Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikileaks Releases Early Atomic Bomb Diagram

Posted by Soulskill on from the some-assembly-required dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks has released a diagram of the first atomic weapon, as used in the Trinity test and subsequently exploded over the Japanese city of Nagasaki, together with an extremely interesting scientific analysis. Wikileaks has not been able to fault the document or find reference to it elsewhere. Given the high quality of other Wikileaks submissions, the document may be what it purports to be, or it may be a sophisticated intelligence agency fraud, designed to mislead the atomic weapons development programs of countries like Iran. The neutron initiator is particularly novel. 'When polonium is crushed onto beryllium by explosion, reaction occurs between polonium alpha emissions and beryllium leading to Carbon-12 & 1 neutron. This, in practice, would lead to a predictable neutron flux, sufficient to set off device.'"

68 of 429 comments (clear)

  1. Well, by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Funny

    I have tried to make a bomb with this diagram and I have had no problems with the designs. I guess it must b[NO CARRIER]

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:Well, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is not a leak, nor is it really new. The image came from the Penny Report:
      http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/BritishBombPlans.html

    2. Re:Well, by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Not only that, but this:

      When polonium is crushed onto beryllium by explosion, reaction occurs between polonium alpha emissions and beryllium leading to Carbon-12 & 1 neutron. This, in practice, would lead to a predictable neutron flux, sufficient to set off device.

      Was declassified decades ago. The need for the additional neutron source was questionable in the gun-type nuclear weapons, but the scientists who built the bomb wanted to make sure that it detonated. Especially since they had only tested the implosion device. (The gun-type device was considered so simple that it didn't need testing.)
      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
  2. Slashdot Please Stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok we get it, wikileaks has a lot of cool shit to check out, but this is getting redundant.
    It's not news to say "Hey look wikileaks has XXX up". People can goto wikileaks themselves and see without you guys posting it like its real news.

    1. Re:Slashdot Please Stop by MR.Mic · · Score: 3, Funny

      "wikileaks has XXX up"

      No shit? CHECKING IT OUT RIGHT NOW!

    2. Re:Slashdot Please Stop by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot is not a primary news source. ALL the stories reference another source. The value is in putting the more interesting things in one place.

  3. Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But I thought the mechanics of such a device were pretty well understood? Don't they just divide a sphere with sufficient critical mass into "pie" pieces and then just use explosives to force all the pieces together at the appropriate time? (I'm sure it's not quite THAT simple.)

    Cheers,

    1. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, and you'd think a country like Iran would have other ways to get this kind of information. Like, I dunno, stealing it from Pakistan.

      The nuclear cat is out of the bag, and as long as the US has a single nuke, they have no place to lecture others about non-proliferation.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      To quote the analysis by Wikileaks:

      This diagram is not really a secret to foreign intelligence services; nobody is going to be surprised by this design, just by the fact that it's appeared in public. Open sources have speculated on these matters for a long time (see nuclear weapons design article in Wikipedia), and this just confirms that they were right. (The structure of the neutron initiator is elegant, and interesting, however.)

      This is a crude, but effective, plutonium based design. Devices that are orders of magnitude more efficient are possible. A disclosure of, for example, the plans of the W-88 or a Russian equivalent, would be far more threatening, as there are actually real secrets involved there not known to all the NWS (the Big-5 + India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea) or Virtual NWS (Germany, Japan, Sweden, South Korea, Canada, Ukraine, Taiwan, Italy, Spain...to name a few) intelligence agencies. After 1949 or so, disclosure of this would not have been a real threat to U.S. national security.

      The real problem about building one of these designs is the rarity (at least outside of NWS nuclear facilities) of plutonium and polonium, as well as the ability to fabricate sophisticated high explosives to exacting specifications. We're not talking about IEDs here. To build a nuclear weapon requires a state.
      I do still think (as they say) that it is interesting that the documents have surfaced at all. I am very impressed with the even handedness that Wikileaks shows in providing possibilities for a hoax but also potential evidence to the contrary - it's somewhat of a breath of fresh air compared to much of the sensationalism that we are often subjected to on subjects much more trivial than this.
    3. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by gnick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, and you'd think a country like Iran would have other ways to get this kind of information. Like, I dunno, stealing it from Pakistan. Yes, most of the information is public domain at this point. Although, I've never seen a sketch with specific weights in the wild before. Those you would need to "steal" from Dr. Khan.
      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      you take a ball of uranium and shoot it with a bullet made of uranium...

      You just described the "Little Boy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_boy/). The document in question describes the "Fat Man" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man), a wholly different design.

    5. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by smallfries · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a contorted argument designed to win a cheap point in an argument. You know exactly what the GP meant: The point of proliferation is that it leads to possession. A country possessing nukes cannot argue against proliferation without being a hypocrite - it is specifically arguing that other countries should not be able to do what it has.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    6. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by aurispector · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry , I just cant agree. This argument assumes all regiemes are equal. Equating the US to Iran or North Korea is ludicrous in the extreme, and you know it.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    7. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by dfetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Absolutely right. Neither Iran nor North Korea have waged wars of aggression in the past 50 years. If you're alleging that the US hasn't done so, you're being extremely naïf.

      --
      What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    8. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by arivanov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, nothing particularly novel about the initiator.

      The world and its dog knows that it is Be + Alpha emitter. In fact, the first time I read it was in high school.

      Po is not the only option here. Ra will also work, so will a few others. In fact if anything makes me doubt this document is exactly this. The Hirosima and Nagasaki bombs were manufactured before the radioactive isotope industry came online. In those years everything was geared towards plutonium and U235. Very few resources were devoted to other stuff. So I would have expected to see Ra there, not Po because Ra was retrieved as a byproduct of the mining and did not require special manufacturing. IIRC the Kurchatov's first Russian bomb was with a Ra/Be initiator, not Po/Be.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    9. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you think it a hypocritical stance or a double standard you don't understand the standard very well.

      Lets consider a simpler example... I am a gun owner who is very pro-gun and support the second amendment... does that mean I'm a hypocrite because I am all for the barring of certain people from legally owning firearms?

      In this country we limit the rights of certain people... such as minors and felons, people who we as an ordered society have deemed either not yet mature enough to handle the responsibility or have shown themselves to be irresponsible through the commission (and conviction) of a very serious crime.

      The same thing is seen when the United States (and others) try to stop other countries from developing/processing nuclear weapons. We don't do it arbitrarily and say "Nyeh, we want to be the only ones with the bomb"... instead we do it to generally unstable nations who are less likely to act responsibly with it.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    10. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by mikerich · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Trinity design, and by extension the first Soviet and British weapons, was a solid sphere of plutonium at the centre of which was the neutron source known as the initiator, or by its designers - the Gadget. There was a subcritical mass of plutonium in the bomb, but if it was compressed it would become supercritical and explode (compressing, reduces the distance between nuclei making it more likely that a neutron from one fissioning nucleus will hit another and propagate a chain reaction).

      The compression was achieved using a sphere of high explosive lenses which when detonated acted to symmetrically squeeze the plutonium core into a tiny fraction of its original volume. At the same time, the initiator would be crushed, rupture and begin spilling additional neutrons into the core of the bomb. The timing here is crucial, there is actually only a tiny tiny fraction of a second for the bomb to reach optimum conditions for fission, so even though the initiator spits out billions of neutrons, only ten or so are present at the crucial moment!

      The Trinity design was pretty much obsolete in the US from about 1948 when the US exploded a series of bombs in Operation Sandstone. These weapons used a so called levitated core - a hollow core of plutonium rather than a solid core. The hollow core allows for much greater compression and allows plutonium to go much further. It also led to smaller, lighter weapons that could be put on a missile.

      The broad design of Trinity has been known for some time now, but what has been much less understood are the designs of the explosive lenses, the detonators for the lenses and perhaps most secretive - the initiator.

      Knowledge of the initiator design was crucial for the Soviet Union to explode Joe 1 in 1949, they got that from spies within the Manhattan Project, including Klaus Fuchs who had been on the initiator design team. When the US excluded the UK from nuclear weapons research (despite the UK providing them with many of the key technologies), Fuchs and co. went on to help design the first British weapon, Hurricane, which was detonated in 1952 a few days before America exploded Mike, the first true hydrogen bomb.

    11. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by dfetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Overthrowing the dictator we installed isn't a "war of aggression." At most, it's self-defense.

      --
      What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    12. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by smallfries · · Score: 5, Informative

      No this is completely wrong. Non-proliferation is completely unilateral and is aimed at preventing all non-nuclear states from developing the bomb. Have a read if you are unsure of the terms - but don't make up half-baked analogies to support your incorrect assumptions.

      So in your terms, the signatories to the NPT who possess nukes are saying "Nyeh, we want to be the only ones with the bomb". Which is why the poster that I replied to was making such a contorted point, why the US is hypocritical in its policy, and why you are flat out wrong.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    13. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by QuantumBritt · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Uh, did you forget about that little 8 year long war they had against Iraq? Seriously, before making statements you should do a little research... while one might call the Iran - Iraq war a war of aggression on Iraq's part, they can only do so up until a certain point when Iran certainly was the aggressor.


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

    14. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by M-RES · · Score: 5, Informative

      Once again, it seems people just try to rewrite history, merely spewing fascist crap repeated by rightists with an agenda...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

      The Shah the US/UK helped to reinstall through a covert operation of bribery and supply (Operation Ajax) designed to undermine support of the popular secularist movement that the country was making (nationalising Iran's oil at the expense of British Petroleum) was an illegitimate ruler imposed on the Iranian people at the expense of the established democratically elected government of Mohammed Mosaddeq who could trace HIS lineage back to the elections - and surely that's how democracy is supposed to work... so for anyone who still believes that their country (US or UK especially) has a divine right to remove any democratically elected official who doesn't work for THEIR interests (or at least the interests of their corporations), then beware the precedent you have set, because the same tactic may be used against your own countries in the future. There is one rule for all, or you will find that you reap what you sow.

    15. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by fbjon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, Iran and North Korea (e.g.) aren't quite trustworthy when it comes to implements of destruction. However, you're making the assumption that the US is the opposite. That's where the hypocrisy lies.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    16. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by eebra82 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You seem to know your way around making bombs. Say, would you be interested in moving to Tehran?

      If so, drop me a message.

      --
      Full Tilt
    17. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No.
      The point of non-proliferation is that unlike the U.S. who used the weapons twice and then stopped because they were horrified, there are a lot of crazy fucks on this planet who know what nukes do and would love to use them.

      Nukes and biological warfare are likely end scenarios in our lifetime. As it gets easier and easier to do this kind of thing, smaller and smaller groups can pull it off. I'm certain within my life time some terrorist organization is going to release a deadly flu or enhanced disease into the US using suicidal (or unwitting) humans to transport into the target country.

      Do you think the US, Russia, China, or any other rational country is going to use Nukes first again? I think not.

      Do you think there are many terrorist organizations that would use nukes if they had them? I think so.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    18. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by mc6809e · · Score: 4, Informative

      Neither Iran nor North Korea have waged wars of aggression in the past 50 years. If you're alleging that the US hasn't done so, you're being extremely naïf.

      While there hasn't been a lot of fighting, North Korea is still at war with the south, so why would they need to initiate another war? They've been at war for 50 years!

      And Iran invaded US territory when they took the US embassy in 1980. They've been fighting the US and Israel for 20+years since. Oh sure, there's been no official declaration of war. But you'd have to be extremely naif to believe they aren't actively participating, though indirectly, in a war against the US and Israel.

    19. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by Toonol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Truman administration's refusal to abandon nuclear weapons was what started the Cold War. They instead choose to keep the weapons to threaten Russia. In short, United States foreign and nuclear policy has been immature and shortsighted, driven by domestic politics.

      Truman starting the cold war was the price to pay for avoiding a hot war. The cold war was the best choice, when the alternative was another major war in Europe.

      And, strangely, our "immature and shortsighted" foreign policy pretty much worked. We won the cold war with Russia.

    20. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you read and analyze the Cold War context of the moves in Iran in 1953 it becomes a more gray issue. 'Democratically Elected' governments located that close to the USSR at the time had an unfortunate tendency to become 'One Man, One Vote, One Time' countries, similar to what has happened in Zimbabwe.

      This doesn't fully excuse the US-sponsored coup. It does, however place it into the proper context of 'two forces in struggle' not the ignorant 'pure evil US government and greedy Oil Companies' interpretaton that the class warriors who lost the Cold War try to frame it in.

    21. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by dfetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh, did you forget about that little 8 year long war they had against Iraq?

      You mean the one Saddam started, using aggression as in unprovoked attack? The one we told him we'd be just fine with? That one?

      Seriously, before making statements you should do a little research... while one might call the Iran - Iraq war a war of aggression on Iraq's part, they can only do so up until a certain point when Iran certainly was the aggressor.

      Iraq was the aggressor, with our full blessings. Please to get your head out of your hat, or wherever it is that you've had it stuck.
      --
      What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    22. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Absolutely right. Neither Iran nor North Korea have waged wars of aggression in the past 50 years. If you're alleging that the US hasn't done so, you're being extremely naïf.

      You're right, sort of. Iran was invaded and fought with Iraq for 8 years. North Korea didn't exist until after the Korean war, and is held in check by the USA. They do, however, kidnap people from Japan and Korea as a matter of course. Sure, they haven't invaded anybody, but it's mainly because they haven't had the chance.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    23. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let me get this straight. You're saying that in 1953, the US sponsored a coup which deposed a the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh, a man with no ties to the Soviet Union or to Communism in any form, on the basis of what was going to happen in a country which would not exist for another twenty-seven years?

      No, he's referencing Domino theory. We didn't care about democracy (we still don't), we just wanted an ally.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    24. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

      Politicians of the time really thought that the USSR was waiting for the excuse to invade Western Europe, and reacted to what they knew. That the information was completely wrong is neither here nor there (*why* it was so wrong is open to debate).
      \

    25. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by ckaminski · · Score: 3, Informative

      The United States and Russia have been disarming their arsenals for 20+ years now. There's a deliberate effort to maintain "nuclear parity" but to say that the U.S. isn't practicing what it preaches is disingenuous. From 10,000 to 2000 warheads in 20 years, and we're far better at protecting them than our ex-Soviet counterparts.

    26. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by shaitand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Give me a break, the US does every dirty trick in the book. Just because our cruelty is more subtle and hidden behind flowery prose does not make the US 'the good guys'.

      The US violates virtually every treaty established for the good of mankind. They violate the geneva convention, they continue to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal, they are developing and deploying space weapons, they are developing and utilizing chemical weapons, they ignore unfavorable WTO rulings, they are committing wars of aggression throughout the world in response to a simple police matter.

      Further the US has rounded up its own people during world war II, forced them into concentration camps and imposed forced sterilization. The US employs a public education system that creates a fabricated version of US history to teach to its youth to instill a false sense of patriotism. Those same impressionable young minds are forced to swear allegiance to their central government.

      Lets see, spying on citizens. Requiring 'permits' to openly protest. A well established youth 'education' program. Centralized power. Incarceration without trial. The great atrocities of Nazi Germany really had nothing to do with Jews you know.

      Notice I do not include myself as part of the US. I may have been born within its borders and I certainly consider myself part of the PEOPLE but I want no part in the festering evil that is the government in this nation. I do not claim it, I do not recognize its right to exert authority over me by force of arms, and I don't want it.

    27. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      'So, you don't pay taxes and you're either looking for a new place to live after you surrender your citizenship or you're actively working to overthrow this evil regime?'

      Love it or leave it? Actually yes, I actively work in a non-violent manner to change and/or overthrow this regime. I pay its taxes and obey its laws, just as I would obey any violent psychopath who forced me at gunpoint to do as he says. But when time comes to resist, you resist, be it an evil regime or an individual psychopath.

      'Because I'm sure someone who feels as strongly as you do wouldn't want to benefit from anything the US government or other citizens do to improve your life.'

      You act as if the two are related. The US government is not representative of my citizens or community, that is the point.

    28. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Po is not the only option here. Ra will also work, so will a few others. In fact if anything makes me doubt this document is exactly this. The Hirosima and Nagasaki bombs were manufactured before the radioactive isotope industry came online. In those years everything was geared towards plutonium and U235. Very few resources were devoted to other stuff. So I would have expected to see Ra there, not Po because Ra was retrieved as a byproduct of the mining and did not require special manufacturing.

      Sometimes I find the arrogance of Slashdot incredible. It doesn't matter what history records - the document can't be correct because you "wouldn't expect" the configuration it shows. You can't even be bothered to google or do any other research.
    29. Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

      The broad design of Trinity has been known for some time now, but what has been much less understood are the designs of the explosive lenses, the detonators for the lenses and perhaps most secretive - the initiator.

      Maybe for amateurs. Folks who actually study nuclear weapons have known pretty much everything on the diagram and everything you describe as "less understood" for years now.
       
      For the same reason, much of the amateur commentary on the Wikileaks page makes me gag.
       
      "Diagram Roughly to scale. No easy feat in days prior to computerized drafting tools." WTF? Making a diagram to scale, even roughly, is trivial. I was doing it in the sixth grade (1974!) with little plastic ruler and a cheap metal compass. "High Explosives & Miznay/Schardin effect (e.g. shaped charge) Miznay/Schardin effect will work in this design, in all likelihood, though the additional layer of HE after the first layer of lenses is a surprise." Well, no - the second layer isn't a surprise. Richard Rhodes described it in the The Making of the Atomic Bomb" in 1986! "Neutron Initiator Theoretically workable." Well, duh. This has also been widely described in the literature - I'd have been surprised to find if it weren't as diagrammed.
       
      Etc... etc..
  4. *Yawn* by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Having the plans, and having the tooling and know-how to actually follow the plans to get a working device are two hugely different matters.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  5. Sounds like a short-lifed design by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "When polonium is crushed onto beryllium by explosion, reaction occurs between polonium alpha emissions and beryllium leading to Carbon-12 & 1 neutron. This, in practice, would lead to a predictable neutron flux, sufficient to set off device."
    Wikipedia gives the half-life of the most commonly used Polonium isotope with about 138 days:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium
    This may be fine for a bomb that is to be used shortly after manufacture, but not for a warhead that is supposed to sit in a missile silo for years. Of course, the USA wanted to use the bomb on Japan, so long-term storagewas not an issue ;-)

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
    1. Re:Sounds like a short-lifed design by MWoody · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you win for the most wildly inappropriate use of the winking smiley in Internet history.

    2. Re:Sounds like a short-lifed design by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You're right - but I think it's a myth that nukes and their delivery systems can be set, waiting without maintenance for years until somone just presses the button. Maybe that's the real reason there aren't any space-based weapons.

      In practice (I'm no expert, but this is the internet!) when you take the serviceability of weapons, missiles, communications, bunkers and all the other pieces into account, I'd be surprised if more that 1/4 of any major nuclear force could be launched on any particular day, unless there was a lot of build up time to get all the parts reassembled and tested. Just look at how long it takes to get a satellite launch vehicle or the scuttle ready to go.

      That does lead to the rather worrying question of just how many nukes are in transit between their SILOs and the (re)manufacturing facilities on any given day.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    3. Re:Sounds like a short-lifed design by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

      There were problems with more than just storage - after WWII was over, nearly all the nuclear physicists and engineers who had built these bombs (BY HAND) left to return to universities. This left the US nuclear stockpile at a surprising level: ZERO. We literally had no reserve and no capacity to build any more

      Not completely true. Our reserves were small, and so was our capacity to build more - but it was never zero. Had they been zero... How did we do Crossroads in 1946 and Sandstone in 1948?
  6. Novel? by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What exactly is so "novel" about the description of the neutron initiator? This design of the "urchin" has been known for decades and hasn't been novel since the 50's. No one even uses them anymore due to unpredictability, all implosion weapons use pulsed neutron generators based on fusion of deuterium with tritium. If anything, the document merely serves to confirm that we've been right about our ideas on how the thing originally worked.

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  7. Home made atomic bomb by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Back in the mid 70's, Electronics Australia (hobbyist HAM radio and electronics magazine - now defunct) did a mock project that showed you how to make a non-portable atomic bomb. The design was based on firing a large uranium bullet at a uranium target. The target was encased with several tonnes of concrete in order to contain the critical mass long enough for an explosion to occur. In the article they talked about how construction of the bomb would basically kill the workers, which at the time seemed stupid, but in these days of suicide bombers seems reasonable.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  8. I think I'll wait.... by acehole · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...until the design which involves a pringles can is available.

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
  9. Re:Hmmm by PhxBlue · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think some guy may have drunk it.

    --
    !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  10. Re:Oooookay then.... by smackenzie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, very specific information about the Fat Man is widely available. For example, wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man -- but you can do even better with a quick search.

    Having the schematics is a nice start, but even if you manage to collect the components, handle the components safely and actually construct something similar to the Fat Man, you end up with an ENORMOUS device that is relatively weak compared to the nuclear devices of today. Your going to have trouble sneaking this monstrosity, say, through the Holland tunnel into NYC.

    Now, schematics for a suitcase nucleur device made from readily available and cheap components... that would raise my eyebrows.

  11. Re:Oooookay then.... by bignetbuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Writing a new Godwin's law, are you? See some information you don't like then equate it to child porn and get it banned?

    The design is over 50yrs old. Sheesh.

  12. Propaganda by einar2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "...atomic weapons development programs of countries like Iran"

    Starting to believe in your own propaganda can be an indicator that there is something in your tap water.

  13. Re:Hmmm by ByteSlicer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Seems like someone found it...

  14. Re:Oooookay then.... by lilmunkysguy · · Score: 5, Informative
    It's popular information already. To quote from the discussion page:

    Everything in this picture is basically public knowledge. There is no misdirection OR direction here. One can deduce this much about the interior of Fat Man from the wikipedia articles. The barriers to entry in the implosion nuke market are not basic diagrams of the interior of the weapon, its the fissile material, precision manufacturing, math, detonators, and overall massive infrastructure required to pull a working example OF the design of. Its all well and good having a diagram of the space shuttle to, but you still need the expertise, technology, and industry to build it. Hell NK apparently got one to go pop but they couldnt make it go BANG. Most third world nations would have a much easier time building a gun type weapon (IE little boy), but these weapons are relatively weak, large, and very wasteful of fissile material. They are also inherently dangerous. South Africa purportedly built a few in the 70's (check dates) I believe but dismantled them. Not nearly as hard but not nearly as effective a technology. Diagrams also exist of the little boy setup, but im yet to see Iran test one.
  15. Aha! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that Wikileaks has the bomb, people will think twice about trying to shut it down!

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  16. Analysis of WIkiLeaks' action by mi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wikileaks has released a diagram of the first atomic weapon, as used in the Trinity test and subsequently exploded over the Japanese city of Nagasaki, together with an extremely interesting scientific analysis.

    Thank you for contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation... Looks like you did...

    Wikileaks has not been able to fault the document or find reference to it elsewhere.

    Hopefully, there is, indeed, a fault in there somewhere, which Wikileaks were either sincerely unable to find or are simply lying about having missed.

    These — along with their recent run-in with the judge — raises important questions, however. Are there secret documents in existence, that WikiLeaks would refuse to make available if given?

    I mean, if it is not an ancient (though just as deadly) nuclear bomb design, but something more recent? How about plans for America's invasion of Iran or North Korea? What about the plans for our defense of Taiwan — there must be some uncomfortable answers to ugly questions in there...

    What about civil government? A police-department's plans for riot-prevention, or a coordinated anti-drug raid?

    What about "personal" secrets? How about a politician's diary? How about that of a CEO of a big corporation — he may have recorded private thoughts in there, such as whether his secretary is genuinely more affectionate to him, than his wife?

    When does "strong transparency" turn into treason, obstructing justice, or invasion of privacy?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Analysis of WIkiLeaks' action by Goonie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank you for contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation... Looks like you did...
      I doubt it very much. There doesn't appear to be anything at all new here, just a pencil sketch of the basic implosion design that's been known for many years.

      The hard part of making a nuclear weapon is getting the raw materials and the means to shape them precisely enough.

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    2. Re:Analysis of WIkiLeaks' action by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When making a nuke, the design is not a major obstacle, a handful of smart guys n gals could come up with a design from scratch pretty easy. It is the refinement of the delicious weapons grade nuclear material that is the problem. I say: Lets all share the love, nukes all or for none. If you want to blame someone for nuclear proliferation, blame the US govenment, they've given away a lot more nuclear secrets.

      wait, lets go thru those 1 by 1. New nuke design: I you have the resources to make it, getting a design for free is just a little bonus, so who cares. Plans to invade Iran/Korea: The US has plans when it invades places? seriously tho if the US invades Iran or North Korea, that would be bad and wrong, I hope any plans are exposed, the US shouldn't do it. Defense of Taiwan plans: lets be brualy honest, the plan is: fuck 'em, let the chinks take it.


      ok ok, seriously, joking aside. The answer to all these is basiclly this: Do you not think that if someone can hand these to wikileaks, they could and would sell it the chinese just as easily? Wikileaks exposes not just the data, but the insecurity of the system.

      What would you prefer:
      Scallywag gives Tiawan defence plans to wikileaks, controversy ensues, generals get kicked in the balls for poor security, plans are rewritten, security tightened. US happy.
      OR
      Traitor gives Tiawan defence plan to Chinese, US doesn't know, wallows in self satisfaction, US gets pwned.

      As for police roit control plans, they should be released, fact is if an angry mob is about to go on the rampage, some nerd isn't going to pop up his head in the middle and say 'quick everyone down this street, the police will be waiting if we go that way' and have the crowd follow. However, if the police plan to use it against a peaceful protest, then the people ought to know how the police plan on attacking them so they can avoid being oppressed. And if the plan involves beating down and teargassing people who aren't doing anything wrong, people ought to know.

      As the a drug raid, two words: Legalise It.

      Personal secrets, now theres a lamo one. Do you think this stuff wouldn't be published by newspapers? If the government is going to stick thier noses into our lives they should expect the same. Don't want it to get out out you banged your secretary? shouldn't have banged her then. Personally, I like to hear about it when politicians fuck underage kids, or if they have a secret diary full of racist comments. I think its generally a good thing to know if the people who make our laws are liars, or racists or paedophiles.

      Also, may I add, one final note, warning someone the pigs are after them is not obstructing justice.

      --
      What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
    3. Re:Analysis of WIkiLeaks' action by ChronosWS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, there's the rub. We might all be able to agree that some information should reasonably be kept secret. But what we can't agree on is which information, and often why. The principle of state secrets is one which is usually only truly upheld by those who believe government can and should be trusted. In America, it should be damn near treasonous to believe that, given the principles on which we are founded.

      The case for secrecy is often made, but it's made not with examples of where failure to keep secret has harmed us. It's made using fear of what MIGHT happen if those secrets were revealed. We all have vivid imaginations and can think of worst-case scenarios to scare ourselves with what MIGHT happen. But it's far more useful for us to live in reality. I don't think we've ever become a weaker nation for our transparency.

      Security through obscurity, as we all know, is no security at all. When did we forget this?

  17. Re:Oooookay then.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

    am I the only one who thinks that this sort of information is a little too important to "leak"? No, but no one with a moderate understanding of nuclear physics would agree with you. This is a very primitive bomb design. The principles under which it operates are very well understood and have been in school textbooks for decades. If you had a supply of weapons-grade fissionable materials then this would not provide you with any information on how to build a nuclear weapon than is already available from other sources. In fact, significantly more efficient designs are also fairly easy to obtain. Getting hold of the raw materials to build such a device is significantly harder - it's expected to take Iran 5-10 years to do so with a government-backed project.

    Fission bombs are easy to build. Building them in the '40s, without computers to perform simulations on and without a huge amount of published research to build on was hard. Now it's very expensive but not particularly hard. If you're a terrorist, you are almost certain never to have the resources required to build such a device, although you might already have the required knowledge. If you want a nuclear bomb for terrorist use then finding out where some of the ones that vanished from the USSR when it broke up is likely to be a lot cheaper than building your own. If you are a nation state and want one then you probably already have the knowledge required to build one and just need the materials. Building the facilities to refine them without the international community noticing is likely to be very hard, however.

    This document is, however, very interesting to military historians. It's not the sort of think Wikileaks usually carries, since it has very little (if any) relevance to modern events, but for someone researching the history of the Manhattan Project or the end of World War II it's a valuable resource (although less so than it would be if it could be validated for authenticity).

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  18. Re:Oooookay then.... by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You're going to have trouble sneaking this monstrosity, say, through the Holland tunnel into NYC.

    I don't need to transport it anywhere. A "Fat Man" exploding in a house bought for the purpose years ago anywhere in Brooklyn or Jersey City will still be devastating to New York... Especially, if you scale the project and blow up several of these in different locales.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  19. Re:No, I agree. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I understand that "information wants to be free" and that "censorship is bad", but I think we need to recognize that there is a limit to the healthy release of this sort of information.

    How can we have any meaningful discussion on arms control if we don't know how difficult or easy it is to build nuclear weapons?

    Iran and North Korea already know this stuff. It's to our benefit to stop pretending that engineering knowledge can be kept away from the "bad guys", and get everything out in the open.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  20. Re:Oooookay then.... by glwtta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Surely this is the engineering equivalent of child porn...

    Ah, you mean a mostly artificially manufactured boogie-man, the mere mention of which instantly trumps any reasoned debate? Then yes, it probably is that.

    I don't really get your "encouragement" argument, though. Do you really think some totalitarian dictator of a god-forsaken country is going to roll out of bed one morning, see this, and go "Whelp, time to start a 20 year plutonium enrichment program"?

    This information is nothing new to anyone with any kind of semblance of the resources necessary to make any use of it.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  21. the secret that exploded by peterxyz · · Score: 5, Interesting
    for all of those complaining about the publication of this, you're about 30 years behind the times.
    In a high-profile First Ammendment case Howard Morland and the Progressive tried to publish Fusion-bomb (aka "Hydrogen bomb") design details in 1979. The government eventually dropped its case

    Here's the book; http://www.amazon.com/Secret-That-Exploded-Howard-Morland/dp/0394512979
    and a background artcile by Howard on his deductions and something of the legal case http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/cardozo.html

    oh yeah - even Greenpeace seem to have pretty pictures - wouldn't trust those guys to assemble one though http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/fig05.gif

    peter xyz

  22. Re:Hackaday by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's the psychological, panic-inducing effects the US Government are really for.


    There, fixed that for ya.
    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  23. Appears to be from Penney report... by Goonie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ah, found it. It seems to be from the Nuclear Weapon archive. It doesn't appear to be an American document at all, rather something that a British scientist, William Penney, prepared to inform the British government what would be required to build its own bomb.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  24. Re:Oooookay then.... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with asking them to "discriminate between something that is rightful and something that is completely wrong" is that right and wrong are matters of opinion and absolutely not universal. I would hypothesise that those running Wikileaks may well be willing to publish things that they themselves consider 'wrong' on the basis that they do not consider it their own right to make that judgement.

  25. That's not a bomb diagram by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Funny

    All those parts, they are part of a pinball machine.

  26. Re:Just because you can by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Your post is either +5 funny or -2 Flamebait.

    This design will do nothing to further the aims of 'terrists'. Obtaining the raw materials is such a great hurdle in itself that the actual plans for this bomb are of secondary importance. I knew fairly specific information about this type of bomb when I was 10. I read about it in my encyclopedia, which I believe was a 1967 edition.

    If this seems like dangerous or obscure knowledge to you, then you really have place discussing it.

    These plans are about as useful as a map to the moon- They are so useless without an extensive infrastructure that they are practically worthless.

    -b

    --
    No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  27. US military history by sentientbrendan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >Neither Iran nor North Korea have waged wars of aggression in the past 50 years.

    North Korea hasn't waged a war of aggression in the past 50 years... for a reason. The korean war ended with the south free because there were US troups at the border to keep north korean troops from taking the south.

    Iran I agree may be exaggerated as a threat, but you should consider the roll that America's wars have played in history over the past 50 years.

    Cold War Era:

    The Korean War
    Lebanon crisis of 1958
    Bay of Pigs Invasion
    Dominican Intervention
    Vietnam War
    Tehran hostage rescue
    Grenada
    Beirut
    Panama

    Post Cold War Era:

    Gulf War
    Somalia
    Yugoslavia

    Bush Era:

    Afghanistan
    Philippines
    Liberia
    Iraq

    A lot of these conflicts had minor US involvement, but I've listed them for completeness (Liberia involved sending "three warships with 2,300 Marines into view of the coast," and funding Economic Community of West African States troops.)

    What should be most notable about every last one of these wars, is that while some of them were major mistakes, all of them were in defense of pretty much every first world democratic country, and not just the united states.

    People seem to enjoy bashing the United States for it's mistakes, and sometimes we deserve it, but the truth is that the current balance of power has benefited pretty much everyone posting on slashdot. There have been no new world wars for a reason. The soviet union ended it's domination of europe, and was not able to press in further than they did for a reason. Every first world nation prizes it's military alliance with the US for a reason.

    The truth is that the roll that the US plays is maintaining a balance of power with democratic nations at the top, and dictatorial nations at the bottom. The truth is that without the US forces there to maintain that balance of power, this would end quickly. The other first world nations do not have comparable military forces, and largely don't have the forces necessary to defend themselves from their neighbors.

    Consider what would have happened without US forces to maintain the ballance of power:
    1. In the cold war, pretty much all of Europe would have ended up in soviet hands.
    2. South Korea would fall to North Korea *immediately* if US forces weren't there to back them up.
    3. Taiwan would end up in Chinese hands *today* if the US wasn't committed to defending them from invasion.
    4. Pakistan would have difficulty surviving without US military aid.
    5. Israel probably wouldn't survive without US backing.

    Israel is probably the most controversial of those choices, and a lot of people, myself included, are pretty unhappy with how they treat the palestinians, but I don't think anyone wants to see Israel destroyed (well... except for the people trying to destroy it) as that would cost considerably more lives than the current conflict.

    So while it may be reasonable to criticize specific US actions, it's pretty ridiculous to act like you don't want the US there defending your interests, or that you're unhappy with the status quo.

  28. Coming soon... by antic · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Great plans and quick shipping. Very recommended!!1! A+++++++"

    --
    'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
  29. Re:This is probably from a Russian spy by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

    What's missing is the material from which the moderator and tamper is made - but that's been known from other sources (Not the USSR) for years now.