Nuclear Warhead Blueprints On Smugglers' Computers

imrehg links to a story at the Guardian which begins "Blueprints for a sophisticated and compact nuclear warhead have been found in the computers of the world's most notorious nuclear-smuggling racket, according to a leading US researcher. The digital designs, found in heavily encrypted computer files in Switzerland, are believed to be in the possession of the US authorities and of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, but investigators fear they could have been extensively copied and sold to 'rogue' states via the nuclear black market." Reader this great guy links to the New York Times article on the discovery, and asks "Given that Khan's revelations were made in early 2004, does that mean it took the IAEA 1-2 years to brute-force the encryption?"

Comments

Garage Nukes

[Tablizer]

Let's face it, the Nuclear Cat is slowly crawling out of the bag and will no longer be containable soon. We need to develop better nuke-detection and interception technology or we will be doomed by rogue garage nukes and missiles.

Re:Garage Nukes

[mikael_j]

The knowledge on how to build a nuke is by no means much of a secret. Yes, the design for more recent fusion-based and otherwise advanced nuclear weapons is surrounded by a lot of hush-hush but a simple fission-based nuke could probably be designed and built by students from any university engineering department, the theory behind it is available in most libraries, as is the basic design of some of the earlier nuclear weapons.

What is hard to get a hold of is the fissible material needed to manufacture a working bomb.

/Mikael

Re:Garage Nukes

[mikael_j]

Well, I don't want to sound like a fearmonger but compact isn't much of a problem as long as your definition of compact is "smaller than a freight container". Reliability might be a bit harder for your average garage nuke to have though...

/Mikael

Re:Garage Nukes

[RAMMS EIN]

See, that's insightful. If we take away our enemies' incentive to fight us, we will be safer. I'm glad you actually got modded up for saying it, rather than modded to -1 and buried under "boohooo you're letting the terrorists win" replies. That's not what it's about. It's not about giving in to our enemies, it's about preventing people from becoming our enemies in the first place.

Re:Garage Nukes

[TapeCutter]

"the weapons are out of reach of mostly every state, and those countries who make them profit very little from having them per se"

Funny how India suddenly respected Pakistan when Pakistan demonstrated they could also make nukes.

Re:Garage Nukes

[Stanislav_J]

Let's face it, the Nuclear Cat is slowly crawling out of the bag and will no longer be containable soon.

Imagine cleaning up after a nuclear cat...oy...

Seriously, it will happen, and sooner than we think. Either a state-sponsored or aided group stealing a nuke or paying off enough disgruntled Russian scientists and engineers to make a decent one, or some independent cell with a sufficient amount of knowhow and enough reasonably enriched uranium to create a big honkin', crude and ugly, but deadly Hiroshima-style boomer. I'm not as worried about the physical effects -- such a device would, indeed, kill thousands and devastate part of whatever city it's set off in, but is likely for financial and physical reasons to be a one-off event. What scares me is this: if you thought our freedoms have already been eroded, compromised, or plain out negated to an uncomfortable degree after 9/11, just wait until some group sets off a nuke somewhere on U.S. soil. When that happens, prepare to live under the Fourth Reich. Even a so-called "dirty bomb" that would merely spread some radiation around will be sufficiently alarming (the very word "radiation" scares the hell out of the masses) will mean more draconian laws, more intrusive surveillance, and more suspensions of Constitutional rights. But that is the victory terrorists hope for -- it's not so much the actual carnage that they seek, but the subsequent panic and overreaction of the populace and their government. "Terror" consists of far more than a body count.

Re:Garage Nukes

[Chrisq]

So what will you do when someone demands that you follow their religion? When they demand that you force your women to cover themselves? Demand that homosexuals be put to death?

Fight for their right to say it?
Or take the UK option, and place the entire population under surveillance.

Re:Garage Nukes

[Ours]

What the article doesn't say it that thing weights 70 kilos more or less. You won't pass for a tourist carrying one of these with a "buddy" helping you carry it.

Re:Garage Nukes

[Anonymous Coward]

> So what will you do when someone demands that you follow their religion?

You mean, like Christian missionaries did ?

> When they demand that you force your women to cover themselves?

Oh, yeah, just like Christian missionaries did

> there are people who hate you just for who you are

7 years passed since sept 2001 and you still haven't got a clue. They don't hate us for what we are, they hate us for what we've done to them. Read some history books. Read Iran's shah history. Read afghanistan history. Read about the ties between saddam and the CIA. Learn that bin laden was a cia agent. Learn how petroleum empires were built, by whom, and with whose blood.

Those people don't "hate our freedom", that is 100% bullshit. The fucking HATE WHAT WE DID TO THEM. And after 100 thousands of civilian death in Iraq plus new huge american bases over there, THEY WILL HATE US EVEN MORE. With a reason.

Re:Garage Nukes

[Cyberax]

70kg is a reasonable weight for your baggage. Too much for airplanes (where it also needs to be weighted and so on), but not a problem if you move by train or car.

You can also move it in a diplomatic baggage if you are acting as an official of a 'rogue state'.

Re:Garage Nukes

[jacquesm]

All it takes is a buddy in the luggage handling section.

Airports are so leaky it isn't even funny, all the window dressing with 'passenger screening' up front is just to reassure you, it doesn't make you any more safe.

Think about it, multiple millions of tons of stuff moves in / out a major airport every day, there is just simply no way to manually inspect each and every bit. Added to that the fact that usually there is major construction going on because of expansion and remodeling, which causes security measures to be changed all the time.

And 70 Kg in your hand luggage may seem like a lot, but on a baggage trolley it's very little and once you're in the airport you could do a serious amount of damage blowing it to bits right there and then. The combination of suicide attacks coupled with small nukes would be pretty effective.

Re:Garage Nukes

[Shakrai]

All it takes is a buddy in the luggage handling section.

Airports are so leaky it isn't even funny

This is frighteningly accurate. Quick story:

Coming back from Florence about a year ago. Post 9/11 world. American Airlines loses my luggage. Takes four weeks for them to locate it. They claim to have finally found it and say it will be on a flight heading into the local airport the next day.

I head up to the airport to see if they actually found it. A buddy of mine works as an operations manager at the local airport. Of course my luggage doesn't show up -- but he takes me on a behind the scenes tour of the airport while we wait. We walk right past the TSA guys (one of whom is sleeping -- it's a small regional airport and there were no arrivals or departures going on at this time), right through the metal detector -- setting it off in the process -- yet none of them stopped us or even looked up! They've never seen me before and have only the word of my friend that I have no ill intentions.

So you can walk right out onto the tarmac with the planes if you happen to know the right person -- no security/background check required -- but you can't bring more than 3oz of breast milk onto your flight. Does anybody else see how stupid that is?

Re:Garage Nukes

[Hijacked Public]

And based on those same principles, must be less than nothing preventing a terrorist from using Ebola, since he could fit enough in his shirt pocket to kill as many people as a backpack full of nuclear bomb.

The reality of nuclear weapons (and biological ones alluded to above) is that while it is technically possible to make one it is exceedingly difficult. And I don't mean 'kids today don't know how to solder' difficult. Entire countries spend hundreds of millions of dollars to fake the possibility that they might have the theoretical capability to build a low yield device, because actually building one would cost hundreds of billions. The idea that a terrorist group could do it on their own is preposterous. Doubly so considering the actual geographic footprint the facilities they'd have to build have.

Of course there is still the possibility that they could steal one from the few places that actually have them. That can't be proven false, or even nearly as hard as building one from scratch, but based on the fact that no one has done it yet it must be pretty damn hard. I was in Afghanistan 3 years ago and most of the roadside bombs were gunpowder and shrapnel. I'm told by people who are there now that this is the case in Iraq as well. A bomb like this is many many levels less sophisticated than even the typical HE bombs the Army uses to clear obstacles in roads and even with their Swiss cheese stockpile guarding you don't see their shit for sale on every street corner.

None of this means nuclear proliferation shouldn't be policed. It does mean that actively fretting over backpack nukes is silly.

Re:Garage Nukes

[Planar]

1b or less humans would be ideal. Unfortunately that's impossible to accomplish without genocide or some massive abridgment of human rights, neither of which I would like to see. People aren't going to slow their reproductive habits voluntarily. It's even worse than you think, because our capitalist economy is no more than a giant pyramidal scheme based on the growth of the population. If people somehow manage to slow down their reproductive habits, we'll get an economic collapse that will make 1929 look like a golden age.

Re:Garage Nukes

[capnkr]

Well, look at it this way:

1) It's a small airport, people know each other, and it's easier to see something or someone that would be unusual. Had you *not* been with your friend, much trouble would have ensued when you set off that alarm, heading out onto the tarmac.
2) You are in the presence of the operations manager. He's told *someone* who you are, and why you are there. Perhaps that has been checked out, or they were already aware of it. (Your words:"...have only the word of my friend that I have no ill intentions." imply he has told someone who you are...)
3) You didn't see them look up when you went thru the detector, but I'd wager they'd looked already, saw him, and that's why they exhibited no reaction *that you could detect* to an alarm going off.
4) You aren't carrying any baggage or other object which could be used to hide/carry explosives/weapons. You probably aren't going to destroy an entire airliner and/or kill everyone aboard it with your bare hands (after all, they can see that you aren't Chuck Norris or Bruce Schneier ;) ).

I don't think that this compares to you boarding a flight at a major airport along with several hundred other souls, the same as any anonymous stranger. It does show a lack of probable "proper procedure" and likely lax attitudes at your local airport, but what does (fill in name of terrorist organization here) care about blowing up a little airport? They would get some headlines, but for the effort, a better target would be selected, one which would likely further their objectives.

Also, were I one of their planners, I would leave the 'little' airports alone. That helps ensure an easier-going mindset out 'in the sticks', which could be helpful when moving terror agents around...

The breast milk type stuff is stupid enough on it's own, and largely the "security" measures that are all-too rampant in this country the past few years are for show IMO, but I don't think that this story you relate is highly illustrative of that, necessarily.

Just saying... :)

Re:Garage Nukes

[GreyyGuy]

That is an interesting point. The idea that a small nuke would not be able to completely destroy a city is not one I had considered. The problem is that it might not "level" a city, but it would cause radiation and likely structure damage to much of it. Plus, can you realistically see anyone wanting to live in that city after a portion of it was destroyed with a small nuke? It might not physically destroy an entire city, but it would certainly psychologically destroy it.

Re:Garage Nukes

[bigstrat2003]

"brown people" is the absolute broadest description you could give to security when they ask "who should i keep an eye on?" like i said before this is not racism, this is filtering. No, it's racism.

Not only that, but it's horrible security to boot. There are plenty of crazy white people to go around, all some terrorist group would have to do would be to recruit some crazy white dudes and they're set, because security doesn't pay any real attention.

Re:MAD is Dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Iran, now, is it? Jesus, you buy the american propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Freight container is exactly right!

[Terje Mathisen]

Any bomb that fits easily into a standard freight container is already a horrible nightmare:

These containers travel worldwide, are rarely inspected if the paperwork seems to be OK, and they can easily stay in a harbor area of a major city for many months.

The only trigger you need is a cell phone, so you can preplace them wherever you like and blow up any coastal city in the world, whenever you want to.

Stopping this scenario is probably (or should be) the real nightmare for most of the three-letter agencies in the world.

Terje

Why

[jandersen]

"Given that Khan's revelations were made in early 2004, does that mean it took the IAEA 1-2 years to brute-force the encryption?" No, it just means that it is now time to stir up people's fear of "international terrorism" so whichever government let this bit of news out can squeeze through yet another draconian security measure.

Re:Why is it

[tftp]

And.... clearly Iraq had links to Al Queda?

A strawman.

I know it's comforting to read the news and be able to believe what they say

There is always a fine line between questioning news and the denial. In this particular instance you are claiming that "David Albright, a physicist, former UN weapons inspector and authority on the nuclear smuggling ring" is lying to the whole world, though other IAEA scientists saw the materials and could expose him. I'd listen to David, though, he just might know about the subject a little more than an average slashdotter. If you insist on using fuzzy logic, fine - David's statement has weight of 0.9999 and your opinion has weight of 0.0001.

We can find plans of nuclear weapons, but we can't find Osama?

Yes, and I am not surprised. Khan's network was captured intact - did you read how much data they got? More than a terabyte of documents. Even if none of that is encrypted it takes an army of specialists and linguists to go through them, which is probably what happened. On the other hand, Osama was never captured. I'd be amazed if, for example, the US Army captures a large building and Osama keeps running and hiding *inside* of that building. But Osama - if he is still alive, of course - hides somewhere on Earth, and even if he is merely in Pakistan it's plain impossible to find him, considering that a good deal of Pakistani land is not under control of the central government.