"Nuclear Archaeology" Inspires Replica of Hiroshima's Little Boy

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Nuclear Archaeology" Inspires Replica of Hiroshima's Little Boy

Posted by timothy on Sunday January 25, 2009 @07:21AM from the sobering-and-more dept.

James Cho writes "Through a decade of painstaking reverse engineering, trucker John Coster-Mullen built the first accurate replica of the Hiroshima bomb. His work yielded a new history of the first nukes, 'Atom Bombs: The Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man,' with historian Robert Norris saying, 'Nothing else in the Manhattan Project literature comes close.' Philip Morrison, one of the physicists who helped invent the bomb, deemed it 'a remarkable job.'"

298 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

First homebrew nuke by 4D6963 · 2009-01-25 07:23 · Score: 3, Funny

*BOOM*

--
You just got troll'd!
1. Re:First homebrew nuke by RichardJenkins · 2009-01-25 08:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Hopefully not that accurate.
2. Re:First homebrew nuke by demachina · 2009-01-25 15:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Its a little sad to skim through the posts on this story and find pretty much all of them are lame.
  Its a long article but its really a fascinating read and I'm guessing almost no one did. It makes a couple really insightful points:
  A. All of the U.S. governments obsessive secrecy about nuclear bomb technology is pure security theater. The hard part is mastering the fuel cycle. If you can acquire the fuel or master the fuel cycle, making the bomb is pretty easy.
  B. Much of what we read and take for authoritative is in fact garbage. There have apparently been a number of works on Fat Man and Little Boy, often by well educated and authoritative authors that were apparently complete nonsense. It just took an obsessive photographer/truck driver with no college degree to debunk one authoritative work after another. In particular apparently everyone thought the Uranium bomb was a female target shot with a male shaped projectile because thats the way people expected it to be, when in fact it appears it was the other way around.
  One also wonders if the U.S. government intentionally propagated nonsense in these "authoritative" works thinking it would set back some aspiring bomb maker. For example, in one work it apparently said the barrel in the Uranium bomb was made of wood which was apparently pretty comical since it had to contain the explosion of several bags of cordite.
  
  --
  @de_machina
3. Re:First homebrew nuke by Hal_Porter · 2009-01-25 23:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  From TFA
  "A circular steel plate was positioned inside the 17.0"-diameter tail cylinder at the front of the tail tube and another towards the rear of the tube," Coster-Mullen writes. "These allowed the tail to be slid over the 10.5"-diameter gun tube during assembly. The forward plate was positioned 26.5" in front of the aft plate and was welded to the front of the tail tube."
  Though the bookâ(TM)s specificity about dimensions, shapes, and materials was mind-numbing, the accumulation of detail was strangely seductive.
  Fucking liberal arts graduates.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
4. Re:First homebrew nuke by cyn1c77 · 2009-01-26 04:59 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Get it straight.
  The US government does not confirm or deny comments on classified technology. Nuclear weapons are classified. So if you write a book that is full of crap on nuclear bombs, all of the experts will general work for (or have worked for) the government and will not be able to comment on it.
  Thus, people who are not in "the know" will read the book and say "Gee, this is really great stuff, very accurate." Meanwhile those who actually work on these weapons and who have security clearances will buy the book, read the book, laugh about the errors with each other... and not talk about it to the general public.
  It's easy to be a self-proclaimed expert when all the real experts can't comment and you can't actually demonstrate that your technology works.
  And finally, you really think making a bomb is easy if you have the fuel? Do you have personal experience here? Keep in mind you don't get a lot of testing opportunities with these things, and diagnosing what is going on during the explosion is also quite involved. There's a big difference between assembling your nuclear material to generate some nuclear yield and actually generating significant nuclear yield.
5. Re:First homebrew nuke by dumb_jedi · 2009-01-26 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I do think making a nuclear bomb is ALL ABOUT the fuel cycle. Little Boy wasn't even tested before being dropped in Hiroshima.
  
  Trinity was a implosion-type plutonion bomb, just like Fat Man, while Little Boy was a gun-type uranium bomb. So the gun assembly was not tested before being deployed.
6. Re:First homebrew nuke by Hal_Porter · 2009-01-26 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Actually this is another liberal arts gradism
  In the standard historical accounts, the way that the bomb's gun mechanism worked was by shooting a cylindrical "male" uranium projectile into a concave, stationary uranium target. This act of atomic coitus created a mass sufficient to produce a critical reaction. The mass of the projectile was said to be 38.5 kilograms, and the mass of the target was said to be 25.6 kilograms. But no matter how many times Coster-Mullen did the math the numbers never quite worked out in a way that allowed the projectile and the target to fit inside the gun barrel while remaining subcritical.
  The source of the error, Coster-Mullen recognized, was an assumption that every (male) researcher who studied the subject had made about the relation between projectile and target. These scholars had apparently been unable to conceive of an arrangement other than a "missionary position" bomb, in which a solid male projectile penetrated a vessel-like female target. But Coster-Mullen realized that a female-superior arrangement in which a hollow projectile slammed down on top of a stationary cylinder of highly enriched uranium-yielded the correct size and mass.
  It's like he can't concentrate on engineering at all and his mind drifts to thoughts of sex and from there to some garbled feminist critique of science and technology being phallocentric and sexist. That sort of thing strikes me as only being plausible to people that have no interest in or understanding of science and technology. Essentially it's a pretentious way of telling people not to feel quilty about their ignorance.
  And to me a 'female' projectile seems more likely just looking at the relative mass of the projectile vs the target.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
7. Re:First homebrew nuke by cyn1c77 · 2009-01-26 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I do think making a nuclear bomb is ALL ABOUT the fuel cycle. Little Boy wasn't even tested before being dropped in Hiroshima. Trinity was a implosion-type plutonion bomb, just like Fat Man, while Little Boy was a gun-type uranium bomb. So the gun assembly was not tested before being deployed.
  A Little Boy wasn't tested in the supercritical sense, but the critical mass of the material used was verified experimentally in criticality experiments referred to as "tickling the dragon." And you can be damn sure the Little Boy design was tested in an inert fashion to double check the assembly times.
  The Fat Man design was tested because it was a far more complicated design, both in theory and in an engineering sense. Ideally, both designs would have been tested for yield prior to use in war, but the US just didn't have any extra Uranium to test a spare Little Boy.
  The scientists were under enormous time pressure. At first, it was because they wanted to make sure they beat any competing efforts in Nazi Germany, so that England and the US wouldn't get nuked by a desperate Hitler. Then that part of the war ended. After that, it became clear that the US was eventually going to win against Japan. The Manhattan Project personnel were rushing to finish the bombs in time for them to be relevant to the war. Millions of dollars and resources had been spent rushing the development of the weapons. The government wanted a return on their dollar... they had to nuke Japan before the war was over. Both to "save American lives" and to show the Soviets not to cross the US in the post WWII landscape.
  Sure, it's "all about the fuel cycle" if you are a physicist dreaming up ideas on paper. But when you actually start assembling your multi-million dollar weapon and you only have enough explosive to test it once, you suddenly find that there is a lot of engineering and physics experiments involved to make sure that you can get to the point the fuel cycle can do its work. North Korea discovered this firsthand a few years ago.
Notice to Sourceforge: Kill off Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 07:24 · Score: -1, Troll

A much better website: http://www.madonna.com
Notice to Sourceforge, Inc. management: Close down Slashdot, sell the domain to a squatter, and focus on your core competency: Sourceforge. It needs a lot of work.
Slashdot no longer serves a unique purpose. The forum is a mess of buggy AJAX, it is irrelevant, the editors have no talent, and the news sucks!
News for Nerds. Stuff That Matters. NOT!
It's not news, it's not written by journalists and it's not stuff that matters. The only true part about their tagline is that it's for nerds. Stupid ones. Ones who are probably wearing some lame t-shirt from ThinkGeek with a stupid expression like "All your haXoRz are belong to us."
This thread about the 2.4.18 kernel release is a typical Slashdot news item. Idiocy, misinformation, testosterone-poisoned posturing, technology punditry, arrogance, bad logic: just another day in Slashdot-land.
The classic exchange is one Slashdotter complaining about ACs (people posting as Anonymous Cowards, i.e., not registered) and another Slashdotter blasting him for being so stupid and then outlining the steps need to get a for-all-intents-and-purposes anonymous Hotmail account and registering on Slashdot with a bogus name.
Lame personalities
Some of the Slashdot people have personality cults which is weird because they are incredibly lame. Every single poll seems to have a reference to a character named CowboyNeal. One of the founders/editors, Rob Malda, goes by the handle CmdrTaco, and his posts are incredibly shallow and stupid (although admittedly not much more than those of the other editors).
Every Slashdot-hater will claim to have a particularly dark place in their hearts for a certain individual, but frankly, they're all about the same. I ran into them in the Linux pavilion of Comdex a couple of years ago and they're a truly sorry bunch of humans. Just more proof that if you had the choice to be smart or lucky, you're much better off being lucky.
The problem with online forums: Why Slashdot isn't different than the rest
Admittedly, Slashdot's lameness isn't unique. As a matter of fact, it's normal. The main problem with online communities is that they do not scale well. While engineers argue about whether or not MySQL-backed sites can handle significant traffic, etc., they are really missing the point. Even if the software can handle it, the community can't.
Throwing more hardware at it doesn't help the problem. Nor does throwing more software. Nor does throwing more moderation. Nor does adding big warning messages to "please search the archives before posting a question." People get tired of hearing the same old questions over and over. What was once a place where new and innovative discussions sprang up every day is now a place where the same ten questions get asked over and over. Many of the most valuable contributors are the first to leave, just like talented employees bailing out of a foundering corporation.
The only hope is to pick a topic that is so esoteric that growth is extremely limited. Splitting up a community into sub-communities is also a possibility, but one that doesn't always work. If done too late, the majority of the most valuable contributors will have already left. Splitting a big blob of noise will result in many little blobs of noise. If done too early, there might not be sufficient energy/critical mass to nurture the newly-founded subcommunities.
What makes FC different?
The, uh, community citizens at F---edCompany.com contribute about the same quality of knowledge as your average forum participant, but unlike Slashdotters, A.) they aren't as arrogant, B.) they all seem to realize where they're posting (i.e., after all, the website is called F---edCompany.com), and C.) Pud (the founder/editor) knows he's a lucky idiot.
The very worst part about online forums
For the newcomer, a vibrant, high-traffic online forum seems like the El Dorado of information. It's not. It's a Pandora's Box, but even worse. The biggest single probl
1. Re:Notice to Sourceforge: Kill off Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 08:37 · Score: 0
  
  You sir or ma'am, are either the best practicing troll ever or a non-troll just tired of changes you've seen at slashdot over the years.
  Either way, this is the best troll post I've ever seen. It actually stung me (as a slashdot regular) in a of couple places, and I've grown very cynical of taking anything I see here with any emotional context at all, kudos!
  One piece of advice, if you're an actual troll trying a new technique, you've hit the jackpot, just shorten it up a bit and you'll be a legend (well, an anonymous legend, but hey, whaddya expect).
2. Re:Notice to Sourceforge: Kill off Slashdot! by hvm2hvm · 2009-01-25 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I wouldn't really mod this as troll, more like off-topic...
  
  --
  ics
3. Re:Notice to Sourceforge: Kill off Slashdot! by LilGuy · 2009-01-25 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  That's not even close to a good troll. Like someone running a business is going to take an anonymous comment from a message board seriously and just start laying people off and shutting servers down.
  Get real.
  
  --
  
  You're nothing; like me.
4. Re:Notice to Sourceforge: Kill off Slashdot! by Colonel+Korn · 2009-01-25 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  That's not even close to a good troll. Like someone running a business is going to take an anonymous comment from a message board seriously and just start laying people off and shutting servers down.
  Get real.
  Uh...getting people running a business to fire the employees isn't the goal of a troll. Getting a lot of angry responses to a fluff post is the goal, and he's going pretty well at that.
  
  --
  "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
How soon until... by www.sorehands.com · 2009-01-25 07:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

How soon until homeland security shows up accusing him of terrorism?

--
Fight Spammers!
1. Re:How soon until... by philspear · 2009-01-25 07:30 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If he's built a WORKING replica, I would hope VERY soon!
2. Re:How soon until... by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2009-01-25 07:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  According to Amazon, his book was published in 2002. If they were going to lock him up, they've had plenty of time to do so already.
  Of course, it's a good thing for him his name is John Coster-Mullen instead of, oh, say, Ahmed al-Rashad. You can pretty much guarantee that in the latter case, even if all the other circumstances were exactly the same, he'd have been disappeared a long time ago.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
3. Re:How soon until... by rs232 · 2009-01-25 07:40 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  "How soon until homeland security shows up accusing him of terrorism?"
  
  Only if he criticizes Israel and starts to wear a keffiyeh, no it's not a teatowel. Is this more interesting than The web browser is a dead end
  
  --
  davecb5620@gmail.com
4. Re:How soon until... by sidb · 2009-01-25 07:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A working replica would be dangerous and surely illegal. It would not be terrorism unless he used it deliberately to terrorize a group of people. Just because something is bad doesn't make it terrorism.
5. Re:How soon until... by telchine · 2009-01-25 07:50 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If he's built a WORKING replica, I would hope VERY soon!
  Nuclear bombs don't kill people. People kill people. Why shouldn't this guy have a born right to bear nuclear arms? If he wants to defend his property from double-glazing salesman, he should have every right to make use of the second amendment and protect his property!
6. Re:How soon until... by DigiShaman · 2009-01-25 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Keep your friends close, and your ...umm... some citizen closer. If this guy is really smart (and can be trusted), give him a job Lawrence Livermore National Lab or something.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
7. Re:How soon until... by stonedcat · 2009-01-25 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Get off my lawn or I'll nuke you little bastards!
  
  --
  You can't take the sky from me.
8. Re:How soon until... by hitmark · 2009-01-25 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  i guess it depends on what one define as working.
  it could be that all the parts (detonators and such) work, but is missing that vital nuclear core.
  iirc, fat man was the "cannon" driven uranium bomb...
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
9. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 08:09 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  iirc, fat man was the "cannon" driven uranium bomb...
  Fat Man was the implosion type. Little Boy was the gun type.
10. Re:How soon until... by NouberNou · 2009-01-25 08:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Fat Man was the implosion device. It was called Fat Man due to the size of the explosive lenses that were used to compress the Plutonium into a critical mass. Little Boy was the gun-type device.
11. Re:How soon until... by hitmark · 2009-01-25 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  ah, silly me. i stand corrected.
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
12. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  If he's built a WORKING replica, I would hope VERY soon!
  Nuclear bombs don't kill people. People kill people. Why shouldn't this guy have a born right to bear nuclear arms? If he wants to defend his property from double-glazing salesman, he should have every right to make use of the second amendment and protect his property!
  But you can't give a hug with nuclear arms!
13. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 08:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I think the law at least in CA says there's $200 fine for detonating one...
14. Re:How soon until... by Cyberax · 2009-01-25 08:30 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  But they can make you warm, fuzzy and positively glowing!
15. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 08:31 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If he wants to defend his property from double-glazing salesman, he should have every right to make use of the second amendment and protect his property!
  I think maybe nuclear weapons are not the best way to protect your property.
16. Re:How soon until... by _Sprocket_ · 2009-01-25 08:33 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You let private citizens have nuclear arms, the next thing you know is they'll sell them to pawn shops and then it's in the hands of gang-bangers nuking 7-Elevens. I've seen the Clerks documentary. I know how these things work.
17. Re:How soon until... by Martin+Blank · 2009-01-25 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  A quick check of the California Code for the word 'nuclear' finds that no law along those lines exists on the books, though that doesn't mean that something like it didn't exist before. I suspect the fine would have been far higher, though.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
18. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 08:51 · Score: 0
  
  You liberals are blind to the truth. Open your eyes.
19. Re:How soon until... by philspear · 2009-01-25 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Just because something is bad doesn't make it terrorism.
  Yes of course, but I don't care what it's called, I do not want individuals (or even governments, including my own) to have nuclear weapons. If the thing worked, you could call it "super happy nuclear archeology," and I wouldn't mind just as long as SOMEONE took it away from the guy.
20. Re:How soon until... by philspear · 2009-01-25 08:54 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It worries me that there is one "insightful" mod on that post.
21. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 08:54 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  "Why shouldn't this guy have a born right to 'bear nuclear arms'?"
  Nuclear arming bears is a bad idea. They aren't the most friendly of animals at the best of times and right now providing nukes to Polar Bears is really dangerous. All that swimming from melting ice has made them very testy. Wouldn't want them blowing up Sarah Palin's house in protest........wait a minute!
22. Re:How soon until... by nurb432 · 2009-01-25 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  I bet they already did.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
23. Re:How soon until... by mpe · 2009-01-25 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  If he's built a WORKING replica, I would hope VERY soon!
  
  If it's a working replica they might want to stay at least two and a half miles from it.
24. Re:How soon until... by nurb432 · 2009-01-25 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  No, it wouldn't be dangerous.
  Illegal, sure due to the idiots making the rules, but an inanimate object cant be dangerous on its own.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
25. Re:How soon until... by Superdarion · 2009-01-25 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  It would not be terrorism unless he used it deliberately to terrorize a group of people.
  
  Tell that to the people who were arrested by homeland security at any USA airport for saying the word "bomb" after the 9/11...
26. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  I believe it would be illegal under California Penal Code Sections 12301-12316.
27. Re:How soon until... by spire3661 · 2009-01-25 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Its a municipal code in some town in CA, not a state law.
  
  --
  Good-bye
28. Re:How soon until... by PacoCheezdom · 2009-01-25 09:18 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Well, it's a little steeper than a fine, but I still think it's pretty funny that there's a state law for this:
  
  11418. (a) (1) Any person, without lawful authority, who possesses, develops, manufactures, produces, transfers, acquires, or retains any weapon of mass destruction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 4, 8, or 12 years.
  
  (California Penal Code)
29. Re:How soon until... by T5 · 2009-01-25 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  The trick to nuclear weapons is, and will always be, manufacturing of the fuel. Uranium enrichment and plutonium manufacture require enormous budgets, know-how, and persistence. Neutron enhancers like lithium deuteride and tritium in quantity aren't available from Walmart. A country with defensible borders where you can build/hide/lie to the IAEA about your manufacturing and engineering facilities is a plus.
  With no disrespect toward the weapons engineers, the rest of the process is exactly that - a process. Make a case, engineer some conventional explosives, create a tightly-timed detonation system for those conventional explosives, add fissile material, and stir. Mix and match for desired effect.
  Everything else is tuning. Big, fast computers with lots of thermodynamic models of nuclear designs are a plus - test firings are expensive and frowned upon.
  Remember, folks, that we're talking about a nearly 70 year old technology here. Just as the article states, the biggest secret about nukes is that they're just not that hard to make. Big thermonuclear devices that are efficient? Yes, they're much more work. Little fission-only ones for terrorist/tin pot dictator use? With a little help from deep pockets, a relatively attainable goal.
  In this vein, one of the smarter things we've done during this War on Terror (tm) is install a lot of radiation detection devices in ports for all types of transportation. At least the obvious transportation routes are covered for the asymmetrical case.
30. Re:How soon until... by finalfrog · 2009-01-25 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  As a die-hard Bloom County fan (despite the fact that I was less than a year old when it ended) I feel it necessary to post this.
31. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 09:36 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I realize this is serious reply to a funny post, but I thought I'd point out the difference between say, a gun, and an atomic weapon in respect to this argument.
  Owning a gun is a valid right - partially because it does not threaten another person's life until it gets pointed at another person.
  An atomic weapon, on the other hand, is pointed at everyone within the bombs kill radius every moment it remains active. Having a nuclear bomb around is like holding a gun to the head of everyone within several square kilometers, all the time - whether you are deliberately threatening them or not. A simple application of the United States constitution would be to recognize such as a "clear and present danger".
32. Re:How soon until... by pha3r0 · 2009-01-25 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Stop the presses! OMG anything dangerous is not terrorism!? That can not be. If he had a working replica, (He Doesn't, and you shouldn't even need to RTA to figure that out.) he clearly built it to destroy the childrenz and make us all fear his aWs0m3 trucking prowess!!!
  Now, seriously thank you for pointing out the difference between dangerous and terrorist. So very, very many people have forgotten it.
33. Re:How soon until... by elrous0 · 2009-01-25 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Bah, just go back to 1985, when they were selling it in every corner drugstore.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
34. Re:How soon until... by Nathrael · 2009-01-25 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's also a law in Germany, I think...oh, and of course: Âinsert lame joke about all of us being really, really lucky that Germany didn't have any nukes during WW2.
  
  --
  A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
35. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 10:04 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  to add to that, i don't want slashdot readers, or even government slashdot readers to have nuclear weapons... or facebook users, myspace users, cocaine users, but potheads... potheads could come up with a way to strip it down a create a nuclear bong. boooo yah!
36. Re:How soon until... by Nathrael · 2009-01-25 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on how well the nuke is built. If it would be leaking radiation, it would be dangerous even though it just stood still in it's place for all the time.
  
  --
  A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
37. Re:How soon until... by pha3r0 · 2009-01-25 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  I wish we could do away with our nukes (I'm American) but, with war torn, terrorist lead countries on the verge of being able to design model and acquire materials for even small nuclear weapons I am not sure that is a good idea.
  Hopefully we will never use them but I would never disarm our arsenal even unilaterally. We have to maintain our ability to defend and eradicate if necessary any foe that may come against us. Its is the reason we have a government after all. (No lib's it is not there to bailout industry and regulate food or even protect the kids from possible molestation [that one goes to state police].)
38. Re:How soon until... by multi+io · 2009-01-25 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  The authors of the second amendment might have used a very similar argument to point out that a law that was made with 18th-century rifles in mind which take 1 minute to reload does not apply to fully automatic high-powered assault rifles that allow you to kill dozens of people around you before anyone could intervene.
39. Re:How soon until... by philspear · 2009-01-25 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that was just an idle comment on how nukes should never have been invented. Genie is out of the bottle though, we can't get rid of them now, I do realize that.
40. Re:How soon until... by philspear · 2009-01-25 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  I think you misunderstand. They're clearly talking radioactive bear limbs, not bears with nukes.
41. Re:How soon until... by PopeRatzo · 2009-01-25 10:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  insert lame joke about all of us being really, really lucky that Germany didn't have any nukes during WW2.
  I'm not sure that's a joke.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
42. Re:How soon until... by PopeRatzo · 2009-01-25 10:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  with war torn, terrorist lead countries on the verge of being able to design model and acquire materials for even small nuclear weapons I am not sure that is a good idea.
  Yeah, I don't like Israel or Pakistan having the bomb, either.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
43. Re:How soon until... by PopeRatzo · 2009-01-25 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Tell that to the people who were arrested by homeland security at any USA airport for saying the word "bomb" after the 9/11...
  Or the ones that were put on no-fly lists for criticizing Bush's policies...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
44. Re:How soon until... by Tubal-Cain · 2009-01-25 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Instant swimming pool. Just add water.
45. Re:How soon until... by pha3r0 · 2009-01-25 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah it would have been nice to not have to resort to them but sooner or later they would have been discovered anyways. On a side note lets not forget that even after we dropped the first one on Japan they told us to stick it and kept attacking, we had to smack them again before they actually stepped back and said, whoa we can't handle much more of that shit.
  So my in summary while I don't think we should be the only ones with nukes or, that no one should have them I sure am glad it was not Cuba or Germany(Hitler's) or some terrorist fringe that got there first.
46. Re:How soon until... by pha3r0 · 2009-01-25 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah those might be the popular countries this week but there are a whole lot of places that could and definitely should NOT have nukes. Hell what if some African militants got a small nuke and just used it locally, that could still set off a world conflict.
47. Re:How soon until... by Locke2005 · 2009-01-25 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Nuclear bombs don't kill people. People kill people.
  When nuclear weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons!
  You can have my nuclear bomb when you pry it out of my hot, glowing hands!
  "Nuclear arms control" is being able to accurately hit your target!
  I could do this all day...
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
48. Re:How soon until... by S-100 · 2009-01-25 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  1.21 gigawatts?
49. Re:How soon until... by WolfWithoutAClause · 2009-01-25 11:40 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Never mind that, what about the right to arm nuclear bears? You're just not thinking about the big picture!
  
  --
  -WolfWithoutAClause
  "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
50. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  It would not be terrorism unless he used it deliberately to terrorize a group of people. Just because something is bad doesn't make it terrorism.
  I agree, but tell that to the government.
51. Re:How soon until... by HateBreeder · 2009-01-25 12:02 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  he'd have been disappeared a long time ago.
  And for good reason. Muslims cannot be trusted with power, as they are not a liberal and democratic civilization (not just a religion).
  Giving a Muslim power, is effectively giving his spiritual leader the same power... Note, that as opposed to other religions, Muslim countries - have a majority of fundamentalist muslims and are ruled by sharia law (of women stoning fame) - they have a minority of secular (read: intelligent) people - so comparing them to fundamentalist Christians, is not fair - since most christian nations are not "ruled" by the pope or any equally significant spiritual leader.
  Do you want nuclear weapons in the hands of people that want to kill all infidels?
  
  --
  Sigs are for the weak.
52. Re:How soon until... by Hognoxious · 2009-01-25 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Just because something is bad doesn't make it terrorism.
  And just because senator McCarthy said you were a communist didn't make you a fifth columnist supporting the nefarious schemes of the godless USSR.
  Except, in practical terms - such as having a job and shit like that, it did.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
53. Re:How soon until... by Hognoxious · 2009-01-25 12:14 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  an inanimate object cant be dangerous on its own.
  If you're going to quote the mayor of Pompei, at least give proper attribution.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
54. Re:How soon until... by eat+here_get+gas · 2009-01-25 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  ...Just because something is bad doesn't make it terrorism....
  so I should back down from "Orange" and only be "Yellow" afraid?
  
  --
  the significance of a signature is insignificant
55. Re:How soon until... by FLEB · 2009-01-25 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  He'd never go for it. I'm sure there'd be an NDA.
  
  --
  Information wants to be free.
  Entertainment wants to be paid.
  You just want to be cheap.
56. Re:How soon until... by FailedTheTuringTest · 2009-01-25 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  Just because something is bad doesn't make it terrorism.
  Fox News needs to know this.
57. Re:How soon until... by moniker127 · 2009-01-25 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  You need weapons grade plutonium in order to make a working nuke. My guess is that he made it all except that. Nukes themselves can be made rather simply, you just need to slam two things together to make one kind. (cant remember what the different kinds are called, but one is simple, one is complex).
58. Re:How soon until... by iphayd · 2009-01-25 13:52 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  The authors of the second amendment wrote the second amendment so that We the People have an ultimate ability to be the final check and balance on the government. A government that is afraid of its people serves its people best.
  Without assault weapons, we don't have that ability. Nukes are another story though. They don't have a place in any humane culture.
59. Re:How soon until... by Shakrai · 2009-01-25 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  On a side note lets not forget that even after we dropped the first one on Japan they told us to stick it and kept attacking, we had to smack them again before they actually stepped back and said, whoa we can't handle much more of that shit.
  Some historians actually give more credit to the intervention of the Soviet Union (see August Storm) for Japan's decision to capitulate than they do to the nuclear bombings. Faced the choice of having half your country (the Soviets were in a position to invade Hokkaido) occupied by Stalin or having it all occupied by the United States, which option would you have chosen?
  Note that I'm not saying we shouldn't have nuked the SOBs. It sure beat the hell out of invading them -- look at the causalities on Okinawa and Iwo Jima -- just saying that it probably doesn't deserve all the credit for their choice to surrender.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
60. Re:How soon until... by Shakrai · 2009-01-25 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  not apply to fully automatic high-powered assault rifles
  I hope you realize that "fully automatic" weapons are already illegal. And as far as "high-powered assault rifles" go, your typical hunting round (.30-06) has more energy than your typical assault rifle round (5.56x45mm NATO). So I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by "high-powered assault rifle".
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
61. Re:How soon until... by Shakrai · 2009-01-25 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean jigawatts ;)
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
62. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  Ahmed al-Rashad would not has disappeared...he would have just had an opportunity to visit Cuba.
63. Re:How soon until... by walshy007 · 2009-01-25 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  the rest is somewhat understandable, but... cuba? For a moment I had to go and check their history, but all I see is the US repeatedly trying to invade them, the only thing that actually stopped them after several attempts was the agreement that was came to after the cuban missile crisis.
  and no, 'because they chose communism' and 'we want their land' are not valid reasons for invading a country.
64. Re:How soon until... by angelwolf71885 · 2009-01-25 14:56 · Score: 0
  
  actuialy ALL the origanial exzisting replicas of fat man and little boy have been gutted by the DoD hell even Eglands copy redsnow is gutted but it has the vents still intact.. but whats sad is if somone really wnated to build a nuke thay can git all the stuff online and at thair locial home improvement store the secrit isent how to build one or how the damn thing was but togather... its how simple thay are to build....
65. Re:How soon until... by Alpha830RulZ · 2009-01-25 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not to introduce facts into the discussion or anything, but if you read the transcripts of the recent SCOTUS decision on the Washington DC arms laws, the historical records cited seem to indicate clearly that the contemporary discussions around the second amendment were precisely around the question of the people having the same arms as the government, and that the feelings of the forefathers was pretty much, if the government can have them, then the people can, too.
  So, by logical extension, certainly such things as what are commonly called assault rifles were well within the intents of the founding fathers of being among the arms that the people should be allowed to possess. I dunno how they would feel about nukes. I think they would be clearly -for- me being allowed to have a fully armed blackhawk helicopter.
  The second amendment isn't about what makes citizens feel safe from each other. It's about what allows citizens to feel safe from their government. While the NRA types rant and rave about self protection from the miscreants of society, that isn't what the drafters of the bill of rights were concerned with. Because of their concerns, the logical extension of the second amendment is that if weapons technologies advance, then the peoples' rights should advance as well. The goal is parity between the populace and the rulers.
  That may or may not be what we want now, but that what the drafters of the constitution appear to have thought. Personally, I line up with them.
  Before you pooh-pooh this too deeply, let me just remind you of the predecessor conditions to the french revolution, and the rise of Hitler. France and Germany were declining in power and influence. The previous governments had massively fucked up, people were in dire straights, the currency was debased and inflating wildly, and it was generally a bad place to be. Authoritarian leaders came to power, and... Sound familiar?
  Still sure you want the government to have all the good guns?
  
  --
  I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
66. Re:How soon until... by dov_0 · 2009-01-25 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  It would not be terrorism unless he used it deliberately to terrorize a group of people.
  I don't think that definition is really valid anymore as far as Western governments are concerned. ASIO in Australia labelled a woman as a potential terrorist for describing the success of a primary school play as "going off like a bomb" on her mobile phone. Arabs get stopped at airports, ummm, for looking like, well, arabs. etc etc etc...
  
  --
  sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
67. Re:How soon until... by angelwolf71885 · 2009-01-25 15:29 · Score: 0
  
  great scott
68. Re:How soon until... by Opportunist · 2009-01-25 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  According to Dumblaws it's Chico and the fine is 500.
  Anyone been there? Is it worth it? :)
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
69. Re:How soon until... by Opportunist · 2009-01-25 15:47 · Score: 1
  
  Umm... if said inanimate object is radioactive and not properly shielded, I still wouldn't wanna live close to it...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
70. Re:How soon until... by Opportunist · 2009-01-25 15:51 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Yeah, but realize that when you have da Bomb, you have to go to all those nuclear disarmament conferences. And, be honest, would you wanna spend all your spare time with Putin?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
71. Re:How soon until... by shmlco · 2009-01-25 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Whoa. You're talking about bionic bears here??? It's already hard enough to keep 'em out of the garbage cans.
  That's not a good idea at ALL!
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
72. Re:How soon until... by shmlco · 2009-01-25 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  "Still sure you want the government to have all the good guns?"
  Ah... I've noticed that having all of the "good guns" hasn't helped our side much in Iraq.
  I'm just sayin'
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
73. Re:How soon until... by shmlco · 2009-01-25 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  "You need weapons grade plutonium in order to make a working nuke."
  Except when you need weapons grade Uranium.
  Depends on the nuke.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
74. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 17:14 · Score: 0
  
  No, it wouldn't be dangerous.
  Illegal, sure due to the idiots making the rules, but an inanimate object cant be dangerous on its own.
  Great.. I've got nuclear waste I want to get rid of, would you mind if I put it in your backyard?
75. Re:How soon until... by epine · 2009-01-25 17:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I've read a lot on this subject over the years, but not much recently, and what I recall best at this point is the portions I decided to believe at the time from the accounts I found most compelling.
  I'm inclined toward accounts based on the premise that America and Russia had an agreement (what blend of official/unofficial I can't recall) that Russia would pressure the Japanese from the Kamchatka peninsula and that territorial control in the post-war world would be to some degree be established by how much territory in the region of Japan the Russians had managed to occupy at the point in time of formal Japanese surrender.
  To fully appreciate the political situation, you need to realize that the Americans were reading Purple. Purple never got as much press as Enigma because it was considered somewhat unsporting to crack a diplomatic code. The Americans had a sense that Japanese surrender was already in the works, but then the Japanese began to haggle among themselves about exactly how this would be done and how the internal post-surrender pecking order would unfold.
  Meanwhile the Russians are progressing far faster than the Americans wished. Japan had long understood that the American military economy was humming along at a fever pitch, and was pretty much impossible to mess with short of capturing Hawaii. The Japanese civil servants were long resigned to the outcome, while the royal crust was dithering.
  Also, don't forget that conventional Tokyo fire bombing destroyed 50% of the world's most densely inhabited city. The McNamara movie "Fog of War" has some good stuff on this. (Complicated man, that guy.) It's not as if Japan was lacking reasons to cease hostilities. Memo for next war: less wooden housing.
  I think one American perspective about the bomb was "hurry up and get on with the surrender, before we have to concede every square inch of east Asia to the rapidly advancing Russian borg".
  The other perspective is that they had spent 1/7'the of their entire wartime economy on this project, and along the way denied a lot of conventional armaments to their generals and enlisted troops. A lot of powerful people who hadn't been in on the Manhattan project were pissed about this. Really, they're going to spend a billion 1940 dollars on this program and then cancel the big demonstration, when you have no end of detractors within the ranks of power?
  Even with large contingents of Japanese officialdom resigned to surrender, there's always a risk that a survivalist faction rallies around some blood-thirsty cause about how much American blood will be spilled on the land invasion. Remember the Iwo Jima! The Americans will never be willing to pay this price in blood! No, actually, they'll turn entire cities, one by one, into glass ponds with a single bomb dropped from a single airplane. Sure takes the spit out of "dead to the last drop" jingoism.
  Turn the tables and imagine it was America on the brink of surrender, with California and New York conceding the inevitable, while Texas and Utah are piling on the guns and sand bags. How many Americans have bothered to conceptualize what surrender feels like? To my knowledge, the only military superpower to have transgressed upon American soil is Canada, which hardly gives a nation much practice in fearing the worst.
  Another factor I think is that the American physicists realized that making the bomb was not all difficult given the progression of technology, and decades instead of years for the program to unfold. Feynman has described that some of the computational challenges were dealt with by circulating punch card in fancy tabulating machines. There's more computational power available these days in a Palm Pilot. I'm sure guys as smart as Feynman concluded early on that this particular genie was not being coaxed back into the bottle, not even for a short decade-long snooze. It was going to be a post-nuclear world order, one way or another. Would the nuclear arms race have played out better without the deva
76. Re:How soon until... by CodeBuster · 2009-01-25 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  As compared to a $1000 fine in CA merely for littering on state highways. It's nice to know that our state lawmakers have their priorities straight...
77. Re:How soon until... by Hordeking · 2009-01-25 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  A working replica would be dangerous and surely illegal. It would not be terrorism unless he used it deliberately to terrorize a group of people. Just because something is bad doesn't make it terrorism.
  I suspect this would be a fascinating 2nd Amendment fight.
  
  --
  Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
78. Re:How soon until... by pha3r0 · 2009-01-25 18:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well spoken, my grandfather flew recon our of Guam during that time in his own words "there was a lot going on at the time, I am glad it finally ended"
  So whether it was us or threat of Soviet invasion or a mix we would all do well to head our histories lessons and listen to all sides of the stories.
79. Re:How soon until... by Alpha830RulZ · 2009-01-25 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  which is why we, the citizens, may not need nukes, but assault rifles are handy. With AK47s readily available, the iraqis have been able to discourage a much superior force. But if they didn't have AK47's and plastique, where would they be?
  
  --
  I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
80. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 20:08 · Score: 0
  
  since most christian nations are not "ruled" by the pope or any equally significant spiritual leader
  They are just ruled by people who say they are on a mission from god... sound familar?
81. Re:How soon until... by the_other_chewey · 2009-01-25 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's also a law in Germany, I think...
  Yup, 307 StGB (the German penal code)
  ("to cause an explosion using nuclear energy")
  
  The best part: While detonating a nuke on purpose is very much illegal and gets
  you thrown in jail for at least five years (best case), in case of negligence,
  you can get away with a maximum of three years, or a fine.
  
  How do you negligently explode a nuke?
82. Re:How soon until... by shmlco · 2009-01-25 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  Seen Defiance? You take 'em from the military.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
83. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 23:42 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  so I should back down from "Orange" and only be "Yellow" afraid?
  Are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb.
84. Re:How soon until... by drinkypoo · 2009-01-26 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  I hope you realize that "fully automatic" weapons are already illegal.
  Please cite. It appears that even in California, fully automatic weapons are now legal (as they are in most states.) What is not legal in Calfornia is AK and AR series rifles, weapons with certain characteristics (like short rifles, or weapons with folding stocks, or pistols with enclosed barrels, or anything with a forward pistol grip...) but I could not find anything on fire modes any more. Of course, with a ten round clip limit (that IS still in law - although the law appears to make no distinction between pistols and rifles now here) the utility of full-auto is pretty limited. I just want a ten round clip for my Peruvian Mauser. I don't have any stripper clips nor do I want to buy ammo packaged that way :P
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
85. Re:How soon until... by Evtim · 2009-01-26 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  It is always puzzling to me when such sentiments as yours are expressed. Can you put aside your citizenship and explain why should I trust the wisdom and the good will of a country, which is the only one that ever actually USED nuclear weapons against civilians. I would rather have every country in the world armed with nukes, now that the Pandora box is anyway open. I just do not trust you (US), dude! The discrepancy between talk and deeds is too large.
86. Re:How soon until... by foobarbaz · 2009-01-26 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  I hope you realize that "fully automatic" weapons are already illegal.
  This is false.
87. Re:How soon until... by Upphew · 2009-01-26 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Uh oh... I hope that my smallpox vaccine is still valid, it would suck to get smallpox and land in jail because of it.
88. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  Fascinating, perhaps, but very short.
89. Re:How soon until... by Shakrai · 2009-01-26 01:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I'm inclined toward accounts based on the premise that America and Russia had an agreement (what blend of official/unofficial I can't recall) that Russia would pressure the Japanese from the Kamchatka peninsula and that territorial control in the post-war world would be to some degree be established by how much territory in the region of Japan the Russians had managed to occupy at the point in time of formal Japanese surrender.
  Well I don't know how much of the agreement covered territory but there was an "official" agreement at Yalta for the Soviet Union to enter the war against Japan 90 days after the end of hostilities in Europe.
  
  To fully appreciate the political situation, you need to realize that the Americans were reading Purple. Purple never got as much press as Enigma because it was considered somewhat unsporting to crack a diplomatic code.
  The Pacific War in general has never gotten as much press as the European War. Purple was actually broken before the war. There's a mostly historically accurate representation of this in the movie 'Tora Tora Tora'
  
  You can figure out an awful lot about who collaborated on a nuclear bomb by the residue signature it leaves behind. If everyone out there is working from exactly the same blue print, some of that capability falls apart.
  IANANP (I am not a nuclear physicist) but my understanding is that the signature doesn't really have much to do with the design of the bomb itself. Rather it has to do with the reactor(s) that produced the fissile material used in the bomb. If you built fat man using American plutonium and built it again using Russian plutonium the signature would still be different.
  
  Japan had long understood that the American military economy was humming along at a fever pitch, and was pretty much impossible to mess with short of capturing Hawaii.
  Capturing Hawaii wouldn't have been enough either. It would have extended the war by another year or so but it wouldn't have altered the outcome. It's a moot point in any case as the Japanese didn't have the resources to capture Hawaii or the logistical resources to hold onto it if they did. What's more impressive is the fact that we devoted the overwhelming majority of our resources (upwards of 85% according to some estimates) to the European theater. We literally beat the Japanese with one hand and two feet tied behind our back. Makes you wonder what the hell they were thinking going to war with the United States. The disparity in economic resources was that large.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
90. Re:How soon until... by Shakrai · 2009-01-26 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Please cite
  The National Firearms Act, passed in the 30s, required the payment of a $200 tax (quite a lot of money in the 30s) before you could transfer fully automatic weapons. An amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act (passed in 1986) banned the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully automatic weapon made before that law was passed. So there are still a handful of legally owned fully automatic weapons out there but they are few and far between. Whether or not this is a good thing is up for the reader to decide.
  
  Of course, with a ten round clip limit
  You mean magazine limit, right? ;)
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
91. Re:How soon until... by Shakrai · 2009-01-26 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  Made after that law was passed. Oey! That's what I get for not proof-reading.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
92. Re:How soon until... by Shakrai · 2009-01-26 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Not if I had qualified it with "produced after 1986". See this post of mine
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
93. Re:How soon until... by Jedi+Alec · 2009-01-26 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  How do you negligently explode a nuke?
  By leaving the nuke locker open with a toddler around the house, how else?
  
  --
  
  People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
94. Re:How soon until... by JamesP · 2009-01-26 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  The fine is OK, the real bummer is hiring a specilized cleaning company afterwards, that's a bit expensive.
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
95. Re:How soon until... by Timberwolf0122 · 2009-01-26 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Actualy a working moddel of a nuke is not a significant problem as weapons grade plutonium is some what hard to come by.. Oh sure back in 1985 I'm sure you can just go to the local 7-11 and get some but in 2009 it's not that easy.
  
  --
  In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
96. Re:How soon until... by KudyardRipling · 2009-01-26 02:18 · Score: 0
  
  How would DC v. Heller be applied in this case?
  
  --
  Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
97. Re:How soon until... by Alpha830RulZ · 2009-01-26 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, I don't need to, I've got my own.
  
  --
  I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
98. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  Michael Jackson is BAD!!!!
99. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  It is, though. You think if they could conduct bombing raids on us they wouldn't have been doing it already? England is very, very lucky; the US, not so much.
100. Re:How soon until... by pha3r0 · 2009-01-26 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, I don't by any means think we (US) should be the only ones allowed nukes, but there is many, many places that do not have the stability or security protocols to be able to trust with a weapon of that magnitude.
  Secondly yes we are the only people to ever use a nuke in _war_. I am horrified when remembering the outcome of those blasts but I also understand that in _war_ people die, innocent people, fathers, sons and children. When one nation comes against another with such force and determination as Japan did in WW2 and when diplomacy and standard tactics cease to have effect any nation will, and has a duty to there people to, end the conflict in any way possible.
101. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  He could always offer it at as an exhibit on loan to the city of Nagasaki or Hiroshima as an example of bushite technology that really worked. Or maybe park it outside the North Korean embassy to show 'em we built it first!
102. Re:How soon until... by Mr+Z · 2009-01-26 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Ask this guy.
  
  --
  Program Intellivision!
103. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  The Blues Brothers?
104. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  If nuclear weapons are outlawed, then only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.
105. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, wasn't that the Blues Brothers?
106. Re:How soon until... by Pollardito · 2009-01-26 07:10 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I believe it's ok in California as long as the bomb mechanism is a female target shot with a male projectile, rather than a male target by a male projectile
107. Re:How soon until... by sunderland56 · 2009-01-26 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Just because something is bad doesn't make it terrorism.
  Tell that to the people who are being charged with terrorism merely for swearing at a flight attendant: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/01/25/bad_behavior_on_flights_prosecutable_under_patriot_act/
108. Re:How soon until... by damien_kane · 2009-01-26 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  If you're going to quote the mayor of Pompei, at least give proper attribution.
  Why?
  What's he going to do, sue me?
109. Re:How soon until... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  If you can't tell someone who will kill you when your back is turned from someone who is greatfull for your help, no gun will save you except one that will make you innocent when you kill everyone...
110. Re:How soon until... by Sinical · 2009-01-26 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Vernor Vinge has a short story about this: I *think* it's "The Ungoverned". It's set in the not tremendously distant future where there are basically certain kinds of people ("Armadillos" in the story, I believe) that just don't want to be bothered, and are very serious about it.
111. Re:How soon until... by orangesquid · 2009-01-26 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, if you believe the product literature ;)
  
  --
  --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
Atomic John? by 4D6963 · 2009-01-25 07:27 · Score: 1, Funny

Is my mind just twisted or is there an innuendo of sorts in the fact that the article is titled Atomic John, with a photograph below of the guy in question and a huge atomic phallic substitute seeming to come out of his crotch?

--
You just got troll'd!
1. Re:Atomic John? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  It's just you. Really. It is.
2. Re:Atomic John? by philspear · 2009-01-25 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  No, if that were the case, he would have built "Fat Man," the Nagasaki one.
3. Re:Atomic John? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously.
something to remind me .. by rs232 · 2009-01-25 07:30 · Score: -1, Offtopic

I recall at an anniversary ceremony Tibbets flew over an airfield and dropped a full size replica, now that must have got their attention. Is this more interesting than The web browser is a dead end

--
davecb5620@gmail.com
1. Re:something to remind me .. by Majik+Sheff · 2009-01-25 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  -1: google bombing
  
  --
  Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
2. Re:something to remind me .. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, make that thing your signature or you'll forever be modded down.
And, look, it even works... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 07:30 · Score: 1, Funny

Just push this button he
atomic weiner by rs232 · 2009-01-25 07:34 · Score: -1, Offtopic

"a huge atomic phallic substitute seeming to come out of his crotch?"

You're not the first to notice the Freudian connotations. is this more interesting than this The web browser is a dead end

--
davecb5620@gmail.com
1. Re:atomic weiner by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2009-01-25 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  is this more interesting than this The web browser is a dead end
  Jesus H. Christ, you're sock-monkeying that link all over the place. The answer clearly is, yes, to a lot of people, whatever story you're posting on is more interesting than that particular journal entry. Deal with it, will you?
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
2. Re:atomic weiner by rs232 · 2009-01-25 08:00 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  "Jesus H. Christ, you're sock-monkeying that link all over the place. The answer clearly is, yes"
  
  Jeez, excuse me, I thought this place had something to do with current technology. I guess Mad magazine is more appropriate. See CmdrTaco pictured here ..
  
  --
  davecb5620@gmail.com
3. Re:atomic weiner by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2009-01-25 08:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There are a lot of stories that appear on /. in which I have absolutely no interest. (The same could be said by practically anyone here.) So you know what I do when one of those stories comes up on the front page? I don't click on it. Easy, simple solution -- let the people who do care about that particular story talk about it, and go find something I care about to read and comment on instead. Everybody wins. It's not that hard a concept to grasp.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
4. Re:atomic weiner by LilGuy · 2009-01-25 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  It takes a low ID number to have come to this conclusion I think. Spend enough time anywhere and you're bound to learn the ropes.
  
  --
  
  You're nothing; like me.
5. Re:atomic weiner by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2009-01-25 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Hah, good point. OTOH, I'm pretty sure that even right after I joined Slashdot, I didn't post "Hey, why are you guys talking about X when Y is more important" links all over every single damned story. It's a type of trolling, and like most troll techniques, the reasons for it are, I suspect, kind of inexplicable to anyone who doesn't have that particular compulsion.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
NOT "Reverse Engineering" by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2009-01-25 07:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

FR1ST PEDANTIC POST
The guy went through declassified government documents to gather all the information he could find (including design information), and went from there. I don't think this is anything like reverse engineering.
If he "reverse engineered" the bomb, wouldn't it mean he put the design together based on blast data from known explosions of this particular device?

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:NOT "Reverse Engineering" by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2009-01-25 07:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Reverse engineering" is a pretty broad phrase. It can mean anything from taking an actual working example of a machine and figuring out how to build it, to the kind of thing you're talking about, observing what a machine does and figuring out how to build something that does the same thing (whether or not the internal mechanism is the same.) I'd say what Coster-Mullen did falls right in the middle of this range, so calling it "reverse engineering" is fair.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
2. Re:NOT "Reverse Engineering" by Wiseleo · 2009-01-25 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Given fragment 0.5"x1"x2" figure out the curvature of a portion of a payload of unknown shape and size.
  If that's not reverse engineering - recreating the initial object from a tiny fragment, I don't know what is. :)
  Given a large quantity of misleading, inaccurate, and downright incorrect data figure out the reasons for anomalies. Sounds like reverse engineering to me.
  I've read the entire article, have you?
  
  --
  Leonid S. Knyshov
  Find me on Quora :)
FUD, censorship, and freedom. by B5_geek · 2009-01-25 07:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

While many people may exclaim that this information is 'dangerous' to be released in the public domain let me remind you of a few small details.
1) ANY high-school/college student should be able to tell you what the critical mass of U235/238 is.
2) Most handymen should be able to make atleast ONE method of creating a critical mass pile.
3) It takes a GOVERNMENT to build multiple copies and revisions and tests to make it bigger/better.
This information does not mean "the terrorists can now make a bomb!" This changes NOTHING that hasn't been known for 50+ years. I would rather live in a society that does not suffer a knee-jerk reaction everytime something unusual is expressed. If anybody knows if this place exists, let me know; I'll start packing.

--
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
1. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Tacvek · 2009-01-25 08:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The simple facts are that he (a truck driver!) is collecting detailed information about some of the worlds least efficient nuclear bomb designs. Bombs with the same amount of equal quality fissile material can be made far more powerful. No terrorist orginaization would want to create such wasteful bombs, so the information he is publishing is not very dangerous at all. Besides, a lot of the difficulty in making even an inefficient nuclear bomb at all obtaining the weapons grade fissile material.
  Now his material is extremely accurate, coming from both logical analysis which has found inaccuracies in some published records. (Some records include masses of components that imply absurd material densities, so those measurements get discarded), measurements of the actual shell casings, and leaked information from those who actually built those bombs. Most of those people are customers of his book, and have publicly stated that very very few of his details remain inaccurate.
  
  --
  Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
2. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by NouberNou · 2009-01-25 08:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No terrorist orginaization would want to create such wasteful bombs, so the information he is publishing is not very dangerous at all.
  
  You seriously think that a terrorist organization would NOT take any sort of nuclear weapon?
  
  Little Boy and Fat Man were in the 13-20 kiloton range. More than enough to kill a few hundred thousand people in a dense urban target like New York or LA or any other major American city!
3. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Vellmont · 2009-01-25 08:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Besides, a lot of the difficulty in making even an inefficient nuclear bomb at all obtaining the weapons grade fissile material.
  
  I'd say that the vast majority of the difficulty is obtaining the fissile material. Weapons grade uranium/plutonium doesn't exactly grow on trees. Creating it yourself (and preventing anyone from stopping you) takes the power of a government.
  This has essentially been the policy to control proliferation for 60 years now. Stopping the knowledge of the design details is merely security theater.
  
  --
  AccountKiller
4. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, this information could have value. Everyone likes to say how hard it is to get good highly-enriched uranium. With the breakup of the former Soviet Union, countries that are either Islamic or turning Islamic, and a black market or sympathetic engineer, you might end up with enough material for a bomb.
  
  Also, the article states where he got a lot of his information - through channels that some Islamic nutcase might not be able to exploit. Think Harold Agnew would tell Ali Muhammed Whatever how to build a weapon?
  
  Inefficient or not, having nice plans all laid out for how to destroy a city with the material you recently acquired makes doing so just that much more possible and likely.
  
  This is not the kind of information that the world needs to set free. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. People can call it freedom of speech all they want, and call this FUD, but the consequences of being wrong in saying this information can't be used to make a weapon number in the millions of lives and billions or trillions of dollars.
5. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by vlm · 2009-01-25 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  The simple facts are that he (a truck driver!) is collecting detailed information about some of the worlds least efficient nuclear bomb designs.
  
  Besides, a lot of the difficulty in making even an inefficient nuclear bomb at all obtaining the weapons grade fissile material.
  Maybe a better way to summarize his work vs "the real thing" would be a different analogy:
  It's like comparing a guy who enjoys collecting pr0n vs actually reproducing with a supermodel.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
6. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by khallow · 2009-01-25 09:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No terrorist orginaization would want to create such wasteful bombs
  Article said it required about eight times critical mass. That's not bad for something you don't need to test first. Besides the design was good enough for the US to make first. Keep in mind that if you are committed to the terrorist act of blowing up an innocent city with a fission bomb, then you've divorced yourself from usual considerations of efficiency.
7. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by lysergic.acid · 2009-01-25 09:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  that's just the way our society has come to think. in most people's minds (including many regular citizens) the masses are simply too stupid, selfish, immoral, and irrational to be treated as mature & rational adults and allowed to govern themselves. therefore they must be ruled over by others who are more trustworthy and level-headed, which coincidentally are the rich & powerful. and following this kind of thinking, information that can potentially be used for evil must necessarily be suppressed and hidden from the public at all costs.
  but the knowledge that allows one to make nuclear weapons is the same knowledge that allows one to develop nuclear power plants. the only way you can suppress "dangerous" knowledge in this case is by suppressing nuclear research and forbidding anyone from teaching/studying nuclear physics. so unless we want to become a totalitarian state that promotes ignorance, a different approach must be found.
  rather than throwing people in jail (or threatening to) for possessing "dangerous information," and trying to keep the public in the dark, it would be easier and more desirable just to create an enlightened society where people have no reason to blow each other or themselves up. this isn't something that can be achieved through force or coercion. granted, it's not something that will produce results over night, but it makes much more sense than our current approach.
  similarly, changes in our foreign policy and ending the exploitation of other nations (for our own commercial interests) would do far more to increase our nation's security than any amount of military intervention and killing more innocent civilians. rather than abusing our position as the world's only superpower to ignore diplomacy and take whatever we want by force, we could simply be a better global citizen. then we wouldn't have to have a conniption fit every time a developing country builds a nuclear power plant.
8. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by gfody · 2009-01-25 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  ..or you could just steal the 99.997% pure plutonium from a low security gov research lab
  
  --
  
  bite my glorious golden ass.
9. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by vlm · 2009-01-25 09:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  No terrorist orginaization would want to create such wasteful bombs, so the information he is publishing is not very dangerous at all.
  
  You seriously think that a terrorist organization would NOT take any sort of nuclear weapon?
  You don't understand terrorism. All you need to create terror and cause chaos and evacuations is a bomb that is just dirty enough to make a geiger counter click somewhat above background rate in front of a TV camera. Heck a granite countertop would probably do (they are quite radioactive). Although potassium based salt substitute (also quite radioactive) is scarier looking. One "real bomb" might destroy a city. But ten thousand hand grenades detonated in the ten thousand largest cities all going clicky clicky on camera is way more effective at generating terror.
  The proof that there is no real terrorist threat, and the whole terrorist threat thing is the equivalent of government conspiracy theory daydreams, is that something this simple and easy has never happened despite ex-communist countries being awash in rad-waste free for the pickings, small IEDs are not apparently too hard to find either, add a roll of duct tape, and instant celebrity.
  It doesn't matter if you actually destroy the city or not, all you need to do is make the residents act like it's another Katrina (except its even scarier because its "nuclear") and you've won. Prodding the sheep won't be too hard, with the media's help.
  That is why a terrorist organization (assuming such a thing even exists) would never be so "wasteful" as to make a traditional a-bomb, when they could make ten thousand dirty hand grenades using the same stuff.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
10. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Anne+Thwacks · 2009-01-25 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Weapons grade uranium/plutonium doesn't exactly grow on trees
  Unless you live near 3 Mile Island!
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
11. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  OR you could build it and it/they (the core) will come!
  THEY WILL COME!!!
  If your cause is good enough (in the eyes of those that have the core.)
  BOOM.. DAM THAT SUCKED... No matter where it Boomed!
  Information wants to be free!!!
  Learn stuff while you can. Your brain is up fro grabs!
  signed "THE POWER!"
12. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by T5 · 2009-01-25 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  No terrorist orginaization would want to create such wasteful bombs, so the information he is publishing is not very dangerous at all.
  Dead wrong. Any sufficiently funded terrorist organization is the only market for such an antiquated device. No government would want to field one of these (N. Korea excepted), but any terrorist/extremist group would give their last item of worth for just one of these. Terror does not require efficiency.
13. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by LilGuy · 2009-01-25 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Why must they be Islamic? What if a Sikh got his hands on one? A Hindu? How about a Buddhist?
  
  --
  
  You're nothing; like me.
14. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by mpe · 2009-01-25 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  You seriously think that a terrorist organization would NOT take any sort of nuclear weapon?
  
  The goal of terrorists is to create terror. Some terrorists will do this using fake bombs or simply the threat of bombs. There are also terrorists who don't use any kind of bombs. Even terrorists who do use actual bombs may be more interested in getting fairly small bombs very close to specific people (or groups of people).
  Someone like Ted Kaczynski may well say "no" even if offered a fully working Trident D5. Someone like Timothy McVeigh might be more interested...
15. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by NouberNou · 2009-01-25 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Thats not what the GP was referring to at all. He made it seem like a terrorist organization would rather build a B-61 or some other more advanced nuclear weapon than a design like Little Boy or Fat Man. Any organization seeking to acquire a real nuclear weapon would take a relatively inferior design than nothing at all.
  
  You are right in your point though, the wouldn't even seek a full blown nuclear weapon unless it was very easy to get. A dirty bomb would be much more efficient.
  
  On the other hand if I was Osama and I had the choice between a dirty bomb and a readily available bomb of Little Boys capabilities I think the decision would be a very easy one.
16. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  Also, people didn't know until recently that they can get away from a nuclear blast unharmed by hiding in a refrigerator.
17. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  ..or have the Libyans steal it for you.
18. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  ok, when you want to pay 20 dollars a gallon for gas, let me know. then we can talk about exploitation versus enlightenment
19. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by hairykrishna · 2009-01-25 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  There is no such thing as a low security lab in possession of more than a fraction of a gram of plutonium.
  
  --
  "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
20. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  Or buy it from the Libyans to power your flux capacitor! IAANS (I am a nuclear scientist), so please believe me when I say it is EXTREMELY unlikely that you could wander in to any facility that handles significant quantities of highly-enriched uranium or fissile plutonium without being subjected a lengthy and extremely unpleasant "interview" from large men with automatic rifles.
21. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Tubal-Cain · 2009-01-25 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  You should be hearing a knock at your door any minute now.
22. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is not that all people are immature, irrational and childish, or even that society as a whole is not enlightened or is not becoming more enlightened. The problem is that not all people are mature and rational enough to be entrusted with weapons of mass destruction (or even scissors). It only takes one stupid, selfish, immoral person armed with an atomic bomb to ruin a lot of lives.
  Is society as a whole stupid, selfish, and immoral? No. Is there one or more such people who exist? Yes. Therefore, this technology is not, in general, safe in the hands of Joe Citizen.
23. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  I think he was making a reference to the hilariously campy 80's movie The Manhattan Project
24. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by ScrewMaster · 2009-01-25 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  Weapons grade uranium/plutonium doesn't exactly grow on trees
  Unless you live near 3 Mile Island!
  That's actually a really bad example, even for a joke.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
25. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by S-100 · 2009-01-25 11:43 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Sure there is. All you need is an RC car and a plastic bottle filled with green shampoo.
26. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Hognoxious · 2009-01-25 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  High security means not easy to steal from. It doesn't mean fussy about who they'll sell to.
  And since you've obviously overslept by a decade or two, the Soviet Union broke up in a less than organised fashion. Nobody really has a clue what they had, where it is now and who has it.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
27. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by FailedTheTuringTest · 2009-01-25 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  3) It takes a GOVERNMENT to build multiple copies and revisions and tests to make it bigger/better.
  ...and to collect enough material to fulfill the requirements of step 1.
28. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by turbidostato · 2009-01-25 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  "There is no such thing as a low security lab in possession of more than a fraction of a gram of plutonium."
  Are you ready to bet for it? Sure?
  Not even in Israel, UK, France, ex-USSR, India, Pakistan, China or North Korea?
29. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Kozz · 2009-01-25 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  1) ANY high-school/college student should be able to tell you what the critical mass of U235/238 is.
  I hardly knew WTF "critical mass" meant, precisely. Much less knowing what was critical mass until looking at wikipedia. You've got to be fucking kidding me. Any high-school/college student? Really? I know how to google it, but that's different from knowing it.
  
  --
  I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
30. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by rubycodez · 2009-01-25 14:24 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  eh, most students don't know "critical mass" for a spherical shape of uranium of given enrichment, that's actually a pretty hairy calculation. Pure U-235's value is published but who outside of a hard care geek is going to remember it? And as for a "pile", of blocks of fissionable material and moderator and support structure, I've a big thick textbook on that subjects, ain't easy at all.
31. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Alpha830RulZ · 2009-01-25 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  The proof that there is no real terrorist threat, and the whole terrorist threat thing is the equivalent of government conspiracy theory daydreams, is that something this simple and easy has never happened
  Exactly. This country is porous and filled with soft targets. The airports are still porous (I carried a knife through security undetected two weeks ago by accident).
  Despite this being true, and known to millions upon millions of people with no love for america, nothing has happened. There are no triumphant news articles about thwarted planes, no near misses. Just, nothing...
  Now, there will be something again. We had the world trade center bombings in 1992, we had 9/11 in 2001, I'd say we're likely to have some new generation nutcases sometime in the next 5 years, because, well, nutcases exist. But the vast legions of radicals that Bush and Cheney used to keep the populace in check with fear with, they just don't exist.
  
  --
  I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
32. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by aqk · 2009-01-25 16:17 · Score: 0
  
  Well, let's exclude the USA. Many kids in other "western" countries appear to get a reasonable grounding in Science and Physics. But, golly! American kids just wanna have fun.
  
  --
  
  .
  - aqk
  F U /. illiterates.
33. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by dragonturtle69 · 2009-01-25 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  Why with our hugely open society we have so few terrorist acts? It can be either because there really is no terrorist threat here (for whatever combination of causes) or that the threats are prevented before maturing.
  This BBC story is a re-lease. The original BBC article stated that, according to anonymous Turkish authorities, the uranium was located by satellite and the information was given to Turkey to affect the arrest. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2286597.stm
  
  --
  "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
34. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by shmlco · 2009-01-25 17:20 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  "But the vast legions of radicals that Bush and Cheney used to keep the populace in check..."
  Hope you noticed that it didn't take "vast legions of radicals" to make a rather large hole in lower Manhatten...
  "Despite this being true, and known to millions upon millions of people with no love for america, nothing has happened."
  Well... nothing successful, at any rate.
  It also helps--for the lack of a better word--that we tend to get kind of pissy when we find out who did something to us. Taking out a building or two in exchange for having your entire country bombed flat isn't exactly equitable.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
35. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Alpha830RulZ · 2009-01-25 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  Show me the failures. The realistic ones, not the kids who sat around drunk and talked about something that they had no means to implement.
  I think the attempt rate is close to zero, though I'm open to being proved wrong.
  
  --
  I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
36. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Forbman · 2009-01-25 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  well, if I still had my Nuclear Physics book (which ever book Prof "twistor" Cramer used when he taught it at Univ of Washington, PHYS 327), it's got a nice table of some critical masses in it.
  The tricky parts of the Fat Man bomb were getting the shapes of the explosive blocks precise enough, getting the right intermediary material to "hold" the impulse long enough for the plutonium to go critical and stay critical long enough before it blew itself apart, and the timing of all the detonators and initiators worked out.
37. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by DerekLyons · 2009-01-25 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  Stopping the knowledge of the design details is merely security theater.
  Except your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
  Even though it is difficult to obtain the fissile material needed, the engineering is not particularly easy. Keeping the engineering details classified makes the job of someone trying to recreate the bomb harder. This keeps the risks of proliferation down.
38. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by vlm · 2009-01-26 00:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Even though it is difficult to obtain the fissile material needed, the engineering is not particularly easy. Keeping the engineering details classified makes the job of someone trying to recreate the bomb harder. This keeps the risks of proliferation down.
  Dude, you've got to be kidding. It's a cannon with a projectile and target made of nearly pure U-235. Making a target is pretty easy, I'm sure there is some old joke about civil engineers that can be inserted here. Civil engineers have been building targets for centuries, or something like that. Making a cannon has not been the pinnacle of technological development since the middle ages. Rather than make your own cannon, just cut down an artillery piece like the Manhattan project did. Then you've got the mind-bending engineering challenge of casting a projectile and turning it on a lathe, which stopped being challenging in the mid 1800s. Admittedly U is harder to cast than perhaps Al or Zn, but not much harder than Mg or Be or W.
  Now I admit there is complicated engineering involved in modern top of the line weapons. Since the bean counters know the special materials are quite expensive and hard to make, if you intend to make tens of thousands of them, there is extreme pressure to use extreme engineering to make it lighter cheaper more powerful, etc. An implosion device is extremely hard to design and needs alot of testing (and even the best designs occasionally failed during tests), but the bean counters approve that expensive design since special nuclear materials are so expensive in thousand device production runs. Also given the cost and bother of launching every gram on a missile, any extreme engineering is worth it to reduce weight, because one less pound of weapon might be one hundred less pounds of missile. Also, given the pain and suffering of working with special materials, extreme engineering to reduce maintenance is worth it if your device will sit around unused for decades, or at least you hope so. And if the extreme engineering occasionally fails, like maybe 25%, that is OK if you have thousands of warheads with multiple ones assigned to each target.
  But it you just want to make a big bang to make the political statement that you've joined the club, then its pretty easy, once you get the special stuff, and extreme engineering is not a good idea for the first bang. For example, the first terrorist detonation will almost certainly be from an uninspected 60000 lb ocean shipping container, so there is no point in extreme engineering to make it light enough to fit on a missile. Then again since the borders are basically wide open (re illegals, etc) the first might be on a semi truck, but still no engineering pressure for light weight. Why make a suitcase nuke when you don't need to, because you can just as easily haul in cubic yards and tons?
  Once a country or other group joins the nuclear club, I'm sure their bean counters will want the fancy designs that the US and USSR spent zillions optimizing. But then its waaaaaaay too late to prevent proliferation, by the definition of proliferation. Since the borders of the US are wide open for giant heavy weapons there is no point in making tiny light ones anyway. If in the 1950s the usa could have simply sent shipping containers of weapons to the USSR or driven semis across from alaska, we'd never have wasted the engineering time and money on the tiny light devices.
  Here's the mandatory slashdot car analogy. You're saying that if the 2009 indy-500 car racing team A wants to prevent team B from winning, they should classify the design of the original ford model T car. Or maybe, if in 2009 we want to stop china from competing with ford, we should classify the model T blueprints.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
39. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by sFurbo · 2009-01-26 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  And you can't use plutonium in a gun-type-bomb, the inevitable Pu-240 in it emits so many neutrons that you need a much faster assembly of the critical pile, as in the implosion-type bombs. But they are much harder to make. So, either you need to separate isotopes with a mass difference of 1% or you need to make a good explosive lens.
40. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  Welcome to Svalbard, the arctic outpost to Norway! Suffer polar bears, Russian miners, 1 kebab stand, winter all year and half the tax of the rest of the country.
41. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody really has a clue what they had, where it is now and who has it.
  It was very easy to find and retrieve this radioactive material - we simply followed the money trail. Everyone involved was very greedy and we simply offered to pay more.
42. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Muad'Dave · 2009-01-26 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Weapons grade uranium/plutonium doesn't exactly grow on trees.
  It does in Chernobyl.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
43. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by DerekLyons · 2009-01-26 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, you've got to be kidding.
  No, I'm not kidding. But then, I've actually studied the topic and understand that it is far more than just a "cannon with a target and a projectile of nearly pure U-235". As always, the devil is in the details - and there are a lot of details. (Some are hinted at in TFA, others in Carey Sublette's work.)
  
  But it you just want to make a big bang to make the political statement that you've joined the club, then its pretty easy, once you get the special stuff, and extreme engineering is not a good idea for the first bang.
  
  Actually, that's completely incorrect. (And shows how little you've studied or thought about the topic.) A nuclear deterrent works if and only if you have a deliverable weapon - there's a reason why every nuclear weapons state and wannabe weapons state has developed or is also trying to develop IRBMs at a minimum, ICBMs if at all possible.
  
  Here's the mandatory slashdot car analogy. You're saying that if the 2009 indy-500 car racing team A wants to prevent team B from winning, they should classify the design of the original ford model T car. Or maybe, if in 2009 we want to stop china from competing with ford, we should classify the model T blueprints.
  If the model T had no chance of winning, it would be stupid to classify the design. But it does have a chance of winning as you yourself point out.
44. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Relying on the ignorance of your enemies is a dangerous thing to do. Making it "harder" won't stop anyone serious about it - the US has no monopoly on brains.
  I'd say this guy's work represents a combination of driving curiosity and a desire to do the job right - I would encourage those traits even at the risk of him getting the details "right". The lack of those two traits in our citizens is as sure a way to get us killed as nuclear bombs in the hands of our enemies (which they can get from other places than the US, by the way - and better designs than the earliest). If we let the enemy be more curious, smarter, and more driven than us we're dead - the tools are just a detail.
45. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Mr+Z · 2009-01-26 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  No terrorist orginaization would want to create such wasteful bombs
  Then why do major metropolises have radiation detectors to detect and prevent against dirty bomb attacks? That seems like an even less efficient use of radioactive material.
  
  --
  Program Intellivision!
46. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Hognoxious · 2009-01-26 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  But then, I've actually studied the topic and understand that it is far more than just a "cannon with a target and a projectile of nearly pure U-235".
  Nonetheless, the point of the matter is that any terrorist organisation with the resources to get hold of sufficient fissile material has the resources to get hold of the necessary engineering talent to use it.
  This is sixty year old technology, and we know for a fact it's possible to reproduce it - because that's what the Israelis, Indians, Pakistanis, Russians and others did.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
47. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by georgewilliamherbert · 2009-01-26 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, that's completely incorrect. (And shows how little you've studied or thought about the topic.) A nuclear deterrent works if and only if you have a deliverable weapon - there's a reason why every nuclear weapons state and wannabe weapons state has developed or is also trying to develop IRBMs at a minimum, ICBMs if at all possible.
  Of course, the scary thing from that perspective is the W-33 atomic artillery projectile. 8 inch (20 cm) diameter, 32 inches long, 241 pounds or so. And, like Little Boy, a gun-type weapon, though a much much smarter design than Little Boy.
  W33 (nuclear weapon) at Wikipedia
  Fits in a missile reentry vehicle just fine, thank you...
48. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by DerekLyons · 2009-01-26 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Nonetheless, the point of the matter is that any terrorist organisation with the resources to get hold of sufficient fissile material has the resources to get hold of the necessary engineering talent to use it.
  A point I've never debated. (Though it is debatable.) You fail to realize that there is a difference between engineering talent with a design to work from, and engineering talent that has to create everything from scratch. One has a much harder task than the other, and a higher chance of failure.
49. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Kozz · 2009-01-26 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  Gee, I've had many classes in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Anthropology, Philosophy, Statistics, Calculus amongst others... sorry that nuclear stuff never got around to memorizing the critical mass for U235 (52kg) or U238 (~9kg). You insensitive clod!
  
  --
  I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
50. Re:FUD, censorship, and freedom. by Hognoxious · 2009-01-26 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  Since we're all mindreaders, I'll tell you what you fail to realize: that they wouldn't have to work from scratch, because the knowledge is already out there - that's how the trucker was able to find it.
  Whether it's harder or much harder, it certainly isn't impossible. As far I can see, the guy isn't telling anybody [who'd be interested] anything that they don't already know or couldn't have found out in much the same way he did.
  He has not made the world any more dangerous than it already was.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
was it moral .. by rs232 · 2009-01-25 07:49 · Score: -1, Troll

Was it moral to drop the atom bomb on a bunch of slanty-eyed-bandy-legged-nips. Bugs Bunny "Nips the Nips". is this more interesting than The web browser is a dead end

--
davecb5620@gmail.com
1. Re:was it moral .. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  A racist twitter? What the fuck is happening to Slashdot?
Funny, then not so much... by pjt48108 · 2009-01-25 07:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is yet another example of things which, eight years ago, might have seemed merely odd, rather than somewhat unsettling.
How quaint the 20th Century already seems.

--
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
1. Re:Funny, then not so much... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  How quaint the 20th Century already seems.
  I'm not sure when your from, but this is the 21st century
2. Re:Funny, then not so much... by ScrewMaster · 2009-01-25 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  How quaint the 20th Century already seems.
  I'm not sure when your from, but this is the 21st century
  Right, which is why the old 20th Century seems quaint.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
3. Re:Funny, then not so much... by Wes+Janson · 2009-01-25 12:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's only unsettling to those who are uneducated in the subject. Anyone with a passing knowledge of nuclear weapons can tell you why this is completely irrelevant from a security perspective. And anyone who pays real attention can tell you what you should really be worrying about.
  
  Unfortunately, the percentage of Americans who have even that passing familiarity with nuclear weapons is probably no greater than 2 or 3 percent. Which means 97-98% of the population is going to react out of fear, uncertainty, and doubt in anything related to the matter.
4. Re:Funny, then not so much... by tkw954 · 2009-01-25 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  This is yet another example of things which, eight years ago, might have seemed merely odd, rather than somewhat unsettling.
  
  Yeah, the book was first published in 1996 (according to wikipedia).
"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2009-01-25 08:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

A working replica would be dangerous and surely illegal.
If I had a working replica of a nuclear bomb in my basement, I don't think I would give a rat's ass about whether it was dangerous or illegal.
If I did have a nuclear bomb, I would not have a problem.
Some other folks would have a problem.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
1. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by _Sprocket_ · 2009-01-25 08:38 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  If you decided on being someone else's problem, you'd go to sleep one night and no longer be anybody's problem.
2. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by fahrbot-bot · 2009-01-25 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  If I did have a nuclear bomb, I would not have a problem.
  Some other folks would have a problem.
  
  Said The Mouse that Roared :-)
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
3. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by Superdarion · 2009-01-25 09:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Right, because it's a well known scientific fact that those who actually make a bomb are totally immune to the bomb's effects.
  
  Besides, having explosives is not illegal just because you could use them for therrorism, but because accidents happen; accidents which might not only harm yourself (being stupid enough to have a bomb with you, whatever happens, you had it coming), but those around you as well. More so with something as powerful as a nuke.
4. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by Culture20 · 2009-01-25 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Radiation Poisoning? Cancer?
5. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by PopeRatzo · 2009-01-25 10:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If I did have a nuclear bomb, I would not have a problem.
  Some other folks would have a problem.
  This was precisely America's attitude about nuclear weapons for more than thirty years after Trinity.
  Turns out they were wrong. There was no way to say England yes, France no, India yes, Pakistan no, Israel yes, Iran no.
  The Atomic Bomb created the sense in American leaders that our overwhelming advantage in power created an American hegemony.
  Like the Jurassic Park geneticist believing his "sterile" dinos would not spread, Truman and subsequent presidents believed in the myth of "control" that would keep the genie in the bottle. Worse, they thought they could be the "decider" of who gets to rub the lamp and who doesn't.
  Me, I just hope Fallout 3 doesn't turn out to be predictive. I've run out of Rad-Away.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
6. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by Luscious868 · 2009-01-25 10:49 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If I did have a nuclear bomb, I would not have a problem. Some other folks would have a problem.
  Signed,
  
  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
7. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by Hurricane78 · 2009-01-25 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well... until you realize that you have no way of launching it, and that there is nobody else living in your area (all evacuated for example).
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
8. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by darkpixel2k · 2009-01-25 12:26 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Besides, having explosives is not illegal just because you could use them for therrorism, but because accidents happen; accidents which might not only harm yourself (being stupid enough to have a bomb with you, whatever happens, you had it coming), but those around you as well. More so with something as powerful as a nuke.
  Awesome idea. I propose we start off by banning the following unsafe items that could harm you and possibly others: smoking, alcohol, cars, and electricity.
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
9. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by Marcos+Eliziario · 2009-01-25 12:57 · Score: 1
  
  If it were not the americans the first to build an atom bomb, it would have been someone else. In that situation, the USSR had no other choice but build their bombs.
  The US were not the only ones to try to avoid other countries. If they could, they would have stopped UK and France also from having the bomb. If they could have avoided it, you can be damn sure Israel would not have a bomb also. But the US was not alone on it, the USSR, for the same reasons, had on its best interests that no other countries had the bomb. Indeed, the soviets got really pissed when China got the bomb.
  It's not the "american attitude" on nuclear weapons that make things like they are today. Things are like what they are today because we are a beligerant race, because when there's shortage of anything (be it land, gold, water, oil or whatever) we will do what any other animal would do assure its survival: we fight.
  
  --
  Your ad could be here!
10. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by JWSmythe · 2009-01-25 13:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Nope, if you had a working replica bomb in your basement, you'd never know when it went off. You'd simply be vaporized, as would your neighbors for a few miles. When they identified the center of the crater, then they'd know it was you, but there wouldn't be much to prosecute. I don't think they'd try to prosecute "the atoms previously known as Polygamous Ranch Kid".
  Skewing slightly off topic, how the heck do you manage to be polygamous? I can only handle being with one woman at a time. I couldn't handle a whole cluster of them. Even a Beowulf cluster of them. :)
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
11. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by Opportunist · 2009-01-25 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  If he puts the detonator under the pillow like some do with a gun and he happens to turn the wrong way one night, then I'm sure you're right, he won't be anyone's problem anymore...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
12. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by Opportunist · 2009-01-25 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretty much why I didn't care too much whether Saddam (or anyone in that area) had the bomb. So he has it. And? How's he gonna send it over? FedEx?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
13. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by mfnickster · 2009-01-25 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Things are like what they are today because we are a beligerant race, because when there's shortage of anything (be it land, gold, water, oil or whatever) we will do what any other animal would do assure its survival: we fight.
  Except that in the case of nuclear war, the fight does not assure our survival - quite the opposite!
  
  --
  "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
14. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by shmlco · 2009-01-25 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  "...banning the following unsafe items that could harm you and possibly others: smoking, alcohol, CARS..."
  Hey man, like, we're already doing it man. Why else do you think GM, Ford, and Chevy are closing plants left and right?
  [takes drag of my herbal cigarette]
  I tell you, like it's a government plot, man.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
15. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by shmlco · 2009-01-25 16:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "That's pretty much why I didn't care too much whether Saddam (or anyone in that area) had the bomb."
  Yeah. So he could only take out a LOCAL city containing a few million people, start a major war, and potentially devastate a region. Big deal.
  "How's he gonna send it over? FedEx?"
  Noticed the increased security around the ports recently? That comment's closer than you think...
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
16. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by Hordeking · 2009-01-25 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, having explosives is not illegal just because you could use them for therrorism, but because accidents happen; accidents which might not only harm yourself (being stupid enough to have a bomb with you, whatever happens, you had it coming), but those around you as well. More so with something as powerful as a nuke.
  !Insightful.
  
  Having explosives is illegal because minds greater than ours (the so-called powers that be) have decided in their infinite wisdom that anything that could be used against them be forbidden knowledge. e.g. England banning pointy knives in the 17th century, firearms in the 20th, pointy things and cricket bats in the 21st.
  
  In the US, if you have anything involving forbidden knowledge (dynamite, TNT, drugs, various esoteric chemicals precursors (and their precursors, ad infinitum)) you're automatically a terrorist and must be erased.
  
  --
  Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
17. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by Hordeking · 2009-01-25 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  Awesome idea. I propose we start off by banning the following unsafe items that could harm you and possibly others: smoking, alcohol, cars, and electricity.
  The sun causes cancer! We must ban it, I tell you!
  
  --
  Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
18. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 21:22 · Score: 0
  
  Modded funny, but some people of Middle-Eastern descent are getting a little tired of people joking around with our names in relation to terrorism.
  Please. Funny as it may be, some people genuinely are getting tired of it.
19. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 23:27 · Score: 0
  
  Name calling and my dad is stronger than your dad, isn't funny... But in this case I don't think it's the name it's more his person and views that makes it funny... Not the name :)
20. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by drinkypoo · 2009-01-26 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's pretty much why I didn't care too much whether Saddam (or anyone in that area) had the bomb. So he has it. And? How's he gonna send it over? FedEx?
  The vast (and I mean vast) majority of shipping containers enter the country completely uninspected.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
21. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by JamesP · 2009-01-26 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  So this is how you create a "Somebody Else's Problem Field", interesting...
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
22. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by rgviza · 2009-01-26 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  HAHA mutually assured destruction. They wouldn't be messin with you LAWL
  -Viz
  
  --
  Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
23. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by Marcos+Eliziario · 2009-01-26 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  This only proves the point that we are not that evolutionary fit as we like to think.
  
  --
  Your ad could be here!
24. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by downhole · 2009-01-26 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  You would have a rather big problem if anyone else ever found out about it, which I expect would be pretty hard to avoid. Ignoring what the Government would do for the moment, what are you gonna do when someone tries to steal it? There have to be hundreds of assorted terrorist groups and nutjobs that would love to be able to go after a nuke sitting in some guy's basement instead of a heavily fortified military compound. How many gunmen do you think that you can fend off? Are you willing to pay for and live under enough security to keep them out for the rest of your life?
  
  --
  I don't reply to ACs
25. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  If you had a nuclear bomb in the basement, you could expect a daisy cutter on the roof.
26. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2009-01-27 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Skewing slightly off topic, how the heck do you manage to be polygamous? I can only handle being with one woman at a time. I couldn't handle a whole cluster of them. Even a Beowulf cluster of them. :)
  Fine granularity locks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_(computer_science). Avoid lock contention at all costs. Use instrumented locks to check this.
  More subtle are performance degradations caused by contention on global memory addresses, which invalidate cache lines on peer processors. There are ways to avoid this, if detected, but a lot of them are patented.
  Actually, the PolygamousRanchKid Nom de guerre came from a CNN Headline: it the country where I live, English is a foreign language. One of my colleagues was confused by the headline, about some church in Texas. He wanted to know, if it was a "polygamous ranch," or a "polygamous kid."
  I answered him, "both."
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
27. Re:"Most of the time, I'm somebody else's problem" by fifedrum · 2009-01-27 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  nope, we're exactly fit for evolution as any other animal, and if we're unable to adapt to changing conditions like would be experienced after an all-out nuclear exchange and die out, well then that's evolution in action.
Not so big a deal by Ancient_Hacker · 2009-01-25 08:09 · Score: 4, Informative

The Hiroshima bomb was a very simple "gun" design. Plenty of published info on it. It used a navy gun barrel cut down to size, a U235 doughnut target, a polonium initiator, and a U235 projectile. Mighty simple. Any chopper shop could build one, with the exception of getting the Polonium and U235.
This design was abandoned as it had many drawbacks-- it used about 8 times more U235 than absolutely necessary, there was a 7% chance of a fizzle, and there was no way to make it safe.
But it had the advantage that it was dead-simple and guaranteed to work, well 93% of the time.
Now if he made a replica of Fat Man, that would really be something.
1. Re:Not so big a deal by Compholio · 2009-01-25 08:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  ...a U235 doughnut target, a polonium initiator, and a U235 projectile...
  If you'd actually read the article then you'd know that he discovered that the projectile was hollow and the target was solid. Personally, I just skimmed it - but it seems like he collected a lot of facts that lead him to believe that people were parroting incorrect information about how the bomb was constructed and he wanted to set the record straight.
2. Re:Not so big a deal by RDW · 2009-01-25 08:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  'The Hiroshima bomb was a very simple "gun" design. Plenty of published info on it. It used a navy gun barrel cut down to size, a U235 doughnut target, a polonium initiator, and a U235 projectile. Mighty simple.'
  A major point of the article is that many of the key (and repeatedly published) 'facts' about the bomb are quite wrong. e.g., according to Coster-Mullen, the projectile was actually a hollow cylinder and the target was a rod rather than a doughnut - 'little boy was female'. Wikipedia is now using his version of the bomb design in the Little Boy article:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy
3. Re:Not so big a deal by Ancient_Hacker · 2009-01-25 08:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Well a cylinder and rod sound like a really poor design. You want a quick transition to super-criticality, not a slow linear slide. Much more likely they were a conical target and a mating projectile.
  Maybe this guy is trying to disinform certain rogue scientists?
4. Re:Not so big a deal by Detritus · 2009-01-25 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  According to the article, the projectile had a hollow center, and the target was a cylinder that fit inside the hollow center of the projectile. That's the opposite of most descriptions of the weapon.
  
  --
  Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
5. Re:Not so big a deal by hairykrishna · 2009-01-25 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  His book also contains a exact engineering description of Fat Man.
  
  --
  "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
6. Re:Not so big a deal by ScrewMaster · 2009-01-25 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  A major point of the article is that many of the key (and repeatedly published) 'facts' about the bomb are quite wrong.
  And that, as it happens, is a very good (and probably entirely deliberate) state of affairs. A desire for historical accuracy is one thing, but what he's doing here isn't beneficial to all of us who really don't like mushroom clouds. Some things are best left a little gray.
  
  Of course, if he could do it, anyone could do it, but one military basic is "never let the enemy get something for free." Make him pay, with time if nothing else.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
7. Re:Not so big a deal by S-100 · 2009-01-25 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and the figures popularized by the government agencies would have created an unstable device. Gee, what a shame if someone trying to build a real one should find themselves blown to bits.
8. Re:Not so big a deal by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  "a U235 doughnut"
  mmmmm donuts!.....
  "Homer"
  PS: Homer is a Nuclear Scientist!!
9. Re:Not so big a deal by Sam+Williams · 2009-01-25 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  'A major point of the article is that many of the key (and repeatedly published) 'facts' about the bomb are quite wrong.'
  Indeed. The article is a bit of a curveball in that you go in thinking it's yet another scare piece about sub-sovereign amateurs building nuclear devices in the garage only to find out its really the story of one man's obsessive attempt to cut through the mythology and determine the *exact* specifications of the Little Boy device. Recommended reading for anyone who has ever felt himself go a little nutso at the vast amount of extinct technological knowhow in our post-industrial culture.
10. Re:Not so big a deal by NouberNou · 2009-01-25 17:25 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No one said it was efficient. For example, according to wikipedia (and it seems very plausible) only one gram of the 13 POUNDS of Plutonium in Fat Man converted from mass into energy. I would assume that something similar happened with Little Boy, and probably was even less efficient. The force of the pusher plate against the uranium ring was probably just enough force to let it obtain a non-fizzle reaction.
11. Re:Not so big a deal by DerekLyons · 2009-01-25 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  Given the high insertion and assembly speed - it certainly isn't a 'slow linear slide'.
  Maybe you just don't know what you are talking about?
12. Re:Not so big a deal by Ancient_Hacker · 2009-01-26 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  It's slow. We're talking about a reaction that is doubling in intensity every 10 nanoseconds, the mean free path of a fast neutron.
  If you're inserting rod into a cylinder, the reactivity goes up not a lot faster than linearly, and spread out over the whole insertion distance, many centimeters. A long distance and a long time for a fizzle to develop.
  If you have a cone-shaped target and mating projectile, the reactivity goes up much more quickly.
  Simple geometry and physics.
13. Re:Not so big a deal by DerekLyons · 2009-01-26 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why assembly speed matters - it's not just "simple geometry and physics". There's also the issue that your "simple geometry" makes for a somewhat more complicated and heavy design of the assembly system.
  
  There's also the matter of multiple people who do know what they are talking about having actually done the calculations and shown the design, as published, will work as described.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-01-25 08:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Intentional misdirection by sphealey · 2009-01-25 08:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

One thing to keep in mind when you read statement such as "Destroy R. Worlds, former Director of Bomb Design at Los Alamos, said of Joe Amateur's work 'That's very well-done'" is this: reading between the lines of many interviews, articles, and books about and by former weaponeers they give out a lot of misleading, and/or misdirecting, information about how _exactly_ devices are built. They talk openly about the general principles and their scientific and political implications, but when the discussion/interview/chapter turns to the actual details of design, well, the replies turn a bit fuzzy or clever. I suspect that either by explicit training or shared values they give away very little and much of what they say would deliberately lead anyone following down the wrong path.
sPh
1. Re:Intentional misdirection by ScrewMaster · 2009-01-25 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect that either by explicit training or shared values they give away very little and much of what they say would deliberately lead anyone following down the wrong path.
  Do you consider that a bad thing?
  
  I don't.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 08:43 · Score: 0

The project could also be a deliberate honeypot.
Pictures? Plans? by nurb432 · 2009-01-25 08:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Its got some abstract image and a story.. But where is the actual scientific meat?
Oh, thats right, knowledge is forbidden in this country.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Re:Pictures? Plans? by NouberNou · 2009-01-25 17:27 · Score: 1
  
  Check out Wikipedia, or a number of other sites dedicated to nuclear weapons. The diagrams are all over internet.
2. Re:Pictures? Plans? by Blackeagle_Falcon · 2009-01-25 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  For that I think you need to buy his book.
3. Re:Pictures? Plans? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Worse than that: it's actively rejected. Fear the strange and unusual, the dangerous nerd.
4. Re:Pictures? Plans? by Chris+Burke · 2009-01-26 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, thats right, knowledge is forbidden in this country.
  That's right. Including the knowledge that knowledge is forbidden. So if you'll please come quietly, sir.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
Best Line in the Article by dd1968 · 2009-01-25 09:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

From the article: "Actually, he said, nothing about the bomb is secret. He smiled and added, 'The secret of the atomic bomb is how easy they are to make.'"
mi8us 5, Troll) by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 09:02 · Score: -1, Offtopic

I burnt out. I too, can be a of OpenBSD. How TCP/IP Stack has We'll be able to Lesson and See... The number can connect to and Michael Smith backward and said
How Ali Muhammed works by mangu · 2009-01-25 09:13 · Score: 1

In this book there's a description on how an Al Qaeda member infiltrated the US Army. He had been a major in the Egyptian army before he joined the terrorist group. He went to the US and married an American girl to get citizenship. He joined the US Army and was rather quickly promoted to sergeant, after all he had been a major before and had good knowledge of military subjects. He then proceeded to send US Army training material to Muslim radicals, those manuals were found in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan after 9/11.

Think Harold Agnew would tell Ali Muhammed Whatever how to build a weapon?
Seriously now, who do you think would find it easier to get classified information? A truck driver or a US Army sergeant?
1. Re:How Ali Muhammed works by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  And you point justifies publishing this kind of detailed information how?
  
  So they managed to infiltrate and get Army training materials. Definitely not good.
  
  By what measure does it make it smart to make this kind of information available to anyone with an Internet connection and an address that Amazon will ship to?
It is terrorism by Quila · 2009-01-25 09:14 · Score: 1

If the government wants it to be terrorism in order to invoke the removal of your civil rights, then it is terrorism.
1. Re:It is terrorism by angelwolf71885 · 2009-01-25 15:14 · Score: 0
  
  Americans and EU citizens still have civil rights and liberty's? this is news to me... anyone else?
We are out of neo-cons now by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 09:34 · Score: 0

The fear and insanity will subside (I hope).
Now THAT's news for nerds by KingAlanI · 2009-01-25 10:04 · Score: 1

Sounds like a great example of the cool projects that us geeks often get carried up in.
Though, I'm wondering why the guy ended up as a *truck driver* by trade...
Most of the time, I come by /. for the comments; this is one of the relatively rare top-quality *articles*

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
1. Re:Now THAT's news for nerds by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 13:25 · Score: 0
  
  I often wonder why and how myself...
  The only conclusion I have come to over decades is that a job is often just that, unless you are qualified to work in the every day rarer places where you can pursue your own strengths; being a truck driver probably does give some autonomy; otherwise, it's back to cranking out widgets/drawings/code/whatever at 50-60 hrs./wk under a watchful eye.
  I understand historically the English at least tolerated inventors, tinkerers, eclectic thinkers; still do?
2. Re:Now THAT's news for nerds by aqk · 2009-01-25 16:29 · Score: 0
  
  I'm wondering why the guy ended up as a *truck driver* by trade...
  THIS might explain it. Then again, it might not...
  .
  
  --
  
  .
  - aqk
  F U /. illiterates.
How accurate? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 10:35 · Score: 0

Does anyone know if the bomb is 'atomically' correct?
1. Re:How accurate? by ScrewMaster · 2009-01-25 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Does anyone know if the bomb is 'atomically' correct?
  Yes, but it's not intrinsically "safe".
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Declassified blueprints - order here by earlymon · 2009-01-25 10:43 · Score: 1

http://www.atomicmuseum.com/store/ProductItem.cfm?Category=179
TFA said he uncovered that the Little Boy diameter was 28" rather than 29" - so, I'm not speaking for the accuracy of these blueprints - just letting people know that they're out there.
Frankly, from the account given in the article of the hissy fit that he threw when at the museum in Albuquerque, I wonder about the guy. The museum's always been pretty cool, and back in 93 when he visited it, it was at KAFB. The docents and staff have always been very friendly and helpful, and the displays while at KAFB were surprisingly frank and open.

--
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
security doesn't matter if you have insiders by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 10:52 · Score: 0

Israel stole over 60 kilos from the US and got away with it. They have never been sanctioned or censured by the US, and no one on the inside has been arrested, but that sure as shit is how they built their first bombs before they built their own reactor.
1. Re:security doesn't matter if you have insiders by Bryan+Ischo · 2009-01-25 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  Well I have no idea what you are talking about, but if things really did go down as you said, I'd expect that the US "let" them steal it.
2. Re:security doesn't matter if you have insiders by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  Situation normal, Israel is allowed to steal and kill whoever they want whenever they want. Something to do with funding election campaigns for the US govt apparently.
  Thats why they are never criticized for the many UN resolutions they have ignored, and they are allowed to have 200 N weapons, where ant other country is not.
Re:Laid back non knee jerk society... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 10:54 · Score: 0

Australia
bombproof? by CarpetShark · 2009-01-25 11:00 · Score: 1

If I did have a nuclear bomb, I would not have a problem.
I think you're vastly underestimating a nuclear weapon's potential to ruin your day.
1. Re:bombproof? by Shakrai · 2009-01-25 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're vastly underestimating a nuclear weapon's potential to ruin your day.
  Hey, whether it's a .22LR to the head or a thermonuclear weapon in the basement your just as dead ;) Only difference is how much mess is left behind afterwards.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
2. Re:bombproof? by CarpetShark · 2009-01-27 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that, and the incident caused pain and suffering to a LOT more people.
Interesting, and a little concerning by Bearhouse · 2009-01-25 11:45 · Score: 1

Nuke technology that has been long-discarded by the superpowers can still be appealing for others; say those with limited technology but unlimited resources of some kind.
Remember the Iranians piecing togther - by (mainly female, oh the irony), hand the shredded documents they stole from the US embassy in Tehran?
Equally, Iraq was well on the way to getting a decent quantity of fissile materiel using centrifuges to separate the different isotopes. The western powers initially discarded the rumours, since all their 'expert' advisors said that this was not considered a viable technology. They forgot that this was how the first enriched uranium was obtained, by the USA, to make the first Bomb.
So - can't afford/obtain the latest designs from a rogue Pakistani/Russian/North Korean source? But do have access to enriched uranium? No problem, build an 'old' Bomb. Still enough to devastate a city...
1. Re:Interesting, and a little concerning by Forbman · 2009-01-25 19:10 · Score: 1
  
  Remember the Iranians piecing togther - by (mainly female, oh the irony), ...well, that's what (er, who) the first computors were way back when, so I'd say at the time (1979-1980) that Iran was at late 1800's tech level compared to their enemies, er, us.
  Besides, we didn't really make it hard for them, either. Thus came to be the cross-cut shredder and other such devices. At my work we have a secure Xerox machine, too (the output goes directly to the shredder). I don't think the shredding that Iron Mountain and others do with their trucks is all that secure, either. Someone getting the output from one of their trucks could do the same thing, given a big enough space and enough time and sufficient motivation. In fact, I do recall reading about someone who developed software to more or less automate the process via computer, as the computer can do all the flipping around and alignment of the pieces after they get scanned in...
2. Re:Interesting, and a little concerning by 3waygeek · 2009-01-26 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  At my work we have a secure Xerox machine, too (the output goes directly to the shredder).
  If the copies go directly to the shredder, what's the point of making them in the first place?
Already a model in the Peace Museum by lobiusmoop · 2009-01-25 11:47 · Score: 1

There is already a to-scale model of Little Boy in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. It is quite disturbing seeing it, but a visit to the museum is a difficult experience generally.

--
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
1. Re:Already a model in the Peace Museum by Shakrai · 2009-01-25 14:16 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  It is quite disturbing seeing it, but a visit to the museum is a difficult experience generally.
  So is a visit to the Arizona Memorial or the Chinese city of Nanjing.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
2. Re:Already a model in the Peace Museum by goodmanj · 2009-01-26 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  There is already a to-scale model of Little Boy
  A model of the outer shell and maybe "something that looks good" for the interior workings isn't really comparable with what the person in the article is doing.
must.... not.... by Iamthecheese · 2009-01-25 14:21 · Score: 2, Funny

Somebody set up us the bomb!

--
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
More Nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-25 15:57 · Score: 0

Another important point though is the secrecy behind the Manhattan Project.
We know today that there were only two bombs, but the Japanese didn't know it then. There was a strong implication that we could keep dropping more and more of these bombs until Japan eventually did give up.
1. Re:More Nukes by Shakrai · 2009-01-25 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  We know today that there were only two bombs, but the Japanese didn't know it then
  Umm, says who?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Much of what we know is wrong by kilodelta · 2009-01-25 17:02 · Score: 1

That has to be the best quote in the whole article. Imagine if the same amount of research were to be applied against, oh, the Bible.
1. Re:Much of what we know is wrong by NouberNou · 2009-01-25 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  It has, its called the Vatican, and yet they still seem totally off their knockers!
There are numerous replicas by n6kuy · 2009-01-25 17:35 · Score: 2, Informative

... of both Fat Man and Little Boy.
See here, for example.

--
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
1. Re:There are numerous replicas by n6kuy · 2009-01-25 17:39 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Although that Little Boy replica at Los Alamos might not be as accurate as the previous one they used to have. See here.
  
  --
  If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
It's about the mass by DG · 2009-01-25 23:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, it is a pair of nested cylinders, and the rationale behind it is brilliant.
To get the biggest possible boom, you want to bring together the largest possible mass of fissile material. Problem: if you accumulate too large a mass, it starts a chain reaction on its own.
But if you form that mass into a ring shape, and make the hole in the ring large enough, you create extra surface area for neutrons to escape, but the gap is too big for them to have sufficient energy to split an atom on the other side of the gap.
For a given outer diameter (fixed by the inner diameter of the bomb casing) the maximum mass of fissile material is obtained with a cylinder whose height is determined by the mass on the "side" of the cylinder nox exceeding criticality. A mating cone shape results in a smaller usuable mass.
So why make the projectile hollow instead of shooting a slug into a hollow target? Because the sides of the gun barrel constrain the movement of the projectile and ensure that the mating surfaces are aligned.
It's actually, for such a "crude" design, brilliant engineering.
DG

--
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
1. Re:It's about the mass by goodmanj · 2009-01-26 02:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  the gap is too big for them to have sufficient energy to split an atom on the other side of the gap.
  This can't be right. The area inside the ring is filled with air, right? Neutrons go through a few cm of air like it's not even there.
  Besides, to prevent a chain reaction, you need to reduce the odds that an average fission neutron will collide with and split another U nucleus. Reducing the energy of those neutrons doesn't help -- in fact, it generally *increases* the odds of causing fission, which is the point of moderators in nuclear power plants.
  Your point about conical geometry reducing the total possible fissile mass is a good one, but I wonder if there's some intermediate shape, like a hyperboloid, that might give a better trade-off between collision time and fissile mass.
An accurate replica? by Arancaytar · 2009-01-25 23:53 · Score: 1

Where's the Whatcouldpossiblygowrong tag? :P
Unless you were the world's badded mutha... by Chmcginn · 2009-01-26 01:40 · Score: 1

and strapped it to the back of your motorcycle & had a dead-man switch wired into an EKG strapped to your arm.

--
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
1. Re:Unless you were the world's badded mutha... by tnk1 · 2009-01-26 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Would he also have to know how to make glass knives and use them?
  Those things are sharp, he could hurt himself.
2. Re:Unless you were the world's badded mutha... by _Sprocket_ · 2009-01-26 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  The glass knives aren't the problem. It's the hot teens with easy-to-overlook self-protection devices that's the real problem.
3. Re:Unless you were the world's badded mutha... by Chmcginn · 2009-01-27 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  And then there's always Reason.
  
  --
  Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
SALT by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 02:33 · Score: 0

Doesn't this bring up SALT or Nonproliferation issues? I mean the US told North Kora and Iran they could not have nuclear weapons or power but US private citizens are allowed?
demo that satire is dead .. .. by rs232 · 2009-01-26 03:36 · Score: 1

Said he as he modded it score -1, troll, and demonstrated yet again that satire is dead.

--
davecb5620@gmail.com
POOR IMPULSE CONTROL by DarthVain · 2009-01-26 04:21 · Score: 1

I always loved the idea in snowcrash.
I mean it really was your own little cold war with everyone else.
Just get a motorcycle with sidecar. Attach nuke to side car. Embed deadman's switch in you body hooked up to vital signs.
Proceed to do whatever the fuck you want, as no one is going to fuck with you... ever.
Or I guess if they do, its only the one time eh?
Re:"Reverse Engineering" by dsmall · 2009-01-26 05:05 · Score: 1

Well of course the first thing that John Coster-Mullen would have to do is determine what microprocessor family was used on Little Boy. Is it an 8051, Z80, 68000, x386, PIC ? Generally even on OEM parts there's a basic part number. On DIP ROMS there has been a real effort to stay consistent.
John should bear in mind that the working timing of a nuclear bomb is 10 nanoseconds. This makes his microprocessor choices more limited; he'll need some speed here.
Then he needs to get to the code and examine it. If it's in a separate ROM chip this is much easier. For example, I was looking at a flashable EEPROM on a PCI card just yesterday evening and found it had a 29F001-TPC in a nice 32 pin DIP package. 128K x 8 bytes and nice little extras like auto-protection. It's a 120 ns part (from address setup to output enable* and the data pins settled.)
"Little Boy" was not a very efficient bomb at all. It was heavily overengineered. I can remember Ted Taylor calling it a "committee bomb" and a "stupid bomb" in McPhee's book. The committee wanted to make sure it went off and didn't just dig a hole, and hand the Japanese more than a hundred pounds of U-235. If I recall right, and this is just off the top of my head, it yielded only 12.5 kilotons or so.
Robert Serber's "Los Alamos Primer" is really useful here. It takes 10 nanoseconds (one "shake") for a fission to happen ("neutron multiplication time"). "The direct energy release per atom is 170 MeV".
"The energy release of TNT is ~~ 4 x 10^10 erg / gram, or ~~ 3.6 x 10^16 erg / ton.... Hence, 1 kg of U-235 completely fissioned yields about 20,000 tons of TNT equivalent, or ~~ 20 kilotons." [Serber is referring to tons as 2,000 lb tons.]
From this you can see that with a 12.5 kiloton yield, about two thirds of 1 kg of U-235 fissioned, so more or less, plus or minus, about a pound fissioned. Wikipedia says the bomb had 64 kg of uranium and only 600 mg. actually fissioned. I don't understand that number.
To which I can only say, see what happens when you use embedded Windows instead of Linux to drive your timing signals? I can just see it now. The bomb releases, starts falling, and in its microprocessor, it draws The Blue Screen Of Death and halts.
Thanks,
Dave Small
p.s. I really don't know why I wrote this. Maybe it was the coffee this morning.
Ok, how about this one? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 05:09 · Score: -1, Troll

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save *BSD from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
So Build Your Own by DynaSoar · 2009-01-26 06:26 · Score: 1

I suspect Homeland Gestapory won't much care about this guy's model except for the bad press he generated. Doing something bad? No big deal. Making the gooberment look bad? Big deal.
Want to give them more signal with their noise? Here's a good start:
http://www.atomicmuseum.com/store/enterquantity.cfm?ItemID=255&Category=179
Historic Atomic Bomb Blueprints
Set of five (5) individual blueprints of early atomic weapons. These were copied from the original government drawings on to bright white paper, and are bound for you in a "contractor's pack."
Each page measures 16" X 22". Included are dimensional drawings of Fat Man (2), Little Boy (1), and the Mark IV Missile (2).
Set of Five $15.00

--
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Morrison Died in 2005 by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-26 08:48 · Score: 0

No one seems to have realized that Philip Morrison died in 2005 - therefore, quoting him for this story is pretty suspect! I see that some of you did discover that this must be an old story, since the book was written in 2002. What happened here? Did Rip Van Winkle just wake up?