Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Publishes Guide To Building Atom Bombs To Web

Jeff writes "The New York Times is reporting that the feds have shut down the 'Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal' due to concerns from weapons experts that the 'papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs.' One diplomat is quoted as saying, 'If you had this, it would short-circuit a lot of things.' Indexes to older (less sensitive) documents (and some html from pdfs) are still cached at Google today. Rep. Pete Hoekstra pushed for the public release of the archive to help determine 'whether Saddam Hussein destroyed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or hid or transferred them'. Critics have said the archive was created to perpetuate misinformation about WMDs."

310 comments

  1. what is an "atom bomb to web"? by krell · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you set it off, does it result in 404 errors everywhere? Or is it a more powerful version of a Googlebomb?

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:what is an "atom bomb to web"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's short for "someone set up us the atom bomb to web".

    2. Re:what is an "atom bomb to web"? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      The way Saddam designed it, the "atom bomb to web" clogs up the tubes of Democracy.

      Using the American translation, "atom bomb to web" acts something like a neutron bomb, in that it vaporizes all the Bush Administration claims that Saddam had WMDs, without damaging any infrastructure.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:what is an "atom bomb to web"? by soundonsound · · Score: 1

      I thought that poker chips clogged the tubes?

    4. Re:what is an "atom bomb to web"? by twistedsymphony · · Score: 1

      duh, it's something someone set us up
      then all your bombs are belong to Atom.

    5. Re:what is an "atom bomb to web"? by alexjohnc3 · · Score: 0

      You're correct, but other things, such as movies, can also clog up your personal Internet. Why, just the other day I sent an Internet ot one of my staff. Because of those damn YouTube videos it took an entire day just for them to get it. There's no such thing as a bad mail server, it's just those freaking YouTube videos! *head explodes*

    6. Re:what is an "atom bomb to web"? by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Fundamentally this pretty much has the same issues as the recipe for rabbit stew:

      Step 1) Catch a rabbit...

      Unless Saddam has 25-plus pounds of enriched Uranium-235 lying around somewhere that we don't know about, having the recipe for one does you about as much good as the recipe for the other.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    7. Re:what is an "atom bomb to web"? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I'm not completely sure, but it seems that the W3C is also implicated. Sounds almost like the end of Snow Crash...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:what is an "atom bomb to web"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bombs are stupid. Why not a "build your own nuclear reactor" howto. Sure, sure, it could be used for good or evil, but just think! You could have a thousand computer beowulf and not continually pay each month!

  2. Dwat and double dwat... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Woke up this morning with the brilliant idea of building home made nuclear to protect my home from those pesky neighbors. What does the Feds do? Re-classify the documents. What's an evil genius supposed to do now?!

    1. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by krell · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Woke up this morning with the brilliant idea of building home made nuclear to protect my home from those pesky neighbors."

      1) Build nuclear reactor in home
      2) Melt down reactor
      3) Turn into giant radiactive monster
      4) Take next door neighbor's lawnmower and plasma TV while you are hulked out. Not a damn thing he can do about it.
      5) Profit!

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    2. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      What's an evil genius supposed to do now?!


      If you're a genius, you wouldn't need instructions on how to build a nuclear bomb, now would you?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's an evil genius supposed to do now?!

      Aren't you a genius? Don't you know? What does a genius need with how-to guides to building atom bombs?

    4. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You're right. I just need to steal the mini-reactor at the local university and play around with that.

    5. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by chrismcdirty · · Score: 1

      Evil script-kiddie?

      --
      It's like sex, except I'm having it!
    6. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't find the "Nuclear Bombs for Dummies" book at the bookstore. A tin-pot dictator from N. Korea bought all the copies.

    7. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by SylvesterTheCat · · Score: 1

      You claim to be a genius, right?

      Then figure it out...

    8. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by Rei · · Score: 1

      From the "nuclear boyscout" to Farnsworth Fusor enthusiasts, a surprising number of people do build (very weak and of questionable usefulness) nuclear reactors in their homes.

      I wish I had mirrored the site, because I'm curious just how explicit these documents are. I wonder if they're more explicit than what I was able to find on google for a previous Slashdot post.

      --
      "Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science fiction." "We live in a space ship, dear."
    9. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply buy a Republican. They will pass laws for you. Hurry, they are cheap now, but will go up in price due to scarcity. I would suggest Hastert, Musgrave, Tancredo, Bush, or Cheney. They will all be around, and can be easily bought.

    10. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      I read the your post from May 27; is there a "+1 damned scary" mod?

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    11. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by senor_burt · · Score: 1

      What, like this kid?

    12. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      Dont worry. There is still lots of cats around.

      From my studies of evil genius documentaries, it seems that they like cats just as much as atomic bombs.
      I haven't figured out why yet, but my current theory is that cats are the only beings in the universe
      that are more evil than the geniuses themselves.

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    13. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      my current theory is that cats are the only beings in the universe that are more evil than the geniuses themselves.


      My theory is that only deranged idiots hate cats. Get psychological help.
    14. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Well, when I was in highschool, about sophomore or junior year, my physics teacher gave us detailed instructions on how to make a home-made atomic bomb.

      That's right, the whole bloody class.

      But since security measures involved required quite a lot of heavy concrete blocks or about as much soft tissue damage from the radioactivity, we gave it a pass.

      After a careful consideration, of course. The opportunity to bomb your school is not lightly missed.
      Then again, when you have an atomic bomb, you don't exactly have to aim.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    15. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      A chemistry instructor told us the story for why the ceiling tiles above the lecture table were missing. She filled up a balloon with hydrogen, let it go up about 20 feet on a string and set it on fire with a candle on a pole. Needless to say, the resulting "ka-boom" was a tad bit more stronger than she expected and five ceiling tiles came tumbling down. Of course, no one builds hydrogen bombs anymore.

    16. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by Straif · · Score: 1

      But buying Republican can get you into trouble as well as your political partner. With all the press out hunting for any dirt they can find on any conservative that even looks in the direction of 1600 it would be much better to just buy a Democrat.

      Whether it's 55K from Buddhist monks, 60K from the Chinese, or 95K stuffed in a freezer, when Dems get caught with their hands in the cookie jar no one cares and no one loses their jobs. Hell, you can just ask one to walk out with the top secret papers you want stuffed down their pants and the most they'll get is a temporary suspension of clearance and no one will even bother asking questions about what happened to the docs. What kind of sweet deal is that.

      The best part, you can even bypass the actual officials and go straight to their staff members. If they're willing to risk ongoing terror investigations and divulge national secrets to a newspaper just to try and embarrass the opposition, who knows what they'll due when you flash a few $50's in front of their eyes.

      You may want to get your 'bids' in quickly though because if you wait too long you just know the lines may be too long to get anything done before spring.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    17. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Good thing she didn't do it with a hydrogen-air mix. The "ka-boom" would have been more of a "BANG!" and probably have taken out quite a few more ceiling tiles. Must have been a big balloon, though. At a lecture/demo I attended, there were about a half-dozen balloons, most with helium, a couple with pure hydrogen, and one hydrogen-air (or was it hydrogen-oxygen?). Tested each one with a glowing splint on a long stick: "pop", "pop", "whoomp!", "pop", "BANG!"

      (Another fun way to clear out ceiling tiles is to have a couple of 4000psi storage cylinders in the back of the dive shop get a little too warm over a summer weekend and blow the burst disk. Also took out the merchandise rack on the side wall. Note, this was the safety mechanism that kicked in.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    18. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Hey while you're there, can you grab me the things on this list from the Chemistry Lab ?

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    19. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i don't understand what is so scary about it.. i mean if you don't already have the basic knowlege to build a nuke then you havn't even tryied to learn..

      the trick with nukes is the ammo.. where are you going to get the fuel for the damn thing??

      hell using Plutonium is simple too.. firing it is much harder but very simple in design. but where are you going to get the fuel?

      I would be more worried about them buying second hand lost nukes from the USSR than building their own.

      now granted if you looke at the Radioactive Boy Scout you realize it is posiable for someone to make fuel if they really wanted to.. it doesn't take millions of dollors to build a nuke.. it just takes time and patience.. the only thing they are doing by pulling stuff like this is preventing people from building highly effecient nukes easily

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    20. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by ToreTS · · Score: 1

      Of course, hydrogen bombs have nothing to do with the explosive reaction of hydrogen with oxygen. Fusion bombs

    21. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Hey, is this on the same value level as allowing Osama to escape at Tora Bora, then arranging for the Delta Force team members who witnessed said escape by Pakistani helicopters, after they were ordered to stand down, then return to Ft. Bragg and be the victims of those murder/suicides????

    22. Re:Dwat and double dwat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Woke up this morning with the brilliant idea of building home made nuclear to protect my home from those pesky neighbors. What does the Feds do? Re-classify the documents. What's an evil genius supposed to do now?!
      The same thing we do every night, Pinky ... Try to take over the world!
  3. .torrent? by CaptainPinko · · Score: 2, Informative

    These would be fascinating to look it and I'm sure anyone who could get the raw materials already has this knowledge.

    --
    Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
    1. Re:.torrent? by El+Torico · · Score: 1
      ...I'm sure anyone who could get the raw materials already has this knowledge.

      Exactly; obtaining weapons grade uranium or plutonium is the hard part. Building a crude atomic bomb isn't as difficult. I'm not saying that it is easy, but some of the designs (gun type) are not that sophisticated.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    2. Re:.torrent? by Threni · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it'll turn up on http://www.cryptome.org/ before long...

    3. Re:.torrent? by BWJones · · Score: 1

      When I was an undergraduate, I ran into entire schematics and documents from the 1950s through the 1980s on how to build atomic bombs and devices in our University Library in the engineering section. The documents were most extensive and had everything you needed to know including materials and engineering specifications. The only thing that would have been difficult to obtain was the plutonium or enriched uranium. I checked the documents out and spent a couple of weeks reading through them in a cursory manner, but I would not be surprised if they no longer existed at the library due to "National Security".

      My point is that I agree with you in that the technology is pushing 60 years old for the basic principles.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    4. Re:.torrent? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      This is about more sophisticated designs. The weapons experts the Times talked to said that this kind of information is for people working with a government budget and would help them avoid trial and error.

      A sophisticated design means higher yield or more bombs for a given inventory of fissionables, and maybe lighter bombs more suitable for use on a missile.

    5. Re:.torrent? by El+Torico · · Score: 1

      That could be very, very bad. Has anyone found any specifics? It would very interesting to see what, exactly, the fuss is about. I didn't RTA because I don't want to register and I forgot how to bypass the NY Times registration page (yes, sometimes I am that absent-minded).

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    6. Re:.torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bugmenot.com is how to bypass the registration page. Also, it is so odd this acticle was posted today. I just finished reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn after reading a play about his life was playing in my town this weekend.

      Coincidence or something more sinister :)

    7. Re:.torrent? by noewun · · Score: 1

      The article is (obviously) light on specifics. If I had to guess from what it said, the removed info was probably specifics on 1) constructing a fissionable core 2) constructing the implosive lens system used to achieve supercriticality and 3) problems the Iraqis had doing this. Info such as this might have saved the North Koreans from having their bomb fizzle recently. There could have also been stuff in there about boosting the cores.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    8. Re:.torrent? by Ana10g · · Score: 1

      try http://www.bugmenot.com/, and enter www.nytimes.com into the list. The first one I tried worked.

      --
      just an analog boy living in a digital age.
    9. Re:.torrent? by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      but I would not be surprised if they no longer existed at the library due to "National Security".

      Unless you work for the Guvmint, I would not be surprised if you no longer existed due to "National Security". Your name is in the records at the library for having checked-out each of those documents. Please write when you get to Guantanamo Bay and let us know how the weather is in Cuba. ;^)

    10. Re:.torrent? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      These would be fascinating to look it and I'm sure anyone who could get the raw materials already has this knowledge.

      Remember North Korea's nuclear fizzle just a couple of weeks ago? Do you think they intended to build a bomb with about 1/40th the power of the first US nuclear test?

      Why do you think the People's Republic of China worked so hard to steal the plans for the W88 thermonuclear warhead from the United States?

      Nuclear weapons engineering is just like any other branch of engineering. There are theoretical aspects to it as well as practical aspects that can only be learned by experience and experimentation, or from someone else's data.

      Building a small, powerful warhead is a lot harder than just getting some Uranium to explode after a fashion.

      Lets just hope Iran didn't find anything useful to help them put a little "something extra" on top of their Shahab-3 able to reach Turkey, for now, and tested during the recent "The Great Prophet 2" military exercises.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    11. Re:.torrent? by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      These documents came from Iraq. It would be silly to assume that the North Koreans, et al, haven't already seen them. These aren't our blueprints for a sophisticated device, they're what Saddam (who I've been told had no WMDs and no active nuclear program) was working with.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    12. Re:.torrent? by AhtirTano · · Score: 1

      The UCLA Biomedical Library used to have texts in Russian on construction of nuclear power plants. I worked there as an undergraduate, and was tasked with pulling them from the shelf to send to the unused book storage library (the SRLF). I could only read enough Russian to figure out the titles, so I don't know how detailed they were, but they did have lots of interesting looking diagrams.

      I never did figure out why there were such books in a biomedical library.

    13. Re:.torrent? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      These would be fascinating to look it and I'm sure anyone who could get the raw materials already has this knowledge.

      I'm not so sure about that, the basic design of a weapon is pretty straightforward and can be derived directly from the laws of physics. The *hard* part is converting that basic design into an actual engineering design - and the though in the nuclear weapons study community is that there is likely to be one or more nonobvious tricks to creating a working design. (This viewpoint is reinforced by the recent failure of the NK test.) Another issue is that preparing the raw materials is pretty straightforward chemistry - while designing a weapon requires a whole host of other disciplines.
  4. Great! by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean we can send the current government to jail on terrorism charges and get a new one?

    1. Re:Great! by jimstapleton · · Score: 2, Funny

      upmod previous /insightful/ or /funny/

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    2. Re:Great! by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your support, but must you use newspeak? It's a little disconcerting--that's not the new government I was really hoping to see.

    3. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would think, but apparently its almost impossible to get anyone in the government arrested. Its all highly 'political'(the other kind), and is often used to drum up distractions for the media.

      And FYI, NO, I'm not part of the tin-foil hat brigade. Its highly plausible and almost certain that the events that take place within our government are not only orchestrated, but planned with International entities in mind.

      When coincidence becomes so commonplace that society passes it off as the norm, orchestrated manipulation is the only logical recourse to conclude.

    4. Re:Great! by Aeamarth · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no refunds!!

    5. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would we want a new one?

  5. NYTimes admits that Saddam had nuclear know how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And slashdot lashes out at Bush...

    1. Re:NYTimes admits that Saddam had nuclear know how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nuclear know-how" means nothing. Every country has the "know-how", but not all of them have the materials, the facilities, the need, or the insanity to create them.

    2. Re:NYTimes admits that Saddam had nuclear know how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"Nuclear know-how" means nothing. "Nothing." Hmm, methinks you use that word loosely. If it's nothing, then why is anybody making a stink about it?

    3. Re:NYTimes admits that Saddam had nuclear know how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have .PDF files that describe how to seduce supermodels in bars. Does that make me Hugh Hefner?

    4. Re:NYTimes admits that Saddam had nuclear know how by El+Torico · · Score: 1
      I have .PDF files that describe how to seduce supermodels in bars.

      Screw the NY Times article; I want to read your PDF!

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    5. Re:NYTimes admits that Saddam had nuclear know how by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Screw the PDF, I want to know which bars he's going to!

  6. What's the big deal? by matthewd · · Score: 0, Troll

    Everyone knows Iraq didn't have WMDs and wasn't developing WMDs. These documents which supposedly show how to build an atomic weapon must have been planted by the evil Bush administration. They were never actually "recovered" in Iraq. Concerns that Iran might have used the information are overblown, because everyone knows that Iran is not building an atomic bomb either, their nuclear research is for peaceful power generation only. It just goes to show how stupid the Bush administration is, putting real nuclear knowhow on the web instead of putting the minimal effort into pulling a "Doc Brown" operation like the Clinton admin did with the plans for the nuclear bomb triggers they gave to the Iranians.

    Next in the NYT: When mainstream media memes collide!

    1. Re:What's the big deal? by antv · · Score: 1

      Well, there's a lot of technologies that aren't classified as WMD, but are still secret and should not end up in al-Quaeda's hands (s.a. those released documents). Saddam Hussein was apparently smart enough to prevent terrorists from seeing those. Our government, OTOH, is more interesting in creating positive PR for themselves.

      --
      Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
    2. Re:What's the big deal? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Those documents were from pre1990, when bush was still provided with chemical weapons because he was "americas bastard" to controll the mullahs.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:What's the big deal? by aiken_d · · Score: 1

      You're exactly right, but you missed the part where the technology really isn't all that advanced, and that any halfway organized state (and Iran is way more than halfway organized) could easily do it on their own.

      Silly stuff for people to get worked up over.

      -b

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    4. Re:What's the big deal? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Everyone knows Iraq didn't have WMDs and wasn't developing WMDs.

      The alternate theory is that we knew they DID have WMDs at one point, because we sold them to them, and we don't know what they did with them. It certainly doesn't appear that they have them now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:What's the big deal? by businessnerd · · Score: 1

      Did anyone else see the Daily Show interview with one of Suddam Hussein's former employee's (i say employee cause i can't remember if he was a general or what) where he pretty much said, "I saw the WMD's as they were dismantled and transported out of the country." Sorry I'm short on details (don't remember the guys name or the date that it aired, i think last spring), but essentially he confirmed that the WMD's did exist, but they got rid of them before the invasion.

      --
      "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
    6. Re:What's the big deal? by soundonsound · · Score: 1
      Actually, if you bothered READING the article...well, let me just quote it for you.

      But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say present a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.


      Note that it says the WMD's they were developing prior to the 1991 Gulf war, not the current Iraq war.
    7. Re:What's the big deal? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      Everyone knows Iraq didn't have WMDs and wasn't developing WMDs.

      The alternate theory is that we knew they DID have WMDs at one point, because we sold them to them, and we don't know what they did with them. It certainly doesn't appear that they have them now.

      Yeah, makes sense. Kilo for kilo, a WMD would be worth a LOT more than oil. I could see Saddam smuggling WMDs out & selling them on a street corner for more than his smuggled oil got him. Gotta pay off the politicians, right?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    8. Re:What's the big deal? by matthewd · · Score: 1

      If memory serves, it was a general in the Iraqi Air Force. And I think he might have been hawking a book he wrote. So how reliable can he really be, making these claims on a fake news program.

      Jeez, I see my original post was modded flamebait. I was just trying to be funny. I hope that doesn't hurt my karma. I guess you can't joke about this stuff.

      Lighten up guys, it's just nuclear weapons stuff.

    9. Re:What's the big deal? by matthewd · · Score: 1

      And in all fairness, Saddam was just keeping the documents around to donate to the Saddam Hussein Presidential Library for historical purposes when his term was up, he wasn't actually planning on using them to build any weapons down the line.

    10. Re:What's the big deal? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1
      Jeez, I see my original post was modded flamebait. I was just trying to be funny. I hope that doesn't hurt my karma. I guess you can't joke about this stuff.

      Sarcasm doesn't come across well in print. You have to be more blatant. (That's why emoticons were invented. B-) )

      Granted your post was VERY blatant. But your parody was too close to what the moonbats are actually saying to be recognized by many of the posters here.
      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    11. Re:What's the big deal? by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows Iraq didn't have WMDs and wasn't developing WMDs. These documents which supposedly show how to build an atomic weapon must have been planted by the evil Bush administration.

      If they were, they were planted by the *first* Bush administration.
      These documents are circa the first Gulf War.

      Everyone knows Iraq was trying to get a nuclear bomb then. Whether or not they had/were seeking WMDs in the build-up to the current war with Iraq is still up to debate.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    12. Re:What's the big deal? by tilandal · · Score: 1

      You can get a basic guild to building an atomic bomb from your local library. Its really not that hard. The hard part of an atomic bomb is enriching the fissable material.

    13. Re:What's the big deal? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      and part of the cease fire agreement was that Iraq destroy and document the destruction of the WMD, and that did not happen. The most damning thing in my opinion is we didn't find any chemical agents, after being in the business I can state that any country with that much chemical protective equipment is going to have at least lab quantities of common chemical weapons for quality control testing.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    14. Re:What's the big deal? by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1
      part of the cease fire agreement was that Iraq destroy and document the destruction of the WMD, and that did not happen.

      It did happen. Bush Administration folks took a look at the documentation, and said "it's a pack of lies". Turns out the evil dictator was correct, and the Bush Administration folks were lying.

      It's amazing how quickly people forget.
    15. Re:What's the big deal? by rossz · · Score: 1

      No, we didn't sell Saddam any WMDs. At one point (way back when we were having problems with Iran) an American chemical company did sell them ingredients for some chemical weapons in violation of the law. When it was discovered the chemical company was slapped with a big ass fine (though not big enough since they weren't put out of business).

      You are correct in saying that Iraq had WMDs since Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran and on his own people. He may not have had any recently, but he certainly acted like he did by interfering with the UN weapons inspectors constantly and finally kicking them out of Iraq altogether.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    16. Re:What's the big deal? by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 1

      Didn't your mom every tell you, "You'll nuke your eye out with that"? Just remember, It's all fun and games until someone loses a country.

      Of course, they could be planning on generating electricity, using the byproducts to make bombs, and sell both the bombs and the oil on world markets. If so, they're demonstrating they've learned capitalism, but not the American type as they're still manufacturing a product, rather than just shuffling money through stockbrokers and lawyers.

      On the other hand, maybe they're going to make sneakers at those secrets sites, and can't pronounce "Nike" correctly.

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    17. Re:What's the big deal? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      He may not have had any recently, but he certainly acted like he did by interfering with the UN weapons inspectors constantly and finally kicking them out of Iraq altogether.

      Now, I'm not saying that Saddam was a nice guy or anything, but that logic is not too great. I mean, I wouldn't let the cops search my car or my house given a choice... Of course, this is a better metaphor than it looks at first because the "cops" (TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE) came and broke down his door anyway...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:What's the big deal? by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      Actually there are two hard parts for making an atomic weapon. They are building the "Q" Switches and the acquiring the purified fissile material. Thanks to the US Trade Representatives office these are "on the street."

      Its this simple. The USA came up with the super magnets and super capacitors (caps) to run the project. The super magnets applied to the centrifuges make them 2000 times more effective essentially reducing the cost of fissile material to dirt cheap. The super caps make the "Q" switches easy too. All of this stuff is pretty cheap now and all made in China due to the US Trade Representative's office making sure that all of the top US tech was transferred as fast as possible. Now the magnets are all made in China and so are the caps.

      This has reduced the complexity to make atomic 3rd generation weapons to a project nearly any rich man could do. Iran is building with better tech than the USA has because of this stupid trade policy of the USA Trade Representatives office.... (All apologies to Ethel and Julius Rosenberg and to Mr. Greenglass. What they did was minor compared. --- or maybe we should try for treason the US Trade Representative staff and agents who did this.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    19. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most damning thing in my opinion is we didn't find any chemical agents,

      Yes, not finding what we were told by Bush would be there is proof what we told by Bush would be there should have been there.

    20. Re:What's the big deal? by rossz · · Score: 0, Troll

      If a convicted drug dealer who is let out on parole, he would have to let the police search his home any time they felt like it. That's a standard part of parole terms.

      As part of the cease fire agreement with Saddam (from Desert Storm 1), Saddam had agreed to allow UN weapon inspectors to search any place and at any time.

      If said drug dealer started interfering with police searches, the police would get might suspicious and assume he was hiding drugs. Saddam was simply the drug dealer on parole and he violated the terms of his parole.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    21. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Jeez, I see my original post was modded flamebait. I was just trying to be funny. I hope that doesn't hurt my karma. I guess you can't joke about this stuff.
      Right. You were just trying to be funny, which explains why you continued to defend your silly proposition that Iraq was actively pursuing a WMD program when others called you on your stupidity. It's good to see that you're a shameless liar, just like your idiotic idol GW. You wouldn't want to actually be honest or anything like that.

      P.S. Fuck Off
  7. But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Saadam had advanced nuke designs.

    Which is why we went in there in the first place.

    and the Howard dean crowd is whining because why?

    1. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Troll

      The documents are fake. They have to be because we all know that Bush was lying when he said that the Iraqis were trying to develop WMD's. Just ask anyone in the media. Otherwise, we'd all be hearing reports of how Bush wasn't lying and was correct to go into Iraq because the media, especially the NYT, has no such media bias.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by Zenaku · · Score: 4, Informative
      Jesus. If you were following the story you would know that these documents are from Saddams pursuit of nuclear weapons prior to the 1991 gulf war. It has never been in dispute that he had an active weapons program before that 1991 war. We sure as f-ck didn't go into Iraq because we though he might still have some documents on how to build an A-bomb. We went into Iraq because he allegedly still had an active weapons program and/or WMDs lying about somewhere, and/or the raw materials to make them. All 3 of which proved to be a complete fabrication.

      These documents do not show anything new about what Saddam had or didn't have. They only show that while our government was willing to start a war just in case Saddam was dumb enough to give such designs to a terrorist group that hated him, our government is itself dumb enough to take those designs and give them to a terrorist group that hates us.

      Bravo. Darwin awards for all!

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    3. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Oh ffs:

      a) Posession of those documents is not proof of an ongoing weapons development program.
      b) Possession of those documents is not proof of the technological capability of executing the instructions in those documents.
      c) Possession of those documents is not proof of having the materials to execute said instructions, even if you have the capability.

      Hell, I can download the instructions for any number of weapson *right now*. That's no basis for invading my home.

      Seriously, get your head out of your ass.

    4. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please mod parent up.

      It's important to be remind the world just how stupid most people are.

    5. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by senor_burt · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points for you!

    6. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      a) Posession of those documents is not proof of an ongoing weapons development program.
      b) Possession of those documents is not proof of the technological capability of executing the instructions in those documents.
      c) Possession of those documents is not proof of having the materials to execute said instructions, even if you have the capability.


      True, but the Iraqi creation of the docs is proof of all of the above.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    7. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by ArcherB · · Score: 1
      If you were following the story you would know that these documents are from Saddams pursuit of nuclear weapons prior to the 1991 gulf war.

      You mean this from the story?

      Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.


      And my name is not Jesus.
      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    8. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Wow, so many falsehoods (or trolls?). First off, all those documents prove is that, back in 1991, they were in possession of the documents necessary to build a nuke. It says nothing about their technological capability or whether they possessed the necessary materials.

      Second off, those documents provide no evidence for a recent active weapons program.

      Third, there's no evidence they even *authored* the documents. They could have come from anywhere.

      Honestly, do you ever bother to *use* the brain you presumably possess?

    9. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1
      We went into Iraq because he allegedly still had an active weapons program and/or WMDs lying about somewhere, and/or the raw materials to make them. All 3 of which proved to be a complete fabrication.

      Contrary to your assertion, Iraq did have active programs to develop banned weapons at the time of the 2003 invasion, and continued to procure controlled or banned equipment at least through the 90s:

      'What [the research] showed is that Saddam's procurement network is alive and well and has been working steadily despite the sanctions,' said Milhollin. 'There are a lot of companies out there willing to break the embargo.'

      Motz said: 'We are seeing everything from just some basic negotiations that probably didn't go anywhere once the firms figured out what was trying to be purchased to contracts that were actually implemented and goods that were found in Iraq by the inspectors. We have contracts for missile engine components, for guidance components for missiles. We actually found some high-end machine tools that are useful for making nuclear weapons, military goods such as [conventional] helicopters and aircraft which were clearly embargoed.'

      Mahdi Obeidi, former head of Iraq's nuclear centrifuge program:

      Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.

      Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980's, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts. Saddam, the Bomb and Me

      The UN's "Oil for Food" program was wholly corrupt, providing Saddam the means to pursue rearmament.

      It is also worth remembering:

      Moreover, Iraq put itself in a state of war with the United States by violating the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Gulf War. Iraqi forces shot at American and British warplanes assigned to enforce the U.N.-imposed "no-fly zones" over Iraq on a daily basis long before the 2003 war. Kofi Annan's Iraq Blunder
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    10. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up, please! That's important information which contradicts the summary and most of the high ranked postings.

    11. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by Ruvim · · Score: 1

      Bravo. Darwin awards for all!
      I'm afraid that in this case it might be Darwin awards for all of people.

    12. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      At the time of what? 1990s or 2002? The paragraph is ambiguous at best. And if they were so close, where is the recent evidence of such a program?

      Ooooh, right, there *isn't* any.

    13. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      At the time of what? 1990s or 2002? The paragraph is ambiguous at best. And if they were so close, where is the recent evidence of such a program?

      Well, since the first gulf war started in 1991, when they say the 90's, odds are 90% that they are talking about after the first gulf war.
      And since we invaded in 2003, there really couldn't be any docs much more recent than 2002 unless Saddam was doing nuclear research from his spider hole or cell. the GP post claimed that if I had read the article, I would have read that these docs were created before the first gulf war. Well, I read the article from which I quoted the 1990's or 2002 bit. So, in order for these docs to have been created before GulfWar1, they would have to have been created in 1990 to jive with the article, and I'm sure that the NYT would have pointed that out, the conservative bastion rag they are.

      It was the NYT being vague, not me.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    14. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Mod parent up, please! That's important information which contradicts the summary and most of the high ranked postings.
      Unfortunately it contradicts the groupthink opinions of a significant mod point voting bloc, so it'll be an uphill fight...
    15. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by jafac · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it is not specific about which documents were from 1990, and which were from 2002. The manifest of toilet paper purchase for public buildings in 2002 probably would not constitute much of a threat.

      If you read the weasel-words in the quoted text, it sure sounds like we're being misled to believe that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program in 2002. They IMPLY it, without actually saying so - because if they did, they'd probably have to provide proof, which they probably don't have. Considering the proven lies we've heard on this topic before - I would be more likely to believe such an assertion if the writer was more clear and concise, and definite.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    16. Re:But I Thought They Didnt Exist? by jafac · · Score: 1

      Nobody disputes that Saddam wasn't working programs after 1991, but BEFORE 1996 when Clinton bombed the crap out of his sites using intelligence from spies we planted among the weapons inspectors.

      If the article was specific about those papers - that they were, in fact, definitely from a current (2002-ish) program, instead of a discontinued legacy (1996) - (ie. NOT AN IMMANENT THREAT) program, then I'd be more likely to believe it. But frankly, it sounds like the same old doublespeak scaremongering we've heard for the last 4 years.

      And frankly: Fuck. That. Shit.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  8. Axis of Evil? by themadplasterer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now that they have provided potential terrorists with information they might require, the U.S. has added themselves to the "Axis of Evil". George Bush wasted no time in acting and immediately attacked himself by knawing at his right hand :P

    1. Re:Axis of Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      George Bush wasted no time in acting and immediately attacked himself by knawing at his right hand :P

      ...or eating a pretzel
  9. Rip-off by OriginalArlen · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This story is shamelessly ripped from this morning's BoingBoing version, published at 5am.

    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    1. Re:Rip-off by Cr33pybusguy · · Score: 1
      --
      Hee Hee The drinking bird does all the work!
    2. Re:Rip-off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe, "Jeff" didn't feel like rewriting something before he submitted it to both sites.

      You can't shameless rip yourself off, can you?

    3. Re:Rip-off by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

      Flamebait> ?? How is that flamebait???

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
  10. Um, "Short circuit"? by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you had this, it would short-circuit a lot of things

    I guess we have to assume he means "would be a short cut past a lot of things," presumably some re-inventing-the-wheel R&D that was done 50 years ago and has been repeated in Pakistan, India, and now North Korea (where you can get a free pizza with any weapon you buy, as long as you pay shipping). Worrying about it seems a little silly since the Khan network had already done a fair business in selling complete, down-to-the-schematics and Home Depot shopping list tutorials to all sorts of folks. Any country/party that wants to build nukes is going to have a much harder time getting the riht fissile material pulled together than they're going to have setting the thing off.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Um, "Short circuit"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Worrying about it seems a little silly since the Khan network had already done a fair business in selling complete, down-to-the-schematics and Home Depot shopping list tutorials to all sorts of folks

      Yeah, I've seen the books. Builing Nuclear Devices: For Pros by Pros. You know, the guys who publish Fine Bombbuilding magazine.

    2. Re:Um, "Short circuit"? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Any country/party that wants to build nukes is going to have a much harder time getting the riht fissile material pulled together than they're going to have setting the thing off.

      Who knows: the plans could be for working and economical uranium enrichment technologies, not the nukes themselves. As has been repeated ad nauseum, working nukes aren't that hard to build. More difficult problems are: (a) enriching uranium or extracting plutonium (b) making the nukes reasonably efficient. However, with a sufficient quantity of fissile material, (b) becomes somewhat irrelevant especially because terrorist organizations probably wouldn't use missiles or bombers to deliver their nukes. They'd send them to the US in shipping containers or drive them across the Mexican border in an 18-wheelers false fuel tank.

      -b.

    3. Re:Um, "Short circuit"? by rjstanford · · Score: 1
      ... and now North Korea (where you can get a free pizza with any weapon you buy, as long as you pay shipping).

      So that's how they can keep them warm and bubbly during trans-atlantic container shipment. I'd wondered about that.
      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    4. Re:Um, "Short circuit"? by bayankaran · · Score: 1

      ...presumably some re-inventing-the-wheel R&D that was done 50 years ago and has been repeated in Pakistan, India, and now North Korea...

      Please add Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel etc. to the list. Your explanation implies Pakistan, India or North Korea are somehow unworthy of having a nuclear bomb. I don't think any country in this planet is worthy of having one for whatever reason. My attitude towards such weapons of mass destruction changed after I visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      And I would not trust Britain or France with nuclear weapons with their colorful colonial past. About USA - the less said the better.

      --
      Tat Tvam Asi
    5. Re:Um, "Short circuit"? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Building an atomic bomb, relatively speaking, is not that difficult. The difficulty comes in refining the core materials and configuring the core so that it will go critical when other pieces of core material slam into it.

      The first atomic weapon was little more than a big gun with a uranium plug being fired into a "charge" of uranium. Not really all that complex. Fortunately, those types of weapons are somewhat unweildly in size and carry low yields.

      Plutonium based bombs are more compact and deliver larger yields. But they are significantly more complex as far as firing and timing is concerned.

      Needless to say, the biggest hurdle to building a Hiroshima type nuke is coming up with a way to refine uranium into weapons grade material. Once a country has that capability, building a low yield nuke is, relatively speaking, child's play.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    6. Re:Um, "Short circuit"? by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      Or I could use U-233 like India did. Making that requires neutron bombardment of thorium, and they can be separated easily. Thorium isn't considered bomb-making material, so this is feasible to do in the US. And we would be screwed. No matter how much our boarder was tightened, it wouldn't matter with the nuke already made. They could set it off anywhere and scare the shit out of everyone. That's the nightmare scenario.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    7. Re:Um, "Short circuit"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Any country/party that wants to build nukes is going to have a much harder time getting the riht fissile material pulled together than they're going to have setting the thing off.
      I'd thought so, too, but tell that to North Korea. Given their yield, they clearly found a way to screw it up. It seems more likely that it was the geometry than the materials.
    8. Re:Um, "Short circuit"? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      North Korea (where you can get a free pizza with any weapon you buy, as long as you pay shipping)
      I call bullshit, my last order of SAMs came with fried chicken and shipping was free. Mind you, they did take longer than the advertised 30 minutes.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  11. I'm less worried by Theaus · · Score: 1

    About Iran using this as somebody in a madrassa in one of the former Soviet republics or Afghanistan or Pakistan

  12. Don't worry - nobody will be fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, history suggests that President Bush will promote someone for this.

  13. Predictable. by sammy+baby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The truly predictable thing about this mess is that Republicans have been asserting that this is a) proof that Hussein was within a year of building a nuclear bomb (it isn't), and b) that this is the NYT's fault.

    I mean, nevermind that righty-blogs were falling all over themselves pressing for the release of these. Somehow, they were convicned that opening these documents would unleash an "Army of Davids," and the President pushed to have the documents declassified and published before anyone had the chance to read them. Now that it turns out that, oops, hey, instructions on how to build a nuclear bomb are in there, Andrew Card is blaming - who else? - the NYT.

    And this is after they'd already found instructions on how to make sarin in there.

    Unbelievable.

    1. Re:Predictable. by Banner · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that this isn't proof that Saddam had the ability to build a bomb in less than a year.

      BUT you're saying that it is instructions for someone ELSE to build a bomb within a year.

      Ummm, I suggest you stop letting your politics interfere with your reasoning. Either one statement is true, or the other is true. Both cannot be true.

      And if the first is true, then I guess Bush was right for invading after all?

    2. Re:Predictable. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      So you're saying that this isn't proof that Saddam had the ability to build a bomb in less than a year. BUT you're saying that it is instructions for someone ELSE to build a bomb within a year.

      If you look carefully...

      No, wait.

      If you have a brain you can see that these are not contradictory statements.

      Saddam could easily have had the plans but not the means.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Predictable. by sammy+baby · · Score: 1
      So you're saying that this isn't proof that Saddam had the ability to build a bomb in less than a year.

      BUT you're saying that it is instructions for someone ELSE to build a bomb within a year.


      Where you're correct: Yes, I am saying Saddam did not have the ability to build a bomb in less than a year. And I am also saying that the documents contained instructions on how to build a bomb, although I wouldn't care to speculate on a time frame.

      Here's why you're utterly mistaken: the instructions were from 1991.

      The Duelfer report made clear that by the time of the second Gulf war, Hussein's nuclear program was essentially nowhere. Courtesy of The Washington Post:

      Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."
      - The Washington Post, Oct 7, 2004


      Got it? 1991, Hussein had at least some measure of a nuclear weapons program. 2002, not so much.
    4. Re:Predictable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your last statement is bullshit, unless you think that a set of plans that would allow any decent engineering school to build nuclear weapons within a year means that Bush was wrong for not putting troops on the ground at MIT, CalTech, Tokyo University, and every other major college with an engineering program in the world.

    5. Re:Predictable. by monkeydo · · Score: 1
      How exactly is Card blaming the NYT? He actually seems to be blaming the administration, admitting that they were warned about putting up the documents without knowing what was in them. He's "concerned" that the NYT would advertise their existence while they were still there, but that seems perfectly reasonable. If the NYT really thought these documents were the key to terrorist making a bomb, why would they publicize their existence? The only thing Card really accuses the NYT of, is attempting to create an "October surprise", and that's in response to Lauer's question.

      LAUER: What do you make of this? Whos gonna get the blame for this?

      CARD: Well, you know, this is one of those things that John Negroponte warned us that we dont know whats in these documents, so these are being put out at some risk. And that was a warning he put out right when they first released the documents. We pulled them down, and I think the government has acted very quickly, and weve pulled them down. Im a little bit concerned that the New York Times has advertised them to the world, so that more people might see them

      LAUER: What about the timing? Four days before, five days before a mid-term election this report comes out. Do you question the timing of this report?

      CARD: Well, I think most things that happen just before an election are designed by someone to have an impact on the election. But I actually think its important that we recognize the government is doing the right thing. They shut the website down. Theyre not providing information.


      But since you are such a defender of the NYT, do you think publishing the location of these documents was the right thing to do? It seems to me that the NYT staff either thought that the documents weren't really that dangerous, or they commited treason. Which do you think it is?
      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    6. Re:Predictable. by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's predictable because you don't have a satisfactory answer. You can't have it both ways. Either Saddam had a nuclear program, or he didn't. You lefties have been whining "Bush lied" for three years now. Will you at least admit you were wrong? Come on, say it! "We... were... wrong. Saddam did have a nuclear program. He did attempt to buy yellowcake. He was planning to start processing uranium just as soon as the sanctions regime finished crumbling."

      See, it's not that hard. Admitting you were wrong is the first step to fixing the problem.

      By the way, any competent nuclear engineer can build a nuclear bomb if he has the right materials. The trick is getting your uranium enriched enough to go critical. Releasing these documents doesn't change the proliferation situation at all. In fact, when I was a kid I once checked out a library book titled "How to build a nuclear bomb". Granted, it was the easier "gun" method, but supposedly it was a working design. They built the first one sixty years ago, for God's sake! How much technology from 1945 do you think isn't on the net?

    7. Re:Predictable. by netwiz · · Score: 1

      Except for the documents from 1999-2002 that detail the reinstatement of the Radioactive Waste Treatment System, something the 1998 accords specifically forbade. Or the documents from the same period detailing the recreation and restoration of the radiochemistry labs, which they were also expressly not allowed to have. So yes, while they didn't have everything they needed, they had the ball rolling. The only thing they needed was the ore, which Nigeria could have provided. I'm not suggesting Joe Wilson lied, but that I don't really think a Nigerian dictator is someone we should trust all that much. It's a fairly trivial hop from the above suggestions to Iraq was starting up their nuclear program again, and simply being more careful this time.

    8. Re:Predictable. by Banner · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're funny :-) I like how you ignore everything just to keep your point of view.

      Either it is, or it isn't. Can't be both.

      Watching people like you do mental gymnastics rather than face reality is one of my favorite pastimes.

    9. Re:Predictable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that this isn't proof that Saddam had the ability to build a bomb in less than a year.

      BUT you're saying that it is instructions for someone ELSE to build a bomb within a year.


      If you applied it to me, I'd have to assert both are false. Given only these documents, I'd probably be unable to build a bomb within a year, and we know that the nigerian yellowcake thing was a complete and utter fake.

      The question is, how many people in Iran and North Korea are sitting around with weapons grade uranium/plutonium, trying to figure out how to make it blow up? They might now be within a year of a (real this time, in the case of NK) bomb.

    10. Re:Predictable. by Qzukk · · Score: 1
      It seems to me that the NYT staff either thought that the documents weren't really that dangerous, or they commited treason. Which do you think it is?
      Moreover, U.S. officials were warned last week by the International Atomic Energy Association that the information available "could help states like Iran develop nuclear arms." The web site wasn't removed until last night, after the Times began its inquiry.
      The President chose to ignore warnings that there were things that should not have been declassified in there. The administration was warned about the nuclear bomb material before the NYT pointed it out and chose to do nothing. So, I guess the documents weren't that dangerous, because it's really difficult for the government to commit treason against itself.

      Which makes our country a safer place: a country where mentioning the holes in our security gets you shot, or one where mentioning the holes in our security gets them fixed?
      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    11. Re:Predictable. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      It's quite simple really. Saddam could have all the knowledge he could ever want about nuclear weapons, but without the needed materials and facilities he would not have the ability to build one. And it's quite easy to prove that he did not have the means to build one as we've been searching Iraq the past several years looking for these means. They don't exist, and they hadn't for some time, and Bush was lying when he claimed they did. I suggest you wake up, because that's reality.

      However, there are other countries that do have the means, or are very close to acquiring those means and would very much like to get their hands on some instructions so they don't have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Those countries include Iran and North Korea.

      Get it now?

    12. Re:Predictable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These documents don't change anything. Bush lied. Cheney lied. Iraq did not have a nuclear program. Iraq did not have the materials to build a bomb, or the facilities. Saddam was not attempting to get them either. Saddam did not attempt to buy yellow cake. Iraq did not posses WMD. This is not the smoking gun you've been looking for. At best, you can claim the US invaded Iraq over some pieces of paper now. Stop pretending it's any different.

    13. Re:Predictable. by tsotha · · Score: 1

      In order: Yes they do. No he didn't. No he didn't. Yes it did. Half right. Yes he was. Yes he did. Yes it did. Yes it is. No, we have much more. It's not pretending if it's true. Hey, you're almost batting 000.

    14. Re:Predictable. by Banner · · Score: 1

      The only thing he didn't have was uranium. And as we know from Joe Wilson's testimony he was working very hard on getting -that-. We know he had the know how, most of the equipment, and deals to buy anything else he didn't have from the French, Germans, and Russians. We know from all the investigations that he could have reconstituted his program completely in about a year (maybe less) after the sanctions were dropped.

      The only one here that doesn't get it, is you. You let your hatred of one man (Bush) blind you to the facts and reality.

      Do -you- get it now? Some how I doubt it, your type never does.

    15. Re:Predictable. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      The only thing he didn't have was uranium. And as we know from Joe Wilson's testimony he was working very hard on getting -that-.

      And we also know that he didn't have it. Which means he couldn't yet make a nuke. Which brings us back to the point where my explanation was totally feasible, and turns out to have been absolutely accurate by your own words, which means you should have been a member of a debate society in high school so you could have learned about shooting yourself in the foot conversationally then instead of now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Won't make a difference by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Designing an Atomic weapons isn't that hard. Just get a bullet with appropriate fission material and shoot it at a core of enriched Uranium or for you hydrogen bomb... Get some plutonium and put it in a sphere and detonate with appropriate explosives to get it to implode.

    The hard part is getting the enriched Uranium or Plutonium.

    If you are able to design systems to refine either material, then its a cakewalk making the bomb.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    1. Re:Won't make a difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things are quite a bit more tricky even if you have material; the "detonate with appropriate explosives" step you mention requires rediculous timing accuracy. Failure to detonate the exposives pefectly results in a non-nuclear blast.

    2. Re:Won't make a difference by antv · · Score: 1

      It won't make a difference for a government - which is fine, I'm not that scared of governments having nukes (given how we survived for the last 50 years). Governments have all kind of rules for monitoring each other and generally they aren't suicidal, so MAD works fine with nation-states.

      However, it might make a difference, since now al-Quaeda has access to these docs as well. If al-Quaida manages to also steal Uranium too, we will be in trouble. It's just another example how our government jeopardizes the actual security for stupid PR actions.

      --
      Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
    3. Re:Won't make a difference by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      That's all very interesting. Please do share your thoughts with the nice men in sunglasses who should be knocking at your door in 3.. 2.. 1..

    4. Re:Won't make a difference by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Things are quite a bit more tricky even if you have material; the "detonate with appropriate explosives" step you mention requires rediculous timing accuracy. Failure to detonate the exposives pefectly results in a non-nuclear blast.

      Or a lower-yield nuclear blast. Modern nukes are designed so that failure to achieve perfect detonation results in little or no nuclear yield (for safety reasons, in the event of a bomber crash, for example). Older bombs, with a core closer to critical mass for its size were less particular. A lot of nuclear testing, believe it or not, was dedicated to making nukes that were less prone to accidental or unintentional detonation.

      Of course, with a sufficient quantity of reasonably pure U-235, you could just build a gun-type device, in which case there's only one explosive charge, and accurate timing of detonations becomes a non-issue. Scary.

      -b.

    5. Re:Won't make a difference by soundonsound · · Score: 1

      not to mention, unless you get the calculations right, you can kill yourself in every stage of the process of making the bullet and target.

    6. Re:Won't make a difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the hard part"

      and making it small enough to be deliverable. A B-52 was designed to carry one of those old-school puppies.

    7. Re:Won't make a difference by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Um.. Thermonuclear weapons are hard to make. REALLY hard. Fission-only weapons are pretty simple, but you have to avoid accidentally irradiating and killing yourself while building them. But a hydrogen bomb is not something that could be thrown together by anybody without very specific, deep knowledge of certain parts of physics, and a LOT of money and equipment. And the necessary knowledge is voluntarily kept secret by the few humans on the planet who actually know enough to build a working thermonuclear device. Kip Thorne's book "Black Holes And Time Warps" spends a few chapters discussing in detail the history of the development of thermonuclear weapons in both the US and the Soviet Union. I suggest reading it.

      In fact, the first "hydrogen bomb" created by the United States was actually more like a BUILDING than a bomb. Nothing that could possibly be dropped by an airplane or otherwise delivered to an actual enemy. Although it did completely destroy the island of Enewetak it was situated on. Even if some rogue nation (or to be even more ridiculous some terrorist group) managed to build a device that could set off a thermonuclear explosion, they'd never be able to pack it into, say, a suitcase or deliver it in some neato-looking warhead, without a LOT of testing, further spending, and time invested. The fact that every technologically advanced society on earth would instantly detect any such test and pinpoint its location makes the whole idea even more far fetched.

      The risk of stolen thermonuclear warheads is far far greater than any wild possibility of some third party manufacturing working hydrogen bombs.

    8. Re:Won't make a difference by noewun · · Score: 1
      Designing an Atomic weapons isn't that hard. Just get a bullet with appropriate fission material and shoot it at a core of enriched Uranium or for you hydrogen bomb... Get some plutonium and put it in a sphere and detonate with appropriate explosives to get it to implode.

      Wrong. Designing a nuclear weapon is enormously difficult. The problem isn't the physics. The problem is the engineering. Most of the effort of the Manhattan Project was spent on engineering problems. They physics was solved by 1942, but it took three more years of work by the largest industrial economy the world had ever seen to produce two working bombs. It isn't just 'getting some plutonium in a sphere'. It's getting the plutonium to collapse in exactly the right shape in a short enough time to produce supercriticality, and then keeping that critical mass together for long enough (15 microseconds) to produce the energy you need. The engineering behind the explosive lens system itself is enormously difficult. Never mind what happens after the explosion.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    9. Re:Won't make a difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of. Building a gun-type bomb is very easy if you have the fissionable material. Implosion bombs are much harder; getting the detonators correct is a major task, let alone the lensing and the design of the core. No one starting in bomb making would go for the implosion device first, unless they just happened to have a lot more Pu than Uranium, which is itself highly unlikely.

    10. Re:Won't make a difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Designing an Atomic weapons isn't that hard.

      You have no idea what you're talking about.

    11. Re:Won't make a difference by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points for you.

      The lens design is necessary. Meeting the triggering criteria is necessary. Possession of the fissile material is necessary. Which of those sounds like the easiest one? You either have the fissile material or you don't, but you never know if you have a good lens design until it works.

      And that's just for fission bombs. Fusion bombs are an order of magnitude harder, says my friend with the PhD in designing such things.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    12. Re:Won't make a difference by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Designing an Atomic weapons isn't that hard. Just get a bullet with appropriate fission material and shoot it at a core of enriched Uranium or for you hydrogen bomb... Get some plutonium and put it in a sphere and detonate with appropriate explosives to get it to implode.

      At that level of description - building a computer isn't too hard. Just wire yourself a bunch of transistors, lights, and power supplies together. (I.E. no, contrary to popular belief, its not that easy. Its not all that hard - but there much more to it than the OP seems to believe.)
    13. Re:Won't make a difference by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Just fabricating the core of a plutonium implosion bomb is a complex problem, even if you have the material and the dimensions of the finished product. If you read the available literature on the metallurgy and chemistry of plutonium, you will see that it presents difficulties that aren't an issue with more conventional materials.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    14. Re:Won't make a difference by Denial93 · · Score: 1

      > The risk of stolen thermonuclear warheads is far far greater than any wild possibility of some third party manufacturing working hydrogen bombs.

      Isn't this a classical problem where you can tell that given enough time, the catastrophe eventually must happen? I mean it does remind me of the inevitability of my firewall being breached at some point in the (hopefully distant) future. I backup my data, and I make sure that the problem, when it happens, will have limited impact. Is there a strategy for when, not if, terrorist nuke prevention fails? I should be confident, but there wasn't a Plan B for Iraq either.

    15. Re:Won't make a difference by asuffield · · Score: 1
      Other posters have pointed out that building a bomb that works without killing yourself is actually really hard, I'm just going to pick up on this bit:

      The hard part is getting the enriched Uranium or Plutonium.


      Enriching them is hard. Getting enriched uranium is fairly easy - the US alone produces tons of the stuff every year and loses a significant amount of it. It wouldn't be difficult for somebody to steal some, and it would go completely unnoticed (as it would just be a small increase in the amount that can no longer be located).
    16. Re:Won't make a difference by CargoCultCoder · · Score: 1

      Designing an Atomic weapons isn't that hard. Just get a bullet with appropriate fission material and shoot it at a core of enriched Uranium...

      Right: that design is easy, but ...

      Get some plutonium and put it in a sphere and detonate with appropriate explosives to get it to implode.

      That design is not. A fair percentage of the folks in Los Alamos during World War II were working on the problem of designing and _building_ a working explosive lense, that would focus enough force quickly enough on a core to get it to explode effectively. A slight miscalculation in either direction, and the result would be a lot of radioactive silt scattered all over ... not an explosion.

      If you think designing an explosive lense for an atomic bomb "isn't that hard", perhaps you should give it a go yourself. And then try building one.

      Some of the best minds in physics weren't sure they had it quite right the first time: hence, Trinity. It's not an easy problem.

  15. ....this one time in band camp...! by xint · · Score: 1

    Refer back to the submission about people in Gooberment not knowing anything about technology... and then remember that one time there were blue prints for the Airforce Force 1 on the internets... and countless other documents just laying there in the open over the Googles for everyone to see... LOL?

    1. Re:....this one time in band camp...! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      At the same time, these technical documents could be flawed in ways that would be extremely difficult to detect. The air force one documents could have applied to an older model or even just been completely inaccurate. How would you know? Have you snuck on board the real thing and compared?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Shouldn't headline read... by G-Man · · Score: 1

    "U.S. Publishes Saddam's Guide to Building Atom Bombs to Web"?

  17. *yawn* by Knara · · Score: 1

    Big deal. My 16 year old neighbor with Freenet can find out how to make a nuke. Finding out _how_ to is easy. It's actually doing that which requires a lot of resources, connections, etc. Iraq had none of these (as evidenced by the fact that none of it was found after years and years of searching). Just the GOP trying to piss into the tidalwave of DNC talking points about the cockup that is Iraq.

    1. Re:*yawn* by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Iraq had the triggers and the resources, for the most part. But it takes time to pull all of that together and the Israeli bombing of their main nuclear research reactor certainly pushed the time table back considerably as they had to start all over again and find another way to concentrate the neccessary fissile components. And their nuclear scientists had to do much more guessing about the details of Uranium and Plutonium atoms without having the necessary materials directly at hand in the quantities needed.

      As far as Iraq having WMDs, it is obvious that Iraq had them because they were used against their own citizens. Chemical weapons count as a WMD in terms of what Bush and the CIA was talking about. Never did Pres. Bush say that Iraq had nukes, but it was also very obvious that Hussein wanted to build them for the same reasons why Iran and North Korea are building them.

      And Iraq did otherwise have the resources necessary to build nukes, but they didn't have the time necessary to pull it off before they were invaded and occupied by the USA. Hiding stuff from the UN weapons inspectors didn't make it easy to accomplish either and set the timetable back even further.

      Clearly Iraq did have at least the missile technology as well, as the Scuds which bombed Tel Aviv in the 1991 Gulf War could have been modified to carry a nuke without too much of a change. Tell the Israeli familes of people who died in that war that Iraq didn't have the technology to get there.

    2. Re:*yawn* by Knara · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Once again, there's no doubt they had them.... before the first Gulf War. Comeon, even your own post states events and facts that support that.

      And once again, there's no doubt that Hussein *wanted* them. But so do *I* (could pay off my student loans with them, I'll bet). But he did not possess, nor have the ability to construct them as of the beginning of the second cold war. Saying that is in a realm so far beyond speculation now that it's silly.

    3. Re:*yawn* by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I think it is reasonable that Hussein wanted to hide or even completely dismantle the WMD programs he had in progress before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. (that was certainly not the "second cold war" by any stretch of the imagination). I also think it was Hussein's intention to restart the process of building them once the attention of the USA was turned elsewhere, with major components and equipment moved to neighboring "friendly" countries.

      BTW, my #1 complaint about both the Democrats in congress as well as President Bush, as both are co-conspiritors on this point, is that in order for an invasion to take place, there should have been a formal declaration of war by the congress of the USA before it happened. Bush was afraid of the possibility that congress would have said "No", and the democrats were so wishy-washy that they accepted the "authorization of the use of force" resolution. And because they both went only half-way to going to war against Iraq, we are currently in the political quandry that we are facing. Had this been a formally declared war instead, much of the anti-Iraq war discussions and protests would have been declared treasonous and many of the demonstrators been thrown into jail. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt did that and more during their administrations when war was declared.

      Considering that neither major political party in the USA has the balls to declare a war, even in the midst of blatant invasions and conquest by the U.S. military like in both Granada and Haiti (respectively under Reagan and Clinton) without even a discussion by congress, much less a declaration of war ever being issued by congress since 1941 (with several major military actions since then even after the surrender of Germany and Japan), I don't give credence to either political party.

  18. Wait I thought Iraq had no Nuclear Program by SirStanley · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    But didn't Iraq have no Nuclear program and Bush lied to us?

    So.. if we published Iraq's Nuclear program documents.... wouldn't that Kinda kill that argument?

    --
    --------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
    1. Re:Wait I thought Iraq had no Nuclear Program by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But didn't Iraq have no Nuclear program and Bush lied to us?

      You are correct. Bush did lie to us, and Iraq had no functional WMDs at the time of the invasion. These are old documents from before the first Gulf War. Putting them out now helps Bush lie again with the implication that there were WMDs and also helps the administration give valuable research to real terrorists for free. So not only did he lie then, but he is lying through implication again, as well as giving away nuclear secrets to terrorists. But I'm glad you caught it and noticed that Bush did lie to us. So many morons out there still think that he didn't lie multiple times to us in order to have an excuse to send our troops to die for no reason. But Haliburton is doing well with the war. I wonder why...

    2. Re:Wait I thought Iraq had no Nuclear Program by s388 · · Score: 1

      i can't believe you're only the second post i've seen on this thread that pointed it out. it's pretty messed up how the trolls come out of the woodwork with the sarcasm "oh wait i thought bush lied to us, that's what the liberals said!" as if the nuke documents weren't decades old.

      but of course over in la-la land, the documents prove that bush was right about everything and the war is the most honest and just thing. evar.

    3. Re:Wait I thought Iraq had no Nuclear Program by plopez · · Score: 1

      RTFA. THey were pre 1991. Before the first Iraq war.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    4. Re:Wait I thought Iraq had no Nuclear Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly. because it's bush's dream, like most presidents, to kill off young men by the thousands in a worthless war. he was just waiting for this excuse, and now he is living his dream. but, we've busted him now!

    5. Re:Wait I thought Iraq had no Nuclear Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing how the word "lie" gets redefined every day. It's also weird how these new definitions only apply to Bush.

    6. Re:Wait I thought Iraq had no Nuclear Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      send our troops to die for no reason


      Excuse me? Let's take a second look.

      Under 3,000 American soldiers (who, by the way, CHOSE to join the armed forces and defend their country) have died in the past three years of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq. In that time, Saddam's dictatorship has been transformed into a representative government for a nation of 29 million voters, 70% of which showed up for their last election -- despite threats of death and torture. Fourteen of the eighteen provinces of Iraq are relatively peaceful, and a few have even been placed under the control of the Iraqi forces recently. Since the attacks of 9/11 on the WTC, how many terrorists attacks have resulted in a loss of life on American soil? Zero.

      You call that "no reason"? Jesus H. Christ, what the hell would YOU ask for for only 3,000 lives. I'm really proud to be an American when my fellow citizens sincerely think that 3,000 of us (who, again, made a CHOICE to defend us) are worth more than the freedom of 29 million Iraqis and countless others around the world.

      I'll let my fellow veterans know that we have your support.
    7. Re:Wait I thought Iraq had no Nuclear Program by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how the word "lie" gets redefined every day.

      Telling a known falsehood is a lie. For instance, try when Bush stated that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Africa. That was misinformation fed to the British that they let us know was false. It sounded good, so Bush used it. It is proven that the same people in the administration that were told Saddam was trying to buy uranium are the same ones that were told that information was false, yet Bush lied in the State of the Union with that known falsehood. Propoganda is a lie machine. Bush is running a lying machine. "We just found new documents about Saddam's nuclear program" is a statement intended to decieve. That is a lie. That is what a lie has always been, that is what a lie will always be.

    8. Re:Wait I thought Iraq had no Nuclear Program by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I'll let my fellow veterans know that we have your support.

      Ah yes, anyone that doesn't support Bush hates the troops. I don't think I have ever gone a day without hearing that, whether here or on the radio or elsewhere. When you have developed basic critical thinking skills, come back and try again. Bush sucks. Troops are good people in a bad war. Those are not mutually exclusive statements.

    9. Re:Wait I thought Iraq had no Nuclear Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know how many of the troops support the war? Go talk to them -- without your elitist attitude.

    10. Re:Wait I thought Iraq had no Nuclear Program by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 1

      Fourteen of the eighteen provinces of Iraq are relatively peaceful

      How unfortunate that the remaining four violent provinces contain 80% of the population of Iraq.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    11. Re:Wait I thought Iraq had no Nuclear Program by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 1

      Just over one half (56%), and steadily decreasing.
      source: Military Times Media Group survey

      Support the Troops, Oppose the Policy
      Veterans Against The Iraq War

  19. Too late by ant-1 · · Score: 1

    This is the internet. It's too late to pull the plug. It's already (I'm guessing) on bittorrent and most importantly on various caches either in right-wing bloggers' basements who tried to analyze the data or in interested scientists' basements, the clever ones that thought that there oughta be something good in those files, and, guess what, were proven right.

    What a backfiring.

  20. Response to this: by slashkitty · · Score: 1
    Really, you should be asking what Saddam was doing with this document in the firstplace, and how close was he to getting the bomb.

    U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra's reply:

    "Yesterday's article by the New York Times highlights a number of important issues with respect to Iraq's WMD programs, as well as the importance of the documents that have been recovered in Iraq," said U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "I am pleased that the document release program continues to stimulate public discussion of these issues. "With respect to the possibility that documents may have been released that should not have been released, I have always been clear that the Director of National Intelligence should take whatever steps necessary to withhold sensitive documents. In fact, as of today the DNI had withheld 59 percent of the documents that it had reviewed, and has become more risk-averse over time. If the DNI believes that the documents that were released were in the safe 40 percent, imagine what the 60 percent being withheld must contain. "That said, it is also important to emphasize that the IAEA, contrary to its assertions, never raised any concerns about this material with the United States Government before going to the press. Similarly, the DNI's office has informed me that no agency of the U.S. Government had raised any issues about the potential or actual release of these documents before yesterday. If there were such problems, they would have been better addressed through the appropriate channels rather than the press. "These documents also raise several additional issues of interest. First, it is extraordinary that the New York Times now acknowledges that the captured documents demonstrate that '[Saddam] Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.' This only reinforces the value of these documents in understanding the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime. Only 1 percent of the estimated 120 million pages of captured documents have been reviewed, and we must continue working to promptly understand these materials. If there is concern about Saddam's nuclear program, there should be similar concern about potential connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda suggested in the documents. "Second, my staff's preliminary review of the documents in question suggests that at least some of them may be internal IAEA documents. There is a serious question of why and how the Iraqi these documents in the first place. We need to explore that carefully - I certainly hope there will be no evidence that the IAEA had been penetrated by Saddam's regime. "Finally, it is disappointing but not surprising that the New York Times would continue to participate in such blatant and transparent political ploys, including what I believe are improper efforts by the IAEA to interfere with U.S. domestic affairs. The sad reality is that the New York Times has done far more damage to U.S. national security by the disclosure of vital, classified, intelligence programs than is likely to be caused by the inadvertent disclosure of decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime."
    --
    -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    1. Re:Response to this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we're going to conduct invasions over *documents*, there will truly be no end to the wars we will start.

    2. Re:Response to this: by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Really, you should be asking what Saddam was doing with this document in the firstplace, and how close was he to getting the bomb.

      Given that the material is (from your own quote):
      decades-old information that had already been in the hands of Saddam's regime
      it tells us absolutely nothing about how close Saddam was to getting a bomb in 2003 when we invaded.

      Decades ago, like say in the 1970s and 1980s, Saddam was our best bud. Of course he had WMDs back then, and was working toward nuclear bombs. We found all this out in 1991 and applied sanctions to stop the work. As far as we still know, those sanctions worked, and he was less close to "the bomb" in 2003 than he was when this "decades-old information" was written.

      Besides, the fact that Saddam knew this stuff decades ago doesn't mean it should be declassified. It's not like Saddam went around selling nuclear information to terrorist groups or anything, so some of this material is still (for the most part) held in confidence by nuclear powers.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  21. WRONG. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows Iraq didn't have WMDs and wasn't developing WMDs.
     
    Idiot. If you spent less time making things up and more time paying attention to facts (hint, even the news!) you might know a little more. Iraq DID at ONE TIME have some WMD's. They used them all and didn't develop any more. Don't go around saying "everyone knows" as though you're some sort of expert. Doing so is a logical fallacy.

  22. Hold on a sec....? by argStyopa · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So, if I understand this correctly, the NYT (which insists that Saddam never really had any WMDs, and that any development program was phony) publishes an article critical of the administration for putting documents up the web from the so-called Iraqi development programs because they reveal too much information about bomb making?

    Huh?

    How (precisely) does someone get to the point of knowing enough about developing nukes that his notes are classified as sensitive, without actually trying to build those nukes himself?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Hold on a sec....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How (precisely) does someone get to the point of knowing enough about developing nukes that his notes are classified as sensitive, without actually trying to build those nukes himself?"

      Knowledge like that is easily bought when you have billions of dollars at your disposal...

    2. Re:Hold on a sec....? by antv · · Score: 1

      Erm, try reading the article, maybe ?
      This is Iraq research from before the first Gulf war, before all sanctions were in place.
      Iraq stopped all WMD programs after first Gulf war, and wasn't advancing them.
      Even more importantly, they weren't giving this information to al-Quaida and every other nutball with Internet connection.

      --
      Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
    3. Re:Hold on a sec....? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      How (precisely) does someone get to the point of knowing enough about developing nukes that his notes are classified as sensitive, without actually trying to build those nukes himself?

      Perhaps in the same way they got their WMD technology in the first place: from us.

      We most definitely provided Saddam with money, weapons, and training. In exchange he did our bidding and played hand-puppet for a while before he got delusions of grandeur and we had to put him back in his place, so to speak. (Note that I am not in favor of the USA's gross manipulation of the world, just outlining what happened.) Is it really overly paranoid to assume that we gave him information on making nuclear weapons as well? Or that some other nation did, perhaps to give us a hard time? You don't need a lab to have information on weapons if someone else has a lab and is willing to give them to you.

      I don't know if they did or did not have a nuclear weapons program of their own, but there's no evidence that they did outside of these documents. If documents that tell you how to build a nuclear bomb are sufficient evidence that you have a bomb program, then damned near every library in america should be searched for nukes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Hold on a sec....? by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      How (precisely) does someone get to the point of knowing enough about developing nukes that his notes are classified as sensitive, without actually trying to build those nukes himself?

      Maybe some dumb country posts it to a website?

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Hold on a sec....? by yali · · Score: 1
      How (precisely) does someone get to the point of knowing enough about developing nukes that his notes are classified as sensitive, without actually trying to build those nukes himself?

      Ask Japan.

    6. Re:Hold on a sec....? by fleadope · · Score: 1
      Actually, you don't understand correctly. The documents were from Iraq's pre-Gulf War nuclear weapons program.

      detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

      Remember? The program that was shut down by the war, subsequent inspections and sanctions?

      These documents are far more useful to a terrorist doing research than they would have been to one of Saddam's scientists in a country with no access to the material or equipment needed to build a bomb.

      --
      "The problems in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking which created them" --Albert Einstein
    7. Re:Hold on a sec....? by stocke2 · · Score: 1

      this is FUD
      you people need to start doing some research before you keep parroting the dems and media
      the congressional reports show that this is not true and Saddams own generals and scientists told us this is not true
      I know you want it to be, but even if the investigations did not show that it was untrue, it would make no sense, if it were then Saddam would have had no problem allowing the inspectors to do their jobs, and don't parrot that crap that they were, even when he did let them in, he gave them handlers who led them around, and by the accounts of saddams people they moved stuff away ahead of the inspectors.

      --
      A Smith & Wesson beats four aces -- Murphy's Law of Poker
    8. Re:Hold on a sec....? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      And yet, with all your ranting and handwaving... still no WMDs, yet again proving that reality has a strong liberal bias.

    9. Re:Hold on a sec....? by jafac · · Score: 1

      hm. Ya ever think that a dictator who needed the support of the conservative faction of the military ever needed to appease them to stay in power and avoid a coup? Ya ever think that maybe the bluster was empty saber rattling designed for domestic consumption? (much like Bush's).

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  23. It's a bit late. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

    Can we actually still say that anyone can "give" the ability to build a nuke to anyone else in the modern so-called civilized world? The first A-bombs are over 60 years old. Whether you want to build a new Fat Man or Little Boy out of 1940s parts or a slick warp-capable photon torpedo with integrated AI sophisticated enough for it to have a favorite Thelonius Monk album is all pretty much up to the builders, but either one uses an idea that anyone who wants nowadays, has. Suppresing it is like trying to supress the internal combustion engine.

    1. Re:It's a bit late. by RPGonAS400 · · Score: 1
      What is this "infernal combustion engine" you talk of and where can I find plans for it?

      Borat

    2. Re:It's a bit late. by haapi · · Score: 1

      "...integrated AI sophisticated enough for it to have a favorite Thelonius Monk album"

      ROFL

      Good one!

      --
      Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
    3. Re:It's a bit late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not really the case, though I hear it often. The materials and mechanisms for usable devices are still difficult to develop, costly and rare.

      People seem to think that because the US and USSR had nukes decades ago, and have had lots of them since, that it must be a cheap and easy thing to develop and maintain a nuclear arsenal. That wasn't true 50 years ago, and it really isn't true now.

      Consider how many other countries have landed on the moon since the US.

    4. Re:It's a bit late. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1
      That's not really the case, though I hear it often. The materials and mechanisms for usable devices are still difficult to develop, costly and rare.
      This isn't about that end of things, it's about the know-how. A PDF on the web is not going to get the "bad guys" an instant bomb (just add plutonium!) If they or anyone else want to build one, it's terribly expensive and hideously dangerous. But, they already know how. No amount of shutting down websites will remove the areas of human knowledge about nuclear weapons from people we don't trust with the info. All the knowledge and theory needed to build a nuke was in high school science texts before we landed on the damned moon.
  24. Nuclear bombs for Dummies by krell · · Score: 1

    "Couldn't find the "Nuclear Bombs for Dummies" book at the bookstore. A tin-pot dictator from N. Korea bought all the copies."

    Yes. In fact, it was the title of this book which inspired his drive to build the bomb, and due to translation problems he thinks the title refers to a proposed trade, not a type of reader. He hopes to trade the bombs for something he can really use: sex dolls.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  25. Hmmm . . . by code+shady · · Score: 1

    Another poster said that cryptome would probably have this at some point in the future, and it's a safe bet that they will.

    Personally, I'm wondering if there's a google cache or wayback machine archive of the site. I need to go dig around because this is exactly the sort of information I need to have my laptop next time i take an international flight ;)

    --
    Look out honey cause I'm usin' technology
    Ain't got time to make no apologies
  26. What Iraqi WMD program? by krell · · Score: 1, Troll

    We know by now that Saddam Hussein never ever had any WMD.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even READ this article?

      It shows that he was within 1 year of the technology to make a nuke.

      Get off of your high liberal horse and read.

    2. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by Sqwubbsy · · Score: 1

      We know by now that Saddam Hussein never ever had any WMD.

      And the Kurds just gassed themselves...
      BTW, it was never about whether Saddam had WMD, but whether he allowed inspections. He didn't. He lost.

      *waits for inevitable /. groupthink modbombing to ensue*

    3. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by krell · · Score: 1

      "And the Kurds just gassed themselves..."

      Clearly you understand the power of "BushCo" to fake documents anytime, anywhere.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    4. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake Documents? Thought that was CBS's area?

    5. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by krell · · Score: 1

      How Karl Rove pulled off that whole Dan Rather fiasco, I have noooo idea....

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    6. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      BTW, it was never about whether Saddam had WMD, but whether he allowed inspections. He didn't. He lost.

      Strange, I distinctly remember seeing Colin Powell's address to the UN showing them 'hard evidence' of WMDs just before the invasion.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    7. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by HTTP+Error+403+403.9 · · Score: 1
      BTW, it was never about whether Saddam had WMD, but whether he allowed inspections. He didn't. He lost.
      Incorrect, Iraq allowed weapons inspectors back in the country in December of 2002 and they were inspecting until days before the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq.
      --
      I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
    8. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 1

      UN Inspections. The UN did not think that an attack was warranted. The US does NOT have the authority to attack a country without the approval of the UN. We are a global community.

      To put this in perspective, let's say that there's a suspected child molester in your town. The police have been tipped off that he might have molested someone's kid, but they can't get any evidence of that actually happening, and the suspect will not allow police to search his property. An angry coalition of parents descends on his house, and burns his house to the ground. Police later find that the man never molested any children.

      This is what the US has done, and it's sickening.

    9. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It shows that he was within 1 year of the technology to make a nuke.

      In 1990? Why are we still alive?

    10. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      BTW, it was never about whether Saddam had WMD, but whether he allowed inspections. He didn't. He lost.


      Bullshit. Someone else apparently wants to rewrite history.

      Iraq: U.N. Inspections for Weapons of Mass Destruction (Updated October 7, 2003) (pdf format) Note particularly that while the inspections were taking place, and cooperation was good, the ONLY areas of contention were some ambiguities in Iraqi documents as far what was listed and what was shown.

      Further, here is what ELBaradei is quoted as saying:

      Director General ElBaradei reported that inspections since November 2002 have identified no prohibited nuclear activities but urged states to continue to provide intelligence information. ElBaradei specifically suggested that the inspection process "should be allowed to run its natural course" and that credible assurances could be provided within the next few months.

      Inspector's Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'

      Iraq was wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say (note the lies that Dick Cheney perpetuated)

      UN Inspection in Iraq Was No Sham

      Shall I continue or would you like to keep repeating lies?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    11. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by jafac · · Score: 1

      Um. He did allow inspections.

      That's how Clinton knew which buildings to bomb.

      Then, before the 2003 invasion, while Bush was claiming Saddam wasn't allowing inspectors, Saddam had allowed inspectors. Of course, the inspectors were forced to leave when Bush invaded.

      Gee. I dunno. Sounds fishy to me.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    12. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by jafac · · Score: 1

      To put this in perspective, let's say that there's a suspected child molester in your town. The police have been tipped off that he might have molested someone's kid, but they can't get any evidence of that actually happening, and the suspect will not allow police to search his property. An angry coalition of parents descends on his house, and burns his house to the ground.

      Well, they should just vote the fucker out of office. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    13. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Police later find that the man never molested any children."

      Not a very good analogy, since they've found many WMD since the invasion.

    14. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      I could probably round up a group of my friends at universtity who could probably draw up plans to make a nuke within a year, actually doing it is a totaly different matter.

    15. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the US is 100% accurate in knowing who exactly gassed the kurds, because they are the ones who supplied the gas and gave the go ahead for its use on civilians.

    16. Re:What Iraqi WMD program? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't worry, the US is 100% accurate in knowing who exactly gassed the kurds, because they are the ones who supplied the gas and gave the go ahead for its use on civilians.

      Oh, but you should F33R the power of wikiality:
      By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Federal Republic of Germany (1,027 tons).
  27. Web Archive? by Locarius · · Score: 1

    I wonder if any of the spider-based web archiving sites caught it in time.

    1. Re:Web Archive? by Bromskloss · · Score: 1
      I wonder if any of the spider-based web archiving sites caught it in time.
      Google seems to have indexed 290 pages (mostly PDFs) from the server. I don't know how to get them in full text, though. Please let us know how, the one who finds out.
      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  28. This is stupid by porkThreeWays · · Score: 1

    The information on how to build an atomic bomb is already on the web. The issue isn't the directions. It's actually executing the directions. It's not an easy thing to do correctly. Plus, actually obtaining the materials to do so isn't easy either. A few years ago there was a mass panic in some state because a kid did his science project on how to build an atomic bomb. How many high school kids actually built one after that?

    Basically, if you have enough resources to obtain the correct materials and the scientific minds to do it correctly, the directions sheet is the last of your worries. I can use the same recipe as Wolfgang Puck, but it takes a certain expertise to do it right.

    --
    If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    1. Re:This is stupid by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Plus, actually obtaining the materials to do so isn't easy either.

      Right - maybe the plans weren't for a bomb itself - it's easy enough to build a gun-type bomb with sizable yield. Maybe they were for working calutrons or other uranium enrichment technology that allows a nation to gain access to pure fissile material in sufficient quantities to build a nuke.

      A few years ago there was a mass panic in some state because a kid did his science project on how to build an atomic bomb.

      I think that there was a senior undergrad physics project in Princeton that came close to a working prototype (without the fissile component). That ended up classified.

      You're speaking of the "radioactive boy scout," where some high schooler ended up building a powerful neutron source or reactor (depending on your sources) out of the americium sources from several thousand discarded smoke alarms. Apparently, he wasn't too careful about his handling of radioisotopes and his garage required a Hazmat team. Then again, this was in California, IIRC, and they be paranoid over there...

      -b.

    2. Re:This is stupid by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      The information on how to build an atomic bomb is already on the web.

      Well, the very basic knowledge, gun method, explosive lensing, etc is well known to anyone that's read the Wikipedia entry. Detailed instructions on how to construct a nuclear trigger and fire all the charges at exactly the right time aren't. It's not a big deal in the sense that the knowledge isn't particularly hard to get. It's just kind of embarrassing for the Bush administration to have published this information themselves. Basically they look like a bunch of ass-hats and are now trying to blame the NYT for telling people about the administrations blunder.

      --
      AccountKiller
  29. Are those working plans? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    I wouldn't think that they're too reliable, since Iraq isn't known to have tested a nuclear bomb.

    -b.

  30. bad link by krell · · Score: 1

    Your NYT link did not lead to the NYT, but instead led to just another kook partisan blog.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:bad link by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me?

      I linked to a site which had a video of Andrew Card, on The Today Show, blaming the New York Times, with an accompanying transcript.

      I understand that all the progressive over there might scare you, but come on, it's W's former chief of staff being interviewed by Matt Lauer on that video. Surely you can brave the scary hippie vibes long enough to click play.

    2. Re:bad link by krell · · Score: 1

      " understand that all the progressive over there might scare you"

      There's nothing truly progressive about the partisan, reactionary left. No more and no less than the partisan, reactionary right.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    3. Re:bad link by OakDragon · · Score: 1
      Your NYT link did not lead to the NYT, but instead led to just another kook partisan blog.

      Redundancy, redundancy...

    4. Re:bad link by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      How can you tell the difference?

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    5. Re:bad link by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      You're right. I'm sure they contaminated that video from The Today Show with their icky hippie juice. I stand corrected.

    6. Re:bad link by krell · · Score: 1

      Hippies? No idea. However, I saw the name of the link and declined to click it, just like I don't click on links to Sean Hannity or Free Republic.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
  31. The server was shut down...... by 8127972 · · Score: 1

    .... When the North Koreans Slashdotted it. I guess they need the help.

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
  32. the Great Firewall... by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1
    ...I'm sure anyone who could get the raw materials already has this knowledge.


    Heh, except North Korea...

    - RG>
    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    1. Re:the Great Firewall... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      That's because North Korea blocked the entire internet.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  33. The US dont change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trying to monopolize the strongest weapon technology are we eh. Good thing China, Russia and Korea have these weapons also or else we would never know what USA would do.

  34. Bizarre accusations that should be struck down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Critics", in this case, allege that the US has created an archive containing material BOTH FROM IRAQ AND OTHER SOURCES, with the goal that PEOPLE WILL FIND WMD-MATERIAL IN IT - in order to create a connection between Iraq and WMD.

    "Critics" very conveniently skip over, in this accusation, that such a link would only appear if people believed the material where WMD was described _was_ from Iraq. Which is extremely unlikely as any such material would likely be mixed with other military and security documents (what do you expect? 'A secular handbook to nuclear weapons from the purely scientific point of view') that at least contained a number of names of people and places. It is frankly moronic to "assume", as the plural "critics" does in this case, that the US was betting on people not being able to realise if such a WMD-related document was from Iraq or elsewhere.

    Why must we be bothered with these actively disinformational IDEOLOGICAL SHILLS? When arguments and criticism is inane, crazy rambling yet the writer still obviously can both put letters together, actively does so, and manages to have it put on sites with quite a lot of visitors?

  35. Maybe he's being realistic? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    What makes you think you're going to get a better government?

    If there's one waiting in the wings, I fail to see it.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  36. Who said that? by khasim · · Score: 1
    So, if I understand this correctly, the NYT (which insists that Saddam never really had any WMDs, and that any development program was phony) publishes an article critical of the administration for putting documents up the web from the so-called Iraqi development programs because they reveal too much information about bomb making?


    a. No you do not "understand this correctly".

    b. The NYT has never said that Saddam "never really had any WMDs". We know he had them. We sold them to him back during the Iran/Iraq war

    c. The same with Saddam's development programs.

    d. Yes, the documents posted contain information that might be useful.

    e. But you can probably purchase the information from North Korea or Iran or Pakistan, anyway.

    How (precisely) does someone get to the point of knowing enough about developing nukes that his notes are classified as sensitive, without actually trying to build those nukes himself?


    I guess you missed the news about Saddam's nuclear program that was dug up after Gulf War I and when the Israelis bombed his nuclear plant and so on and so forth.

    It's all available on the Internet. It's easy to find. You could also go to the "library" and read a "newspaper" from that time frame to see what was being reported.
  37. Oldthinker! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I appreciate your support, but must you use newspeak? It's a little disconcerting--that's not the new government I was really hoping to see.

    Why do you unbellyfeel AmSoc?

  38. Not really a problem for the determined by infiniter · · Score: 1

    If one actually wants to build a nuclear bomb, it's really not all so terribly difficult... in the most basic form, a nuclear bomb can consist of two "rifles" that fire fissile material at each other.

    I'm not saying that that's a trivial problem... but if you have the expertise to actually build it using the instructions, I'm fairly certain that you also have the expertise to figure it out yourself.

    So is this really important news? Nah. Nuke plans on the web are for self-styled anarchist wannabes and physics geeks. Terrorists don't need them.

    1. Re:Not really a problem for the determined by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Actually there are a lot of minor details that take effort to find out. For instance there was this 17 year old boy scout in Michigan who built a breeder reactor in his backyard, from smoke detectors, old glowing paint and taking batteries apart, and while he got all kinds of badges as a scout and was pretty smart, he still needed to trick some officials from smoke detector and battery companies and nuclear agencies into telling him how some things work exactly, saying he was doing a school report. I guess if he had the internet we have now back then it might have been different, and he would have never had to talk to anybody.

    2. Re:Not really a problem for the determined by infiniter · · Score: 1

      That's true - there are details to iron out. But, as you said, a Boy Scout can figure it out with nothing but a little social engineering. What could a determined someone with a degree in physics, electrical engineering, or chemistry do?

    3. Re:Not really a problem for the determined by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      You have to figure out a way for people to stop hurting each other and stop stepping on each other's feelings, then nobody will use guns and weapons! Like that's ever gonna happen...

  39. What happen ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody set up us the bomb.

  40. Destroyed or transfered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... or maybe there's the possibility that the WMDs never existed.

  41. With knowledge comes responsibility by Gracenotes · · Score: 1

    This is the Technology Age. Information has to be the most valuable commodity around. And this is both good and bad.

    I'm fully for such things as the Open Voting Consortium. In fact, I'm an active supporter. The Consortium wants to change the implementation of the voting system by making it open. But this knowledge of nuclear warfare can go unknown by the masses. Not knowing something can be a part of honesty and integrity. If you don't know the location of the secret hideout of your secret organization (that is, you've been brought there blindfolded), all the sodium thiopental in the world can't make you remember (although you could be overdosed and die).

    On the other hand, if your government is lying to you, your honesty and integrity is absolutely based on the relative truth value of that administration. The latter is as good as a house built on sand during a storm, and the former is as good as shingles on the roof of that house.

    I don't see how anyone could feel entitled to this knowledge, and I support the United States' decision. An important part of this Age of Information is that, in my opinion, with knowledge should come responsibility. Everyone should be able to handle the responsibility of knowing that there may have been some government scandal. Too many cooks spoil the broth, and the masses simply can't handle the responsibility of knowing how to make an atomic bomb. So I'm assuming bad faith? You betcha.

  42. The Government is always held harmless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Anybody who has worked for the Government can tell you that the Government itself is never responsible when rules or laws are broken. The individual Government employee who performed the act is the one who gets fired and/or goes to jail.

    It doesnt matter if the rules or laws are contradictory, overly complex or just plain ridiculous.

  43. Big deal by zecg · · Score: 1

    I've already seen it in the Japanese "The man who stole the sun" (1979).

    --
    .i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
  44. Documents here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mirrored these illusive documents here:

    http://lovemyhounds.tripod.com/litera1.jpg

  45. A Page Full of Straw Men by Walker · · Score: 1

    I am sitting here reading the Slashdot comments and noting that not one person is noting that these nuclear documents are from 1991. No one has ever denied that Saddam had a nuclear program before the first Gulf War. The actions of Bush I shut that down.

    This has nothing to with whether Saddam had WMDs when we went to war in this decade. All the intelligence that we have suggests that he was as close to nuclear weapons as a good university (i.e. the know-how but not the infrastructure).

    1. Re:A Page Full of Straw Men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was from 1995, since it was from the inspectors

  46. Content of the Document by tritonman · · Score: 1, Funny

    Step 1: Get Uranium 238
    Step 2: Place said uranium in a bomb
    Step 3: Get a neutron
    Step 4: Place neutron in a sling shot
    Step 5: Aim said slingshot at uranium
    Step 6: Place timer on slingshot
    Step 7: Drop bomb on Somethingistan
    Step 8: Timer goes off, slingshot shoot neutron at uranium.
    Step 9: Kaboom
    Step 10: Rule the world
    Step 11: Feel sorry for the dead people
    Step 12: Give Somethingistan money to rebuild
    Step 13: Setup a government in Somethingistan
    Step 14: Supply Somethingistan with nuclear capability to protect itself.
    Step 15: Somethingistan revolts
    Step 16: Declare Somethingistan a member of the Axis-of-Evil
    Step 17: GoTo Step 1

    1. Re:Content of the Document by greengrass · · Score: 1

      correction Step1: Get Uranium 235

      --
      The MS "no sue/patent deal" with Novell/Xandros is like the Pope blessing a Jewish wedding
  47. Flamebait? That should have been modded Funny. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    A flamebait mod and a handfull of serious replies, I can see.

    But not even one post from somebody who read the parent as an obvious satire and sarcasm?

    Geez, guys. Get a grip!

    (I guess we have another example of sarcasm not coming across in print.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  48. Indistinguishable from treason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans"

    "The director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, had resisted setting up the Web site, which some intelligence officials felt implicitly raised questions about the competence and judgment of government analysts. But President Bush approved the site's creation after Congressional Republicans proposed legislation to force the documents' release."

    Bush and Republican congressmen were warned about the security risk and _still_ did this. When incompetence reaches this level it is indistinguishable from treason! They're going to have to change from the "Republican Pary" to the "Rosenberg Party." At least they can keep the traditional "R" next to their names.

    Lets see, we're looking for information about making WMDs and it might be in this big stack of documents our translaters don't have time to translate. Lets release it in full on the web despite receiving warning from intelligence agencies that it could be a security risk. Our enemies don't even have to translate it! (I know Iranians speak Persian, but Al Qaeda speaks Arabic).

  49. Duelfer by thule · · Score: 1

    I thought that I read that the Duelfer Report also talked about how, although the weapons programs were not up and running, Saddam was hoping to use the oil for food program to wiggle his way out of inspections and international pressure? Saddam was hoping that once that happened he could resume the research and development of WMD. We now know that the oil for food payoffs were working. Thankfully we will never know when the next step would have been.

    1. Re:Duelfer by Otter+Escaping+North · · Score: 1

      I thought that I read that the Duelfer Report also talked about how, although the weapons programs were not up and running, Saddam was hoping to use the oil for food program to wiggle his way out of inspections and international pressure? Saddam was hoping that once that happened he could resume the research and development of WMD. We now know that the oil for food payoffs were working. Thankfully we will never know when the next step would have been.

      Yeah, the whole country might have ended up a disaster.

      --
      Running Windows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H OSX and Linux in the home. (I don't have time for Solitaire any more.)
  50. Read the blogger who's been on this all along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some bloggers have been looking at the Iraq documents all along and have found very interesting things that have been ignored by the NYT and other MSM outlets. One of the documents turned out to be from an Iraqi general discussing suicide attacks against US interests.

    Take look for your self:

    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/00 8423.php

  51. Re:Flamebait? That should have been modded Funny. by matthewd · · Score: 1

    Thank you!

    I guess it helps to understand satire if you're a rocket scientist!

  52. Um, no by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    Iraq once did have chemical weapons, and did have other objectionable weapons programs. This is generally accepted by all parties. The falsehood isn't that. The falsehood is the US government claim that it had them at the time they invaded, as a justification for that invasion.

  53. Securing material, not information, is the key. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    If al Qaeda (or anyone else) is capable of stealing enough enriched Uranium or Plutonium to build a bomb, then their ability to do so ought to be basically assumed.

    The physics behind it aren't all that hard; if you can steal a nuclear weapon, I'm sure you can find some out-of-work nuclear engineer to help you draw up the plans. It's not as if the U.S. or even the West has a complete lock on that knowledge. There are probably thousands -- maybe more -- of people who would be capable of designing a nuclear weapon given the raw materials and a blank piece of paper. Probably any bright graduate from a school of Nuclear Engineering could, and I don't think we register or otherwise track people in those programs.

    If we want to stop nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, we need to work on security in the physical, material plane; trying to secure and stop the spread of information -- particularly information that's 70 years old and well understood -- is a losing game. It's not security, it's a charade; and worse than that, it's a false sense of security and a diversion of resources that would be better spent rounding up and securing fissionable materials.

    Information, by its nature (being nonconservative) is far more difficult than matter to stop from spreading. It can be slowed down, for a time, and for great expense, but trying to keep a lid on certain ideas forever is a fool's errand.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  54. Clarification by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    On second thought, my first sentence isn't as obvious in its meaning as it should have been. Please allow me to clarify:

    If al Qaeda (or anyone else) is capable of stealing enough enriched Uranium or Plutonium to achieve theoretical supercriticality, then their ability to build a bomb out of it ought to be basically assumed.

    I.e., in designing our security precautions, we should err on the side of always assuming that the terrorists will know how to build a bomb, once they have the minimum set of physical objects necessary to do so.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  55. The hard part by nsayer · · Score: 1

    Seems to me like the hard part about engineering an implosion bomb is, well, getting the implosion right. Couldn't you just trial-and-error that with lead stand-ins for the Plutonium for a while until you got it right? I mean, isn't that at least partly what the Manhattan Project did? Is the physics of the "atomic" part of an atomic bomb really that unknown anymore? What am I missing?

    1. Re:The hard part by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The hard part isn't to get the implosion right. The real trick is to try and get the implosion to occur with a minimum amount of material, especially fissibile material.

      And yes, you could use steel to do the trial and error to see that you got the proper esplosion geometry to crush metal, but ultimately you need to have the PhD in chemistry or nuclear physics because you need to understand the geometry of the Uranium and Plutonium atoms to make sure you have the explosions crushing the metalic "crystals" in the right directions to give you the best possible explosion. If you get it off by even a little bit, you end up with a "fizzle" like what North Korea found out the hard way. It is a bomb that blows up, but the error in geometry instead works against the explosion and reduces the yield considerably.

      Keep in mind that in a "typical" nuke, the raw metal before the fission starts up is usually compressed to only 25% or even substantially less of its original volume. Think about that and remember this is compressing Uranium metal and what kind of energy is needed to pull that off. We are not talking about compressing diatomic hydrogen at 1 atm. pressure.

      BTW, the Manhattan Project bomb was really quite simple. The Hiroshima bomb was actually a rather large (compared to current nukes in the U.S. arsenal) and had a partial sphere of U-235 (mostly) that had another hunk of U-235 that was pushed into that sphere via something that looked like an 18th Century cannon with a predecessor to C-4 acting as the trigger. Some special care was also given to reduce friction in the barrel and a few other things to make it work, but it was about as crude as you could make a workable nuke.

      The bomb on Nagasaki, however, used Plutonium and was in comparison a much more advanced bomb using the explosion geometries mentioned above.

    2. Re:The hard part by nsayer · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the informative reply. I hope the mods are kind to you. One little thing though:

      Think about that and remember this is compressing Uranium metal

      Aren't implosion bombs usually made with Plutonium? They had to resort to that because getting enough Uranium together for more than one gun style bomb was going to take far too long, and you can't use the gun style with Plutonium because it will destroy itself before becoming sufficiently critical for good yield.

      As you said, the gun style would be much easier. but only if you were able to come up with a bunch of refined Uranium.

    3. Re:The hard part by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Bombs like this can be made with either metal, as both U-235 and Pu-239 are very much fizzible isotopes. Obviously the "geometry" of the metalic crystals is simplified if you stick with mainly one type of metal as opposed to trying to deal with alloys of multiple metals.

      One reason why Plutonium is often used is because it can be manufactured from the much more common U-238 isotope via a breeder reactor by "simply" adding a neutron to that atom to make Neptunium (Np-239) which rapidly decays to Pu-239. As a result, material that is otherwise discarded as a tailing is instead made usable into fizzible materials. And since this material is so much more common, most of the current atomic bomb research is going into working with Plutonium instead. Furthermore, refining Plutonium from Uranium is a "mere" chemical seperation technique as opposed to isotopic seperation for the various versions of Uranium.

      The other problem with making a "gun style" bomb with Plutonium is simply because it is an incredibly hazardous chemical substance to work with, not to mention that it is highly reactive to oxygen. Plutonium is one of the most toxic atomic elements that can be absorbed chemically by the Human body, where even small quantities can result in a rather quick but painful death. This is completely discounting the radioactive effects entirely. If you are working with something so crude as a gun-barrel type bomb, you might as well work with the comparatively safer Uranium instead. Plus, that doesn't require the breeder reactor, only a working isotopic seperator.

  56. Takes One to Know One by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1
    From September 30, 2004: Bush vs Kerry Presidential Debate 1:

    BUSH: [...]We'll be implementing a missile-defense system relatively quickly.
    And that is another way to help deal with the threats that we face in the 21st century.
    [...]
    LEHRER: [...] if you're reelected, Mr. President, and if you are elected, the single most serious threat you believe, both of you believe, is nuclear proliferation?
    BUSH: In the hands of a terrorist enemy.


    We are doing everything we can to deploy that Star Wars missile-defense system, starting with creating the threats that require the system.
    --

    --
    make install -not war

  57. Your logic is infallable... by skids · · Score: 1

    ...by the same token, that must mean I am still planning to attend college at RIT because I still have copies of my application (even though I've already graduated from another college.)

    That must mean all the bookmarks I have for product X are dead-on proof that I am planning to buy it, even though I already bought competing product Y. I'd better break out the credit card.

    Holy crap, I just realized I have my tax returns in here! I know I sent a check in already, but unless I burn my copies I'll have to pay them again! I did have them on file, after all!

    Wow I didn't even really know myself, let alone Saddam. Thanks for opening my eyes.

    1. Re:Your logic is infallable... by matthewd · · Score: 1

      No, your logic in infallible, o master of infallible logic. It is obvious to me now that Saddam was just a pack rat when he was in power.

      But now that he's in jail, I seem to remember that he likes Cheetos.

      If you think that is non-sensicle, just think about it a little more. A logic bomb of my own design.

    2. Re:Your logic is infallable... by Knara · · Score: 1

      Hey, smart guy. Re-read this line:

      Saddam was just keeping the documents around to donate to the Saddam Hussein Presidential Library for historical purposes *when his term was up*

      Yeah. I think you need to retune your sarcasm meter.

  58. You wanna see lash out? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Excuse me, stupid (and I mean that with all due respect). The NYTimes admits that in 1991 Saddam had nuclear knowhow. Remember the run-up to the war? Nobody ever claimed that Saddam didn't try to get WMDs back around the time of the first Gulf War, but the whole thing about the UN sanctions was that Saddam was supposed to dismantle the project. And guess what? It turns out he actually did. We've got a few hundred thousand US troops and another 50k "contractors" who get paid by Haliburton who've scoured the country for the last 4 years looking for those fucking weapons and guess what? There ARE NONE, and there's absolutely not a single shred of evidence that Saddam did anything but stop his weapons program over a decade ago. The CIA knew this and STILL Cheney and his chimp insisted that we had to invade Iraq. "Can't wait for the inspectors, gotta do it now". That was all we heard. Remember "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"? It was all bullshit. Utter bullshit.

    And now, after the Republicans told us that since they took over Congress and the White House "The Grown-ups are in charge", we find out that they've actually published instructions for cooking up a little nuke right on the web for anyone to see.

    If there ever was a president and administration that badly needs some oversight, it's this one. And the GOP Congress has proven without a doubt that they will not provide that oversight. My prayer is that next week there will be a new congress who can provide that oversight.

    And if there ever was an administration that is crying out for some investigations, it's this one. I don't care if the new congress does one single thing besides investigate the hell out of this gang of idiots. It would be better than the 5 years of colossal bungling that we've seen.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  59. I'm not worried by edwardpickman · · Score: 1

    Apparently the bomb's design involved fifty million baby teeth and a hammer as a detonator.

  60. Materials by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
    Well, if by raw materials you mean the U235 or Pxx (I forget which plutonium isotope is used), then absolutely. Frankly, developing the bomb seems like something that any good team of engineers could do -- and if there's one type of professional that every nation seems able to muster, it's engineers. Even terrorist groups seem able to get their hands on competent engineers. After all, they're keeping all that Soviet weaponry in good repair, manufacturing rockets and IEDs that are, in some cases, quite sophisticated. Any jackass can make TATP (and blow his fingers off in the process), but some of the other explosives that get used are rather more difficult to create, and require a genuine chemical engineer.

    Profileration is really a national issue, an issue of resources. Nations build nukes. Maybe a particularly industrialized and wealthy city could as well; but has it ever happened? As far as I know, only two nations have EVER gotten nuke building to point where it was anything other than a horrendously difficult, trial-and-error, hand-tweaked mega project. And those two nations -- the USSR and the USA -- have both since then lost/abandoned their ability to mass-produce nuclear weaponry. North Korea is bankrupting itself trying.

    Building a nuke is definitley not about knowledge, it's about the time, money, and manpower to DO it. You really don't need much uranium, although it certainly is helpful that the bulk of the world's uranium mines lie in the hands of Australia and Canada, both non-proliferation nations that enjoy liberal trade with other capitalist democracies.

    1. Re:Materials by qurk · · Score: 1

      History channel international ran a show a month or two ago about Japan and how the evidence points to them actually haven tested a nucleur bomb, soon after the US had dropped theirs. The show said Japan had 2 seperate teams working on the bomb, one in Tokyo, one in Korea, and while the Tokyo team was quite small, the Korea team used extensive slave labor to build underground facilities, etc. According to the show the American forces destroyed all centrifuges, whereas most of the research had been destroyed by the Japanese themselves beforehand. As far as the Korean team goes, I believe the show said the Soviets got their hands on most of that.

      Of course at the time Japan was pretty much under siege and the only forseeable way to transport such a bomb would be to sneak it in by ship... pretty much impossible I'd think. Still was a fascinating show. While they had several aged scientists and witnesses, I remain a little sceptical, however. You never know I guess.

  61. And this shows by crmartin · · Score: 0, Troll

    Iraq HAD a WMD program. According to the NY Times, they were a year from getting a workable bomb.

    I guess Bush *didn't* lie, eh?

    1. Re:And this shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq HAD a WMD program

      In 1991. You didn't get that far because it brings those pesky "facts" into the argument.

      According to the NY Times, they were a year from getting a workable bomb.

      What were they going to build the fissionable core from? All that Yellowcake they didn't buy from Nigeria and couldn't enrich even if they had? Silly Putty?

    2. Re:And this shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      crmartin you are a fucking imbecile.

    3. Re:And this shows by crmartin · · Score: 1

      The best part about this is the "lah lah lah I don't hear you" responses.

  62. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dumbass

  63. Republican failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shows that the current U.S. government is not really interested in arms control, just political propaganda... Republicans making the country safer by publishing nuclear weapon blueprints on the Internet...! FAILs like everything else GWB's administration has been doing. I mean, how stupid can they be? Making these things available just to try to justify their mistakes without giving a damn about the consequences?

  64. what about the 'missing' cargo ships by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

    In reference to

      'whether Saddam Hussein destroyed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or hid or transferred them'

    were there not a couple of mystery cargo ships that departed shortly before the war started and vanished? There was something on the news at the time about them, but they dissapeared ina region where there was nil chance of finding them if they'd been skuttled.

    After that, no more mention, but if wmd existed, my money would go on them being on those ships.

  65. Google cache or way back machine? by Ponga · · Score: 1

    I heard about this on NPR during my drive back from class. Immediatly I though about a spider/bot that may have cached the page before it was pulled.
    Anyone have any links??

    P.S. I am not a terrorist nor am I interested in the actual data included in the pulled pages, only IF the info had been cached or not... :D

  66. Great! by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    Now all the guys sitting on stockpiles of plutonium will just shrug with a confused look, not knowing what to do with it anymore.
    Seriously, who exactly are they trying to stop here?

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  67. Re:You mean Bush *didn't* lie? by Rinkhals · · Score: 1

    I'm laughing all the way to a Rethuglican victory this coming Tuesday.

    Very likely.

    The capacity of Americans for perverse logic appear to know no bounds.

    --
    "I'm a snake if we disagree"-Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle
  68. No WMD in Iraq... by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    >Iraq had none of these (as evidenced by the fact that none of it was found after years and years of searching).

    I still remain unconvinced, for 2 reasons.

    First, who would cook up such an obvious lie when it would be found out immediately? If the administration was going to lie about this, don't you think they would go to the trouble to plant some evidence?

    Secondly, it would not surprise me in the slightest to find that the WMD were secretly helped out of the country into Iran or Syria.

    The Palestinians fired thousands of rockets into Israel just scant weeks ago. Weapons that we know where secreted to them with help from their buddies in Syria.

    If the weapons can be snuck in, why not out?

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:No WMD in Iraq... by Knara · · Score: 1

      Oh, there's zero doubt in my mind they HAD weapons of mass destruction, because, at least in the case of chemical and biological weapons, the US supplied them.

      However, no one believed that Iraq had an active, dangerous WMD program of any sort after the various inspection agencies and groups had gone through Iraq. No one except senior members of the Bush administration, of course.

      The problem is that this report confirms again what we knew already. Iraq had a nuclear and WMD weapons development program pre-Gulf War I. No one has been able to find evidence of a program that was active as of the start of the second Gulf War (though they have found old, decrepit chemical warheads from the Iran-Iraq war...), other than to drag out "well, he WANTED to...."

      If we attacked every third world despot who WANTED to have WMDs we'd..., er, wait...

  69. When knowledge is forbidden by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Freedom soon follows.

    Yet another example of what is going on. ( and no this is not bash on bush, its a general statement, as anyone in office is taking advantage of things )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  70. A timely reminder of Iraq's very real WMDs by mi · · Score: 1

    Turned out, he had no working bombs. But he was supposed — under the 1992 cease-fire deal — to get rid of the KNOW HOW (as in destroy the documents) as well...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:A timely reminder of Iraq's very real WMDs by BatMacumba · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you(??!!?), but THERE WERE/ARE NO 'WMDs' IN IRAQ. Also, I'm sorry to inform you that the Easter Bunny does not exist. :P

    2. Re:A timely reminder of Iraq's very real WMDs by mi · · Score: 1

      The whole FA is about nuclear bomb know-how — documents, which Saddam was supposed to destroy many years ago, but which were captured by Americans in 2003.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  71. And.....? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Link?! C'mon, people! I have an annoying neighbor, and this info seems like just the thing I need.

    1. Re:And.....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  72. North Korea dud by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

    As I understand, the Little Boy (gun barrel) concept is pretty straightforward if you have the material. You just take two nearly critical masses and shoot them into each other at a velocity sufficient to create a critical mass faster than the increasing reaction rates can blow the mass apart. I don't think the Little Boy design was even tested before Hiroshima...unless you count the scientists at the University of Chicago with their atomic pile in the basement. This design is apparently pretty dirty and has a very limited yield.

    The compressed sphere/cylinder concept, as you said, is much harder. Collapse of the mass into a critical density has to be almost perfectly uniform or it fizzes out. It sounds to me like that probably happened in North Korea. I seriously doubt they were trying for a 1/2 kiloton bomb. In designing the HE shells to collapse the fissile material, they reportedly test them on hollow metal blanks the size and shape of the warhead. The metal blank is expected to be evenly shrunk to a fraction of it's original size, but not deformed in any way. It's so precise that they use hundreds of detonators, because the explosive burns to slow to create even pressure from a single detonation point, and all the wires are the same length, to avoid even minor changes in capacitance from delaying any one detonator.

    1. Re:North Korea dud by noewun · · Score: 1
      As I understand, the Little Boy (gun barrel) concept is pretty straightforward if you have the material.

      Yes, but no, but yes. Compared to an implosion weapon a gun weapon is simple. But that's like saying that an Apple II is simpler than a G5: try designing either one from scratch. Even with the simplicity of a gun weapon there are still huge engineering hurdles: you have to make sure the two pieces of uranium are traveling just fast enough. Too slow and you get a fizzle. Too fast and you don't get the density required for supercriticality. There are also the engineering hurdles involved in building the rest of the thing, which are serious.

      It sounds to me like that probably happened in North Korea.

      It's not clear what happened in North Korea, but the consensus I'm reading seems to be that the Koreans were trying some sophisticated implosion techniques which didn't work. The plutonium just "leaks" out of the low pressure points in the implosion.

      It's so precise that they use hundreds of detonators, because the explosive burns to slow to create even pressure from a single detonation point, and all the wires are the same length, to avoid even minor changes in capacitance from delaying any one detonator.

      It's even more complicated than that. From what can be told, U.S. warheads used a 96-point implosion. Now, however, they may use an oblong primary which requires only two detonators, one at either end. "Simple" in the way that only tens of thousands of hours of supercomputer simulation can be simple. And even the detonators are works of art.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
  73. Why does it change anything? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

    99% of geeks already know how to build nukes. Hell I could build a warp core given some dilithium...

    1. Re:Why does it change anything? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I remember a "suppliment" to the Science Fiction magazine "Analog" that included a section on "How to Build a Nuclear Bomb". This was about 20 years ago BTW.

      Interestingly enough, they even had it detachable and strongly suggested that you give it to your friendly neighborhood terrorist, in big bold letters right across the cover of the suppliment.

      Of course, as you got into it and tried to do a Tim McVeigh style of bomb construction using the directions, the terrorist had only about six months to live due to radiation exposure and plutonium poisioning, but who triffles with such minor details anyway. The instructions even described how to build an isotopic concentrator, so you would get more U-235 instead of U-238 in a given sample. The instructions also strongly recommended that you get the base metal ore from a nuclear power facility, as somebody with the raw resources necessary to pull it off would have a triffiling easy task of stealing the fuel rods from a nuclear plant even though it would have to be later refined to be improved. Starting with raw uranium ore was something that only major nations or commercial uranium producers would bother with.

      Kids have been turning in Hydrogen Bomb kits (using clay instead of C-4 and steel instead of plutonium) for some time as science fair exhibits. This is a non-issue that has become an issue by non-techies who think building a nuke is really all that difficult. That is H-bomb, not just a conventional uranium nuke and significantly more difficult to manufacture.

      And the so-called "dirty bomb" is even easier to build. The insurgants in Iraq seem to be pretty good bomb makers of conventional chemical bombs, so all that is really needed for that is some nuclear waste. Not even bomb-grade material.

  74. What a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shows you what a joke all this bullsh*t about dangers to national security is. The government is putting people at risk and doesn't hold itself to account. If that was an individual, I'm sure there would be law enforcement involved and anti-terrorism sentences to imprisonment for an indefinate period.

    1. Re:What a joke by eskayp · · Score: 1

      It was an individual: George W. Bush.
      US security agencies protested publicizing the nuclear How-To.
      Bush overrode them.
      The international anti-proliferation agency asked that the web pages be taken down.
      Bush refused.
      The New York Times exposed the whole sad story about two Republican senators pushing to release the info.
      The pages were taken down -- very quietly.
      Republican flacks blamed the NYT for calling attention to the 'nucular' WMD info.
      If it keeps them in office, hawkish conservative 'patriots' must feel it is OK to help terrorists get the A-bomb.

      --
      I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
  75. If it's the *information* that's dangerous.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you seem to be forgetting Saddam had control of that information. And ignoring the fact that these documents reveal that Saddam retained that information. And you can't call publishing this information dangerous without saying it made Saddam a threat - even until the day he was deposed. Because Saddam had it.

    Is this information dangerous and should not have been released, and therefore it made Saddam a threat? You can't say releasing this data was wrong, and then turn around and claim Saddam was not a threat.

    And don't you find it ironic that the NY Times is calling the release of information dangerous?

    1. Re:If it's the *information* that's dangerous.... by Psykosys · · Score: 1
      The US did not go to war on Iraq because the country had some of the knowledge necessary to make nuclear weapons. The (nuclear) justification for invasion was that there was a very pressing nuclear threat, a claim we now know to be untrue.

      If we were to use nuclear knowledge, rather than nuclear ability, as a measure of whether a particular country is a threat there would be a very, very long list of countries that are dire and immediate threats (not that some of the neocons don't think this, anyway).

  76. It did work like that by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Somehow, they were convicned that opening these documents would unleash an "Army of Davids,"

    It did - a lot of interesting translations were released before the archive got shut down. At first the army was simply going to destroy these documents, and doesn't that seem like an even greater act of stupidity?

    It's not like instructons for how to build nuclear bombs have not been published in the past. This archive was a valuable look into the Saddam administration and it's a shame it has been shut down - hopefully they'll bring some parts back. But of course to do so, they now have to know what parts are safe, and to know that they need translations of the documents...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  77. RTFNYT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dumberass

  78. Information was supposed to be destroyed by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Even a latent program is still a program. Saddam held onto document detailing how to build neculear weapons that were supposed to have all been destroyed.

    You can't have it both ways on this, even though the left is currently spinning this like a 78 RPM record plugged into a european power outlet. Oops!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Information was supposed to be destroyed by toddestan · · Score: 1

      You can't have it both ways on this, even though the left is currently spinning this like a 78 RPM record plugged into a european power outlet. Oops!

      Why not? This is nothing compared to what the White House was telling us Saddam had a few years ago. This is hardly the smoking gun that the Republicans have wanting for the last several years to justify their war.

    2. Re:Information was supposed to be destroyed by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Why not? This is nothing compared to what the White House was telling us Saddam had a few years ago.

      You mean a WMD program? Looks like they had it. Unless you claim they didn't have anything. it's not a matter of degree, but of existence - where there's smoke there's fire, after all. People have been claiming for some time there's no smoke, now we find a room full that's also oddly hot.

      Some of the other documents translated also revealed evidence of more exotic chemicals being moved around, if you want something more concrete...

      Thanks NYT for letting everyone know "the lie behind the lie"!

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Information was supposed to be destroyed by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, everyone knew that Iraq had a WMD program at one time, no one denies that. It's a matter of timing - the WMD program had been dismantled for years. Finding a bunch of documents dated from before the Gulf War are pretty much irrelevant in the context to the 2003 invasion.

  79. what a load by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    yeah right, you can just nip down to the hardware store and cookup a nuke. get real. anyone with the funds and equipment needed to make a nuclear device doesn't need any help from a website to get the job done.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  80. Where did Iraq learn its nuclear-weapons skills? by sanjoymahajan · · Score: 1

    Fascinating how the New York Times manages to fill the whole article, on the front- and continuation pages, discussing who released the documents, etc. and never explains who taught Iraq how to build atom bombs. As the article says:

    ...the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

    Iraq was indeed dangerous before the war: the first Gulf war in 1991. A suspicious reader might, perhaps, wonder where Iraq learnt advanced techniques of bomb construction. A likely source would be the country with the most nuclear weapons:

    In one of the more stunning incidents, in September 1989, just one year before the Iraqi military stormed over the Kuwaiti border, U.S. military officials invited several Iraqi technicians to attend a "detonation conference" at the Red Lion Inn in Portland, Ore.

    The conference -- the Ninth Symposium (International) on Detonation, was a crash course from the world's experts on how to detonate a nuclear weapon. Among the named sponsors of the conference were the Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Armament Laboratory, the Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, the Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Office of Naval Technology and Sandia National Laboratories, according to the conference proceedings. [Source: "Made in America", San Francisco Bay Guardian, 25 Feb 1998]

    Fun trivia: Who was president of the United States in September 1989?

    No doubt, the New York Times just did not know of the above highly secret information, because it was first revealed only on the floor of the US House of Representatives. See the Statement of Henry B. Gonzalez, Chairman, House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, "Bush Administration had Acute Knowledge of Iraq's Military Industrialization Plans," July 27, 1992.

    I tip my hat to the New York Times, masters of 'free'-world propaganda.

  81. Mod parent down... by ktakki · · Score: 1

    You have no idea what you're talking about.

    First, the bullet-core arrangement you mention is not a hydrogen bomb. It's the simplest form of atomic weapon, a gun-type bomb like Little Boy, the weapon dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945. And even that bomb wasn't so simple: in order to insure an airburst roughly 2000' over the city, the bomb used redundant radar and barometric triggers to determine altitude (the actual height of detonation was 1850').

    Little Boy was simple but inefficient, given the amount of fissile material used.

    Trinity and Fat Man (the first test shot and the Nagasaki weapon) were plutonium-based implosion weapons. A sphere of high explosive lenses was used to implode plutonium around a neutron-rich core (the initiator). This was a more efficient use of fissile materials but the engineering involved was complicated: each explosive lens had to be detonated at exactly the right time in order to achieve perfect implosion (and this was first done by engineers with slide rules, mind you). Even now, sixty years later, the dimensions of the initiator at the core of the weapon are still classified Top Secret.

    A hydrogen weapon uses an implosion fission device as a primary, and is designed to channel its energy to a secondary fusion device consisting of polystyrene, uranium, and deuterium. The engineering involved in such a device is far beyond slide rules, since a difference of microseconds can mean a successful fusion reaction or a weapon blown apart by its own primary. A fizzle, in other words.

    Enriching uranium and generating plutonium are solved problems, but they are energy- and material-intensive. In 1944-45, it took two massive industrial complexes at Hanford WA and Oak Ridge TN to produce enough fissile materials for three weapons.

    k.

    --
    "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    1. Re:Mod parent down... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      First, the bullet-core arrangement you mention is not a hydrogen bomb. It's the simplest form of atomic weapon, a gun-type bomb like Little Boy, the weapon dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945. And even that bomb wasn't so simple: in order to insure an airburst roughly 2000' over the city, the bomb used redundant radar and barometric triggers to determine altitude (the actual height of detonation was 1850').

      Little Boy was simple but inefficient, given the amount of fissile material used

      A couple of points:

      1. Terrorists who are prepared to commit suicide aren't going to have to worry about perfecting a safe remote delivery system.

      2. Inefficiency is more or less irrelevant, as long as the thing actually explodes. Something like 50,000 people died immediately at Hiroshima, a tenth of this number would be a spectacular "success" for any terrorist group.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  82. Unfortunately by Malakusen · · Score: 1

    Iran does have a lot of Uranium. See here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/mines .htm

    --
    Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
    1. Re:Unfortunately by shmlco · · Score: 1

      Reread the part about "enriched Uranium-235". A massive amount of infrastructure is needed to separate, purify, and enrich enough Uranium to get it to weapons-grade levels. Or have you missed the cries of outrage over their plans to build 10,000 or so gas centrifuges?

      If you have the technology needed to do that, I suspect you can figure out a few timing circuits...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  83. The Constitution Says... YES! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Bush insisted on publishing all those docs without review, despite even his Republican crony Intelligence Czar trying to stop his insane blunder.

    Bush is the guy who suppresses journalists informing Americans that Bush is illegally spying on us, kidnapping random people into torture gulags, and explaining even the most basic miserable facts about his Iraqatastrophe by calling them "traitors", who "aid the enemy". Meanwhile, he publishes atomic bomb instructions to any enemy with a Web connection.

    And waives the requirements on N Korea's nuke plants that kept them from becoming weapons. And sends our army to Iraq instead of securing Afghanistan. And WHERE'S OSAMA?

    Bush is the worst terrorist enemy the US has ever had. Even just in Iraq he's killed as many Americans as Osama killed in NYC, DC and PA, to say nothing of the tens of thousands badly maimed, and the tens-hundreds times as many Iraqis.

    This Tuesday, November 7, you'll have the chance to go to the polls and vote for a Democrat for your representative in the House. Probably your senator is up for selection as a Democrat, too. Throw out the criminal Republican co-conspirators with Bush who have let him wage his Terror War against us without oversight or complaint. Stop this criminal act now, before it kills again.

    Whoops - too late. Tuesday can't come fast enough to save the Americans in Iraq who will have to die before we can even get a Democratic Congress to stop Bush in January. But at least we can start cutting our losses ASAP.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:The Constitution Says... YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bush is the worst terrorist enemy the US has ever had"

      He's one of the best anti-terrorist friends the world has ever had.

      "Throw out the criminal Republican co-conspirators with Bush who have let him wage his Terror War against us"

      Are you an Al Qaeda member? Only one of those could possibly see Bush as an enemy.

      "But at least we can start cutting our losses ASAP.
      BR. If the Democrats win and we surrender to the terrorists, our losses will only increase.

    2. Re:The Constitution Says... YES! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Bush is the Qaeda. Osama's best friend - won't catch or kill him, repeats his terrorism as often as possible.

      Anonymous terrorist Coward, you hate America. Osama, is that you?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:The Constitution Says... YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Bush is the Qaeda. Osama's best friend - won't catch or kill him, repeats his terrorism as often as possible.

      That made as much sense as "The sun comes up in the west". and "Red is green".

    4. Re:The Constitution Says... YES! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I don't think a terrorist running the US makes much sense, but it's obvious that it's true.

      WHERE'S OSAMA? I keep hearing his words in Republican election ads.

      WHERE'S OSAMA? I keep seeing his wet dreams come true in Bush's policies.

      WHERE'S OSAMA?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:The Constitution Says... YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I don't think a terrorist running the US makes much sense, but it's obvious that it's true."

      The terrorists are running from the United States.

      " I keep hearing his words in Republican election ads."

      Maybe the Iraqi Republican Guards, but the US Republican party is the one that opposes the terrorists. The Democrats are much more on the terrorists' side, wanting surrender.

    6. Re:The Constitution Says... YES! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Now I know where some of those $BILLIONS stolen from the Iraq budget went: into Anonymous Coward terrorbots which just lie to deny Republican TV ads repeating Osama's terrorism, lie to deny Bush and Rumsfeld surrendering to the Taliban in Pakistan, and lie to deny the terrorists running the US from the Bush White House.

      Even a 'bot can hate America, and you most certainly do.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  84. More Impeachment Charges Coming by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1
    Bush's "security team" let criminals steal nuke secrets from Los Alamos National Lab.

    They stumbled across some of the docs on thumbdrives only after a drug raid on a nearby trailer. Drug criminals holding nuke secrets:
    one federal official recently briefed on the issue says "It's devastating." If a nuclear weapon were stolen, the information "would tell the terrorists everything they need to do to get a weapon to fire."


    George Bush: worse than Katrina. Feel safer?
    --

    --
    make install -not war

  85. I've got it! by krell · · Score: 1

    "You have to figure out a way for people to stop hurting each other and stop stepping on each other's feelings, then nobody will use guns and weapons! Like that's ever gonna happen..."

    Mandatory lobotomies. Demand it now. For peace.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?