch of Jack booted thugs.

      At my powerplant, there's a manned guardhouse with a few jersey barriers you have to weave around before you get anywhere security even remotely cares about. You come in unexpected, 999 times out of 1000, the guard politely turns you around at the gaurdhouse and gives you the best directions he can.

      If you go barrelling past the guardhouse (no gates at the outer perimeter of the site) then you'd get that kind of response. Of course, only people who where trouble- certainly not a family of four- would weave past Jersey barriers and then zoom past a guard waiting for you 15 ft afterwards.

      As for the 1 time out of 1000 when some poor misdirected soul wasn't treated kindly at the gate, his arrival coincided with the start of a security alert, and he was seen as potentially a part of it. He was thrown on the ground and handcuffed by about 40 state troopers who were already on their way to respond.

      Turns out the security event was likely caused by a turkey setting off a few proximity alarms. After several hours of searching the power plant from top to bottom- and the guy probably shitting himself the entire time- he was sent on his merry way.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  18. Secure Airspace yeah right by Crizp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Pentagon and WTC all have no-fly-zones, and look how that went... If no-one cares that several big passenger planes takes a 180 mid-flight and heads straight for said no-fly-zone with the transponder off and no radio contact, how can we (or _you_ since I don't live in the US) expect that a small Cessna or similar plane flying below radar coverage, carrying a small bomb, won't make it to it's destination? A nice destination would be the spent-fuel rod storage facilities at Indian Point or another plant... Blowing the wall up, releasing the water. Instant overheating and subsequent fire, which would last a long time and contaminate a rather large area, possibly killing tens of thousands of people.

  19. Nuclear weapons are just too much hassle... by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2, Informative
    given what you can do with chemical and bacterial weapons much more cheaper to produce with ready available chemical products or some bacterian material you can steal much more easily and so much difficult to track down.

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  20. Hafnium Bomb. by ripragged · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The most important thing we could do about nuclear security is to educate the public on the real dangers of nuclear radiation. Radiation in large doses is dangerous. The most likely dirty bombs will not result in large doses, but mass panic. The panic will be far more dangerous than the radiation in most cases. I work with radioactive material for a living. I don't know the ins and outs of a Hafnium Bomb, but I know that once the radioactive material is dispersed by an explosion, it starts being less of a hazard immediately. Panic is the most dangerous aspect for those not in the immediate vicinity of any detonation. Increased security is important, but it is harder to wreak terror in an informed group. email me at raymeyers13@mac.com

    --
    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
  21. What George Orwell wrote in 1946 by dpbsmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In a 1946 essay entitled "You and the Atom Bomb," George Orwell wrote:

    Considering how likely we all are to be blown to pieces by it within the next five years, the atomic bomb has not roused so much discussion as might have been expected. The newspapers have published numerous diagrams, not very helpful to the average man, of protons and neutrons doing their stuff.... But curiously little has been said, at any rate, in print, about the question that is of most urgent interest to all of us, namely, "How difficult are these things to manufacture?" ...Had the atomic bomb turned out to be something as cheap and easily manufactured as a bicycle or an alarm clock, it might well have plunged us back into barbarism, but it might, on the other hand, have meant the end of national sovereignty and of the highly-centralized police state. If, as seems to be the case, it is a rare and costly object as difficult to produce as a battleship, it is likelier to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a 'peace that is no peace.'"

    George Orwell,Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters, vol 4, item #2