Slashdot Mirror


Former Truck Driver Reconstructs A-bomb

mdsolar writes "Coster-Mullen taught himself how to build an A-bomb. 'The secret of the atomic bomb,' he says, 'is how easy they are to make.' His findings are available in a book he continuously updates and publishes himself called Atom Bombs: The Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man, which has received rave reviews from the National Resource Defense Council: 'Nothing else in the Manhattan Project literature comes close to his exacting breakdown of the bomb's parts.'"

332 comments

  1. whoa! by bball99 · · Score: 1

    I predict a trip to Gitmo!

    1. Re:whoa! by gtall · · Score: 1

      Really? Repeating information that has been public for decades? I have a tin-foil hat tightener that, because I trust you, I'm willing to let you have for about $99.99. Please contact me within the next hour and I'll throw in a Ronco Turnip Twaddler gratis.

    2. Re:whoa! by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      Would you accept 3 easy payments of $33.33?

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    3. Re:whoa! by fractoid · · Score: 2

      I'm surprised you didn't mention Sum Of All Fears - not the movie (which almost completely missed the point) but the book, which goes into a fair amount of detail as to the exact amount of work it would take to manufacture not just a fission bomb (a la the bombings in Japan) but a two-stage thermonuclear fusion bomb. Even back then (and this was written in 1992) it would have been well within the reach of a moderately wealthy industrialist. By now, I bet you could print yourself the shaped charge and other components for a kiloton-range fission bomb using a Thing-o-matic. Assuming you had 6.2kg of plutonium (available from N. Korea for a few cases of fine cognac) and the right contacts to get hold of the RDX (the TNT is easy enough to make yourself) you could probably build it for under $20k.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    4. Re:whoa! by Surt · · Score: 0

      That seems improbable. The Palestinians have all of 20k, access to the necessary materials, and the will to set off such a bomb, so why haven't they?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:whoa! by fractoid · · Score: 1

      "Why haven't they, yet?" Good question. Then again, we had airliners for 30+ years before someone thought to use them as a weapon and then had the audacity to actually carry it out. I'm betting the audacity is the key component.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    6. Re:whoa! by geert · · Score: 1

      Because they have more faith in the first chapter of the book?

    7. Re:whoa! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Because they want the land, which would glow in the dark for a couple of generations? The simple fact is they know that they are gonna win if current trends continue, simply because they are having 8 kids to the average Israeli 1.

      I believe it was old crazy MoMo of Libya who said something to the effect with regards to Europe: " Attacking Europe now is simply foolish since we are merely destroying our future property because the west will simply die out thanks to low birth rate when compared to Islam."

      And you know what? Sadly he is right. Thanks to Muslims not integrating into western society and instead forming "Sharia ghettos" they keep not only the militancy but also the traditional high birthrate of a third world citizen, even when they are in the west. Now it is simply a numbers game which the west is losing badly, hell I wouldn't be surprised if all of Europe is under Sharia by 2025, since IIRC by then the Muslims will have a strong majority across the continent.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re:whoa! by dougmc · · Score: 1

      "Why haven't they, yet?" Good question. Then again, we had airliners for 30+ years before someone thought to use them as a weapon and then had the audacity to actually carry it out. I'm betting the audacity is the key component.

      Well, I'm pretty sure they have considered that an atomic bomb would be useful as a weapon, and knew this back in September 2001.

      They had enough audacity to hijack planes and fly them into buildings then, and I imagine a nuclear bomb would be even more effective but not require significantly more audacity, so all this suggests to me that the limiting factor must not be audacity.

      (I think it's getting the needed nuclear material -- I think it's harder to get than simply going to North Korea with a case of good cognac.)

      But beyond that ... smart people who don't work in the field have basically known how to make atomic bombs for a long time now. Basically it all revolves around taking two (or more) sub-critical masses and mashing them together in such a way that they will go critical *and* will stay critical long enough for some good fission to happen before they're all blown apart again. This is where the chemical explosives come in -- they force it all together very quickly.

      If you don't do it right, it starts to go critical but that blows the parts apart again before it makes a significant explosion. So it'll kill everybody in the room with radiation, but not everybody within a few miles.

    9. Re:whoa! by cpscotti · · Score: 1

      That not true.
      I has one bomb. I has experience of 1,000 hackers.

    10. Re:whoa! by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Maybe not Gitmo, but he might be the guest of Homeland Security for a while, and even if that doesn't happen he's going to be on at least a couple watch lists for the rest of his life, now.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    11. Re:whoa! by guruevi · · Score: 0

      It's not going to go like that unlike what Fox/Republicans/Tea Partiers want you to think. Young Muslims are disillusioned by their religion just like youngsters in every other extremist religion and Sharia law is only held up by the old guard which will naturally die off and be replaced by much more moderate Muslims. There will always be extremists but they will always remain in the minority. There are no Sharia Ghetto's in Europe (I lived there and still have family there, my brother lives in one of those Muslim communities), the Muslim population is pushed in those areas (paupered areas of large cities) because they have no large income, they don't speak the native language and have 8-10 mouths to feed, even European social services can not assist them properly because of that. The young Muslims that do understand the language and can go to school do pretty well and have smaller families, those that do not have those opportunities go into crime a lot which doesn't help their communities at all. They basically have the same status the black people in the US in the late '60's had - free to do whatever, getting treated equally but unable or not willing to change their mindset for another 3-5 generations which they blame on the more affluent and those that aren't 'from among them' thus isolating themselves again. Eventually they'll see the right way after some show they can change.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    12. Re:whoa! by hjrnunes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you people even considered that they didn't make an atomic device because they don't want to?

      They're people too you know? They want to live their lives like everybody else. They don't because, in their eyes, a foreign-backed foreign power is usurping what used to be their land. So they take violent action against whom they perceive as their enemies and its supporters. But that doesn't mean they'd be willing to detonate nuclear weapons because of that. Why would they contaminate the land they claim as theirs with radiation? Not to mention destroying most it in the detonation itself?

      When are people going to understand that terrorism is not a mental condition? It's a way of fighting. Normally used when you're at a very disproportionate disadvantage. Give them a force comparable to the IDF and watch terrorism decline sharply. Hell, why doesn't Israel use their nuclear weapons then? They have them. Because they're the good guys? Or maybe because they don't want to destroy what they're trying to obtain?

      *sigh*

    13. Re:whoa! by russotto · · Score: 1

      That seems improbable. The Palestinians have all of 20k, access to the necessary materials, and the will to set off such a bomb, so why haven't they?

      1: They're idiots.
      2: They probably don't have access to the plutonium.
      3: They probably don't have access to the engineering talent. Sure, Slashdot likes to troll us about how engineers are terrorists, but that doesn't mean good engineers are terrorists.
      4: If they did nuke Israel, not only would they get fallout all over land they wanted, but whatever was left of the Israeli military would wipe them off the face of the map. Though they're crazy enough this might not stop them.

    14. Re:whoa! by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Also, just because you can build a nuke cheaply, does not mean you can miniturize it to an extent to which it can easily be moved and deployed. And of course, you need to get the fissile material for it as well as the tritium/lithium or whatever they are using as the thermonuclear fuel if you really want a big firework.

      The Palestinians might be able to build one in the West Bank or Gaza, but they're not going to use it in Israel because the whole point is that they want their land back. It doesn't help their cause to cover "their" land in radioactive fallout. It would also cause Israel to go absolutely ape-shit with their nukes. In the face of the Second Holocaust, you can be certain that the Jews would make every one that attacked them pay very, very dearly before they went down.

      I think even the most evil of the evil weapons dealers out there are likely to think twice about obtaining and handing over fissile material to people like terrorists. Suicide bombers are tough to stop because they don't care about their lives, however, weapons dealers not only care about their lives, they care very much about their quality of life. When someone nukes the US and the US government unleashes every asset to find and eliminate who is responsible, the weapons dealers know they will be the first and easiest targets to find and be dealt with. When they are only dealing in things like AK-47s or RPGs or man-portable SAMs, they know that there is a limit to how much response they need to deal with. A nuke? Heh.

      I'm not saying that they won't hand over things like yellowcake or ore to the terrorists. They know that there is a lot of work needed to make that stuff into weapons grade metal and chances are that Western intelligence agencies will detect and eliminate those facilities. But ready-to-explode enriched material? Not on your life.

      That doesn't mean the terrorists can't get that material, but it will likely take time for them to either, infiltrate enough people into someone's nuclear program to get it, or be able to launch an attack on a location that has it close at hand. A destabilized Pakistan would seem to be the most likely target, but there are some Central Asian former-USSR countries that may have some in less-than-perfectly secured locations.

    15. Re:whoa! by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      His skin color is much too "patriotic" for that to ever happen..

    16. Re:whoa! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That seems improbable. The Palestinians have all of 20k, access to the necessary materials, and the will to set off such a bomb, so why haven't they?

      If you can look at a map of Israel/Palestine and figure out how to drop an H bomb on one without hurting the other, I'd love to hear your theory. The Palestinians would like to actually occupy the land, not fence it off for 600 years.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:whoa! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Sadly he is right.

      Why is this sad? Who cares who occupies a land mass long after you are dead? Try to set up institutions so that your ideals are preserved, but who cares where the genetic material comes from? Language, food, skin color, and hair texture are not important - preserving liberty is. Islam in Europe will evolve to mesh with the modern world, just as most Christians don't go around burning witches, going on crusades, or forcing conversions like they used to. It's just a religion.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re:whoa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you actually met any Palestinians? I think Palestine was chosen because they're the only people in this entire region who are nice and polite so they would be the least likely to raise trouble. Which is true. If Israel went into any other country around here the locals would go berzerk. Do you know that when Israel started their first invasion that the Palestinians brought them tea since they were considered guests? No, of course not. If you're raised on US news all you hear is about how poor tiny Israel is surrounded by their enemies. Think for a while about why Israel is considered everyone's enemy. Most Israeli Jews I've met traveling outside of Israel know that the Settlers are making a mistake but they're a huge voting block (bits of Tea Party if they can hold their block vote together). Israel is really tough on Palestinians. The rockets Hamas send over usually land in empty fields but Israel goes in and kills. And then Israel and the US print propaganda. The Turkish ship had arms! Not until Mossad put them there. The passengers attacked first! Not if you've seen any of the pictures of soldiers firing from helicopters and the dead passengers shot in the back. You hear "Palestinian kills 5 Settlers" or "Palestinians bomb Jerusalem" and then buried deep in the article is "assailants unknown". If they don't know who did it, how do they know it was Palestinians? The father of the Family of Five was a douchebag in real life. Maybe he pissed off another Settler. Hell, maybe it was gambling debts.

      The entire rest of the world knows that Israel is committing crimes against humanity. They've violated the Geneva Convention. It's printed everywhere but the US and Israel.

      I type all this as an American Jew (non-believer) who moved to Jordan to work for an NGO. I was kicked out of the West Bank for 25 years for buying a Palestinian food. Sounds completely made up, but come over and do the same. You'll be kicked out for 5, 25 or life depending on the mood of security. Food. Not guns. Not even a pointy stick or a Don Rickles book of taunts.

    19. Re:whoa! by meerling · · Score: 1

      It sure seems as though they have many people that would like to use one, but fortunately the people smart enough to make one knows that the primary targets the rest of their groups want to nuke are too bloody close.
      It's sitting in a fiberglass bathtub floating in the middle of the ocean with someone you hate, and the two of you are sticking each other with penknives. Only the dumbest sadomasochist on the planet would toss a grenade in his enemies lap under those circumstances.

      Then there's the whole blow up the Americans thing, which doesn't have that problem, unless your Canada, Mexico, or Cuba, and even then, only with certain targets in the USA. Of course, getting the people and parts assembled in the USA would be rather difficult, especially now, and smuggling in a completed unit would be perceived as even harder. As to getting the fissionable material, it can be done, but if you want the good stuff it's not easy, not even for a recognized nation. Most of the worlds countries try to keep an eye on anyone either accumulating fissionable materials, or trying to refine them.

      Just as a side note, I'm pretty sure I know a few dozen people that might be able to build a working nuke, minus the fissionables. I also believe they could refine a usable core from pitchblend, not die from the radiation or toxicity, and might be able to keep anyone from picking it up on sensors. (Attempting to get the pitchblend is a whole different story.) Yet I'm not worried. I know these people would rather have a plutonium-oxide enema than build a W.M.D. that some idiot might use. If there were somehow coerced into it, they would engineer an "accident" to get as many of the scum as possible while destroying the materials.
      The scientists that worked on the Manhattan Project didn't really comprehend what they were doing, and it was a desperate time, so they did something they would never have contemplated if they knew the repercussions it held.

      IMO
      (I don't believe in the inherent goodness of man or that all evil comes from any one source. I believe that everyone has both good and evil in different measures. That's why I don't think tempting fate with fanatics is ever a good idea, but on the other hand, rational intelligent people will tend to impede large scale atrocities and killing if they are able to.)

    20. Re:whoa! by gnarfel · · Score: 1

      No. Two easy payments of 33.33 and one HARD payment.

      It's gotta be a royal pain-in-the-ass kind of payment too...like being on hold for 4 hours only to have the rep you were talking to realize he wasn't even looking at the right account, and promptly hang up on you.

      --
      Local music(to upstate NY). http://gnarfel.com/ radio.
    21. Re:whoa! by darth+dickinson · · Score: 1, Informative

      They don't because, in their eyes, a foreign-backed foreign power is usurping what used to be their land.

      Key words are in bold.

    22. Re:whoa! by Golddess · · Score: 1

      They want to live their lives like everybody else. [...] Why would they contaminate the land they claim as theirs with radiation?

      That explains why there are no nuclear explosions locally to them.

      That doesn't explain why there are no nuclear explosions locally to us, which I believe is what dougmc was talking about. If someone is willing to fly a plane into a building with them in it, surely if they had access to a nuclear bomb they would have just walked in to a crowded area and blown themselves up with it?

      Though I suppose trying to get the requisite materials across the border could be significantly more difficult than just picking up a box cutter from a local packaging store.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    23. Re:whoa! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Of course, getting the people and parts assembled in the USA would be rather difficult, especially now, and smuggling in a completed unit would be perceived as even harder.

      Why "smuggle" anything? Just ship the thing in a standard cargo container through New York and rig it to explode when the container is opened. That way it'll explode in the harbor as the customs is opening it, terribly damaging New York and doing even worse to US economy due to the interruption of cargo flow.

      As to getting the fissionable material, it can be done, but if you want the good stuff it's not easy, not even for a recognized nation.

      Fire alarms contain a small amount of radiactive material. Didn't someone manage to build a working reactor from those a while ago?

      That's why I don't think tempting fate with fanatics is ever a good idea, but on the other hand, rational intelligent people will tend to impede large scale atrocities and killing if they are able to.

      Intelligence does not imply rationality. It doesn't even imply sanity. It certainly doesn't imply giving a flying fuck about how many people die as a result of your actions.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    24. Re:whoa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I type all this as an American Jew....

      Despite this, I'm surprised that you're not accused of being anti-Semite for criticizing Israel. This is quite a popular tactic for quieting this kind of criticism.

    25. Re:whoa! by dougmc · · Score: 2

      Have you people even considered that they didn't make an atomic device because they don't want to?

      They're people too you know? They want to live their lives like everybody else.

      Even the suicide bombers, the guys who blow themselves up with a bunch of civilians who have nothing to do with anything? Do they just want to live their lives?

      But yes, I'm talking about nuclear bombs in NYC or Washington DC, not in the middle east. I certainly do believe that if the same terrorists that hijacked planes and used them as weapons could have made and used nuclear weapons, they would have done so. Yes, it might be hard to smuggle it into the US, but I imagine they can do it, and if the bomb is detected -- detonate it. (It won't be as effective as doing it in Washington DC, but it's still pretty good.)

      I believe that the know-how to make nuclear bombs is well known. I believe that the explosives needed to do so are relatively easy to find. But the nuclear material, that must be harder to obtain. And I hope it stays that way, because if the terrorists ever get the ability to make nuclear weapons and blow up a few in key areas -- that would make all the changes that happened after 9/11 look like nothing.

    26. Re:whoa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read Richard Rhodes' 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb" many years ago ... essentially the greatest problem is not necessarily how to construct the bomb but how to insure it actually will work. The critical problem is getting a clean 360 degree implosion. They did it with numerous shaped charges in WWII. If you imagine a golf ball with each dimple representing a charge you get the idea. None of this is "secret".

      The short answer is they are relatively simple but the devil is in the details; if you don't test you can't know that it will light. Timing errors of [some tiny amount] will give you a dud, and there are a lot of charges that all have to be perfectly in sync.

      Testing is the only way to actually develop a known working example, and that carries big issues, not the least of which are, one, everybody will know you are up to something and they pretty much know what, and two, you need plenty of real estate. That's just a very short list; it goes on.

    27. Re:whoa! by shmlco · · Score: 1

      You mean the way we fenced off Hiroshima and Nagasaki for 600 years?

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    28. Re:whoa! by hsmyers · · Score: 1

      Guys in black gave John Campbell editor of Analog magazine a friendly visit over an editorial he wrote predicting the technology--- were made to go away happy when he showed the existing public information that he had gotten the info from--- just saying...

    29. Re:whoa! by ckeo · · Score: 1

      +1

    30. Re:whoa! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "had 6.2kg of plutonium (available from N. Korea for a few cases of fine cognac)"

      hahaha. you're view of the world is broken.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    31. Re:whoa! by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

      Because it is "just a religion" in the same way that ethnic cleansing is just "gentrification of the neighborhood". Sharia is a barbaric throwback to the days of stonings and if you will look at the countries that have instituted Sharia you will see there is ZERO respect or tolerance for those that aren't believers, which is a cornerstone of western democracy.

      So if you want to live in a world where gays are given the choice of death or sexual reassignment, where those that don't follow the "true path" are Dhimmi (look it up) and you can cheat and abuse to your heart's content, where women and children are treated with less respect than cattle, then sure its "just a religion".

      Personally I believe that sooner or later there WILL be a battle between the west and Islam as a whole, there is simply no other choice as "live and let live" is as much of a fantasy of Islam as is the "religion of peace" angle. Try looking at the Hadiths while keeping this rule in mind: there are NO contradictions in Islam because the prophet made it clear that Hadiths that come later overrule Hadiths that came before. You'll then notice that the only peaceful Hadiths are the early ones which have been canceled out by the "jihad the infidels!" Hadiths that came later.

      Islam and democracy that respects the rights of minorities are simply mutually exclusive. In Islam there is ONE way and that is Sharia, period. The Koran makes it clear that the goal of ALL Muslims is a Sharia planet. Again there is no compromise with this, it is "God's Law" and MUST be obeyed. Unlike those that came before the Muslims are being very careful NOT to integrate or accept western views, which is why you have "Sharia Ghettos" all over Europe. If you truly believe the militants in those ghettos are just gonna wake up and embrace democracy I have a bridge you might be interested in.

      There can be NO PEACE with an enemy that refuses to accept your right to exist, full stop. Until Islam stands together and announces that ALL FAITHS are allowed the same rights as those afforded to Muslims there can simply be no middle ground, as you can't have a dialog with someone whose faith teaches that you are less than human, which is exactly what a Dhimmi is, no different that the 3/5ths rule the USA had for blacks.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    32. Re:whoa! by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1
      Please send me the Ronco Uranium Enricher/Juicer and the free knives. I already have the Open Source Bomb Plans. Yes, I agree to pay $39,000 a month in six easy monthly payoffs to the rogue technician. I also want my bonus of 6 ounces of cesium 137 and the free dirty bomb blueprints. Praise Allah.

      Signed, Not a Muslim

    33. Re:whoa! by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      Have you people even considered that they didn't make an atomic device because they don't want to?

      They're people too you know? They want to live their lives like everybody else.

      Even the suicide bombers, the guys who blow themselves up with a bunch of civilians who have nothing to do with anything?

      Yes, believe it or not, suicide bombers are people too: http://muslimmatters.org/2008/04/19/the-psychology-of-the-suicide-bomber/

      However, since ordinary people are quite capable of violence against the Other, being unable to get nuclear material is probably a better explanation.

    34. Re:whoa! by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      Yes, countries that institute Sharia have zero respect for non-believers, but that's because Sharia is a body of religious law. Countries that institute religious law tend to not be respectful of non-believers for some reason. Instituting religious law is incompatible with a modern democracy period, regardless of which religion we're talking about.

      What is needed is the development of a Muslim Democrat movement similar to the Christian Democrats of Europe or arguably the Republicans of America. I wouldn't vote for them myself, just as I probably wouldn't vote for Christian Democrats and don't vote for Republicans. However, it is much better to have loyal democratic opposition than a disloyal antidemocratic opposition. It's better to have Social Democrats than antidemocratic Revolutionary Communists. The Muslim Brotherhood looks like it is headed in this Muslim Democrat direction, but only time will tell.

      You might argue that Christians are more likely to accept democracy than other religions, given the whole "render on to Cesar that which is Cesar's" thing. Are there any non-Christian religions that are compatible with democracy? Could these provide a model for Muslim Democrats?

      "If you truly believe the militants in those ghettos are just gonna wake up and embrace democracy I have a bridge you might be interested in." 1) How long did it take militant Catholics or militant Puritans to wake up and embrace democracy? 2) It's not the militants we need to win over, just the silent majority of regular Joes (or Achmeds, as the case may be). Militants can be isolated. 3) As for why Muslims in Europe might not be integrating... Based on American history, when immigrant communities don't integrate, it's usually because they are facing discrimination from the 'natives,' and are banding together for mutual protection. If Muslims aren't integrating, maybe the problem isn't on their side.

      "you can't have a dialog with someone whose faith teaches that you are less than human, which is exactly what a Dhimmi is, no different that the 3/5ths rule the USA had for blacks." And we to some extent worked out the Black thing, at least to the point that we now have a Black president. It did take a Civil War, but it was mostly politics. It certainly didn't involve wholesale religious conversion or genocide, which would seem to be the only solutions to the "Muslim Problem" if you are correct.

    35. Re:whoa! by s4m7 · · Score: 1

      Because it is "just a religion" in the same way that ethnic cleansing is just "gentrification of the neighborhood".

      I am not aware how much of the Koran you have actually read, but as a book it's not terribly different in its teachings from the bible. Maybe you remember a little thing called the inquisition? That is to say- there is a certain type of adherent that reads the scriptures literally and carries out atrocities in the name of their religion. I am inclined to think that these same people would do crazy things in the absence of a religion to hang their hat on.

      So, to the point, while just about every major religion has been used by one side or the other as a justification for all manner of horrible things throughout human history- there still remains the "mainstream" of any given religion which takes the major useful points of the ethos and leaves the "stoning the prostitutes" and other stuff in its history at some point.

      Islam is only ~750 years old. Give nature a little time to cull the crazies.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    36. Re:whoa! by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      There can be NO PEACE with an enemy that refuses to accept your right to exist, full stop.

      Huh. They sound a lot like Scientologists, in that regard (they also believe that non-believers are scum and can be cheated, even killed). I would imagine that Elron Hoover got his ideas from these ancient books...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    37. Re:whoa! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Those bombs were tiny compared to an H bomb.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    38. Re:whoa! by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Fire alarms contain a small amount of radiactive material. Didn't someone manage to build a working reactor from those a while ago?

      Americium 242, and yes: http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html

    39. Re:whoa! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Maybe because they're building up an arsenal under the radar (sort of speak). The idea being that if they pop just one, their entire production line would be finished prematurely against their master plans of world domination...or something... But honestly, I seriously doubt something like that could be hidden for very long. Radiation detection via the international community has a funny way of ensuring that.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    40. Re:whoa! by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Don't be ingenuous. Nobody's denying that suicide bombers are people. People are denying that they'd hesitate for a split second before using a nuke to blow up an American city.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    41. Re:whoa! by Surt · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure virtually everyone with genes cares whose genes win out. Only a small fraction in this world care more about memes than genes.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    42. Re:whoa! by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      I don't think most people even care about their genes winning out. They care more about getting it on and maybe having kids. And for quite a few people, the second thing is just a side effect of the first thing. If everyone cared about their own genes, let alone their 'race,' then the Europeans wouldn't be 'losing' the population game, would they? It's not like there is some vast Muslim conspiracy to sterilize the Crusaders, is there. I might care about having kids myself, but why should I care about the fate of my 'race'? If my genes want to mingle with those from elsewhere, more power to them. Sounds more like a win-win than a loss. On the other hand, I *do* care about my kids living in a free society.

    43. Re:whoa! by fractoid · · Score: 1

      For a plutonium bomb (a la Fat Man), sure. It seems pretty darn tricky. A gun-type U235 bomb like Little Boy could basically be made with two lumps of uranium, a sturdy metal cylinder, and a sledge hammer.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    44. Re:whoa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit, that's why I posted anon. Oh, here comes the self-loathing Jew...

    45. Re:whoa! by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Turns out getting the kgs of *bomb* grade material is much harder than CNN would have you believe. In fact it is the hardest step by a real long shot. So hard in fact it is easier to make a nuclear reactor and get reactor grade material then try and bread and reprocess it yourself.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    46. Re:whoa! by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Well you really do need explosives, and even then its really inefficient. ie you need *lots* more bomb grade material. In fact since getting the bomb grade material is so hard, its probably easier to solve the implosion problem, which can be tested on non nuclear pits.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    47. Re:whoa! by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      H bombs are also far less dirty. Hell all modern bombs are much less dirty.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    48. Re:whoa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahaha. you're view of the world is broken.

      hahaha. you're view of the language is broken.

    49. Re:whoa! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure virtually everyone with genes cares whose genes win out. Only a small fraction in this world care more about memes than genes.

      I disagree. The strongest corellation to number of children seems to be poverty. Children are the third world's retirement plan. They don't care about their genes... they care about their own well being. Hell, gene theory isn't even that old!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    50. Re:whoa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (...) blow up an American city

      Or European. We got hit quite hard on Madrid & London bombings. Plus I think it would be much easier to smuggle the necessary materials into Europe.

    51. Re:whoa! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      "Far less dirty" or no, the US spent over $100 million in the 70s to clean up a little island (Enewatak) from a single H-Bomb test that had occurred 20 years prior.

      Anyway, setting off a single bomb in Tel Aviv wouldn't kill everyone in Israel, so it would essentially be the end of any Palestinian state. I don't know where the Israeli's would march them, but they would definitely ethnically cleanse the whole of Israel and the occupied territories.

      Setting off enough bombs to destroy the Israeli state would simultaneously kill most of the Palestinians.

      So frankly, I don't see the strategic point of detonating a nuclear device.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    52. Re:whoa! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      LOL, sorry - it was 43 tests.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    53. Re:whoa! by dougmc · · Score: 1

      Have you people even considered that they didn't make an atomic device because they don't want to?

      They're people too you know? They want to live their lives like everybody else.

      Even the suicide bombers, the guys who blow themselves up with a bunch of civilians who have nothing to do with anything?

      Yes, believe it or not, suicide bombers are people too: http://muslimmatters.org/2008/04/19/the-psychology-of-the-suicide-bomber/

      Yes, I certainly do believe that they are people too, and don't doubt that their motivations are quite complex. And I've read that article already, but thanks -- it's appropriate here.

      However, if they simply want to "live their lives like everybody else" I don't think blowing themselves up is a good way to achieve that goal, do you?

  2. Backyard Reactor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I just want a backyard nuclear reactor...

    1. Re:Backyard Reactor by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      How about a patio table top nuclear bomb? ;-)

    2. Re:Backyard Reactor by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      I've heard there's quite a bit of land to grab for cheap around Fukushima, Japan. I can only advise you to not miss that bargain. I also have a bridge for sell if you have any spare change.

  3. How long? by HikingStick · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How long before his book get's the Anarchist's Cookbook treatment? I expect we'll see new headlines in the coming weeks, reflecting how the government has now classified all his research and writings, and labeled the author as a threat to national security (or as a friend to terrorists and hater of puppies and kittens).

    --
    I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
    1. Re:How long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOOO! Not the kittens!

    2. Re:How long? by Unkyjar · · Score: 2

      Both puppies AND kittens? Is he trying to remain neutral in the Cats vs. Dogs wars? Or does he just have allergies?

    3. Re:How long? by nschubach · · Score: 2

      He's been playing cats against dogs for years. It's really a power pull he's playing between the two sides. One minute he'll be whispering in the dog's ear to get the cat, and the next, he'll be telling cats how to get the dogs.

      It's genius really. He's positioned himself to be popular among both sides while getting them to compete with each other while ignoring him and look what happens while both the cats and dogs were looking the other way:

      Now he has an atomic bomb.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:How long? by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      Big deal, the original idea and proposal to FDR was from a former patent clerk.

    5. Re:How long? by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      Likely he'll use the mouse as a trigger mechanism for his cat and dog hating bomb.

      Exhibit A:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Feyr8IUthCA

    6. Re:How long? by Surt · · Score: 1

      And you know he got his ideas from others patent applications that he buried.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:How long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not worth worrying about until someone finds a cheap and safe way to create enriched uranium. I'd worry more about Iran doing that than some truck driver. And they say that Stuxnet knocked Iran's program back by years, so hopefully they won't figure it out any time soon.

  4. In future news... by Haedrian · · Score: 1, Funny

    Former truck driver magically disappears from society after publishing 'how to make A-bomb"

    1. Re:In future news... by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really, everything including technical schematics from the Manhattan Project have been available for decades. The knowledge of how to make a simple gun design device isn't what keeps people from making nukes, it's the availability of highly enriched uranium.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:In future news... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Still, I predict that someone will make a mock up and leave it in a public place. You know how people react to stray devices laying around.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. Re:In future news... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Exactly the highly techincal part of nuclear bombs is enriching uranium to the right levels of the correct isotopes. Once you have enough the rest is Childs play

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:In future news... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      It could happen, I guess, but it'd be a fairly odd thing to do. The average member of the public isn't going to see a nondescript metal box and say "Oh no, that looks like the design of a gun-type nuclear device", and anybody in a position to recognise the thing for what it might be (probably only the bomb disposal team) will be armed with Geiger counters. People would probably panic far more at seeing one of these on the street compared to the reaction that an accurate replica of a nuclear weapon would receive.

    5. Re:In future news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to get Uranium. It's hard to enrich Uranium (whats the standard way to do this? Create uranium-fluoride compounds since that's a gas, and then use some kind of special material that allows the natural process of effusion to separate the gas molecules with the right uranium isotopes?) Whatever the case, nothing a truck driver will be doing.

      Here is a question though: I think you can buy heavy water, so what would happen if someone built a powerful particle accelerator in their garage and smashed some charged heavy water molecules into a cup of heavy water? The reason I ask is that H-bombs use a regular A-bomb as a trigger. What if the standard trigger where bypassed and replaced with a particle accelerator as the new trigger? Even a genius truck driver will be unable to obtain Uranium, but a genius truck driver could obtain everything he needs to make his own particle accelerator. I don't want to be blown to pieces by a genius truck driver.

    6. Re:In future news... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's easy to build an atomic bomb, hell I can build a detonator for i.e. dynamite from shit on my office desk and the magnets out of a hard drive we're going to wipe next week. There's no dynamite in my office, no nitroglycerin, no nitrocellulose, no other appropriate explosives... so it's pretty much harmless, I could use it to light an LED maybe just to be funny. In the same way, an atomic bomb mechanism is pretty useless without 4700 pounds of C4 high explosive and a chunk of enriched fissile material.

    7. Re:In future news... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      You don't even have to go to that much work. Advertising devices, with blinky lights, left in public places are enough to cause a Homeland Security "incident".

    8. Re:In future news... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's hard to ignite that kind of explosion because you need to get an atomic reaction: how do you detonate a full cup of water at the same time? It takes lots of energy input.

    9. Re:In future news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't live in the United States of America

    10. Re:In future news... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Hell, the bar is even lower than that.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:In future news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd recognize it, and a lot of readers here. Of course, most of us would say "Holy shit, that's so cool!" and try to take it apart.
      There's no real point in running away, after all.

    12. Re:In future news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a much simpler way to enrich Uranium, and in fact Uranium is not the only material that can be used for A bomb.

    13. Re:In future news... by jcwayne · · Score: 1

      First contact test: FAIL
      Retry period: 100 years

      --
      Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
    14. Re:In future news... by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Here is a question though: I think you can buy heavy water, so what would happen if someone built a powerful particle accelerator in their garage and smashed some charged heavy water molecules into a cup of heavy water?

      You can use that sort of system to initiate fusion - of few atoms. What you're describing is very similar to a Fusor, they're Mostly Harmless and in fact many people do build such devices in their garages.

      Got to be a mighty big particle accelerator to compress a cup of heavy water to the same extent as a fission bomb primary, though... fusion isn't a chain reaction, you can't just fuse two deuterium atoms in a cup and expect the rest of the D2O to emulate the trick, so it's useless as a weapon. I suppose you could kill someone with one if you put it under their bed for a few years and they get cancer from the neutron radiation.

    15. Re:In future news... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      "How do you detonate a full cup of water at the same time."

      You dont, simultaneity would be impossible. Planck time is still time.

      --
      Good-bye
    16. Re:In future news... by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      If you had to, you could probably disarm a nuke easily enough, or at least, prevent it from going critical. Gun type design you'd simply locate the uranium slug and (carefully) jam a nice thick wad of something between it and the target. Preferably something that would not be easily penetrated by a bullet.

      As for an implosion device, even stopping one of the controlled explosions or disrupting the explosive lenses (may look something like a silver soccer ball with wires coming out of each face) so that the pressure was not perfectly spherical could keep the weapon from going critical.

      Smashing the shit out of the weapon's innards, as well as pulling wires like mad will probably have some effect, but hammering on fissile material and high explosives is very much not suggested.

      Note that even imperfectly detonated nuclear weapons still explode and still release radiation. Terrorists will also likely design their bombs to fail-deadly, instead of fail-safe like military weapons. So unless entirely defused, it will still blow up your block, just not your entire city. After all, nukes are primed by powerful explosives which create a lot of damage in their own right. Therefore, I only suggest the above tactics if the timer is ticking down from 10 seconds and there is no one nearby who knows how to defuse bombs.

      Incidentally, this means you will be dead too, but at least you will be able to enjoy the accolades you will get while you are drinking mead in Valhalla.

    17. Re:In future news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if someone was making their first a-bomb they would not go with the hiroshima/little boy/gun-type/uranium design. they would go with the nagasaki/fat man/implosion-type/plutonium bomb. it is much easier (but still very hard) to make enriched plutonium than enriched uranium.

      in fact, the gun-type bomb had never been tested before hiroshima because the US had so much trouble enriching uranium. all the tests had been done with implosion-type bombs.

    18. Re:In future news... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Not really, everything including technical schematics from the Manhattan Project have been available for decades.

      Actually, not everything. The initiator (the 'Urchin') for the Fat Man (implosion) device remains classified and no details (AFAIK, and I do follow the topic being an amateur nuclear historian) have ever come to light. There's been some educated guesses made from secondary references, but no primary references.

    19. Re:In future news... by afidel · · Score: 2

      Well, the Russian design for Joe 1 has been released and since it was a direct copy of Gadget/Fatman that's effectively the same.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:In future news... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      I suppose you could kill someone with one if you put it under their bed for a few years and they get cancer from the neutron radiation.

      The Bremsstrahlung radiation from the particle accelerator beam hitting the target or whatever would be more of a problem for the guy in the bed than the fusion neutrons.

      Ditto with fusors: The main loss of power there is electrons and ions hitting the inner electrode - at several kV. Lots of nice X-rays - just like an old, pre-HV-regulator, color TV set, only more so. You gotta shield that garage device or be far away when it's running. The relative handful of neutrons produced are far less of an issue (though they DO wander through some sorts of shielding and also make some of the stuff that finally traps them mildly radioactive).

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    21. Re:In future news... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Hah, if it were that easy to achieve fusion ignition, then we'd all be running our cars on Mr. Fusions. At the National Ignition Facility, they use a 192 beam laser with 1 MJ power, fired synchronously on a small cryogenically layered deuterium/tritium capsule to achieve ignition. It's a huge lab with a large budget that probably exceeds the truck driver's bank account. Also, tritium is probably a bit harder to come by than enriched uranium, since it pretty much has to be bred in reactors.

    22. Re:In future news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I don't know the answer to that, except to say that building" ... a powerful particle accelerator in their garage" is probably much harder than building a bomb. I can't even see how you could get the necessary electrical power for starters ... maybe from the nuclear power reactor in the neighbour's garage? Best scenario ... it actually works. One rogue truck driver, and his notes, gone.

    23. Re:In future news... by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      If a fusion device could be built without an atomic trigger, then they would be getting extensive use as we speak. Hell, our energy problems would likely be solved, too, since or normal method of doing fusion is "compress the hell out of it and make it super hot," which is essentially the role (directly and indirectly) of the atomic bomb trigger in those devices.

      As it's already been said many times in these comments, building an atomic bomb is the easy part; getting usable fissile material is always the problem, so you don't have to worry about some truck driver making a nuclear device.

    24. Re:In future news... by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the truck driver hasn't yet made a book on how to build a fast breeder reactor :P

  5. so basically by WonderingAround · · Score: 1

    so people I know and would fear if they were wielding a fork can build A-bombs?

    --
    It's like the mind going AWOL, it's there somewhere
    1. Re:so basically by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      so people I know and would fear if they were wielding a fork can build A-bombs?

      No, they can build the mechanism for an A-bomb. Maybe. Assuming they actually manage to buy hudnreds of kilos of uranium and an equivalent quantity of C4 without being busted by the feds, they'll probably kill themselves while trying to refine the uranium, or while wiring up the C4.

  6. May not end well by JackSpratts · · Score: 2

    John Aristotle Phillips tried this 35 years ago. He toured college towns giving lectures shadowed by pro-nuke goons. I saw him once, and the goons. He was quite the nervous fellow.

    1. Re:May not end well by LordStormes · · Score: 1

      Everybody needs some goons.

    2. Re:May not end well by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Everybody needs some goons.

      Well, shit. No wonder my world domination plans never worked. I thought it was minions I needed.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    3. Re:May not end well by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Henchmen, you amateurs!

    4. Re:May not end well by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      if you have henchmen you have to give them mooks to make them effective and increase your henchmen retention ratio. evil empires get expensive fast.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    5. Re:May not end well by LordStormes · · Score: 1

      Henchmen, you amateurs!

      I can't seem to get my men to hench properly. That's why I switched them out for goons. Or was it Goonies? I don't know, but they scare people off with the Truffle Shuffle.

    6. Re:May not end well by LordStormes · · Score: 1

      NODWICK?!

    7. Re:May not end well by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      aaand you killed it. Thx for playing, please try again.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:May not end well by LordStormes · · Score: 1

      :(

    9. Re:May not end well by geekoid · · Score: 1

      and nothing happen to him. Did you have a point buried somewhere in the big pile of nothing?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:May not end well by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

      I am a hench man, you insensitive clod!

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
  7. not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by peter303 · · Score: 2

    Both their first bomb tests fizzled with yields about a tenth of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. They had been designed to be Hiroshima-size.

    So claiming to be able to make a bomb and actually getting them work properly are two different things.

    1. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Nimey · · Score: 0

      It's pretty hard to get an implosion-style bomb right.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Buggz · · Score: 2

      with yields about a tenth of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

      Only a tenth? I won't need the sunglasses then, will I?

    3. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Kjella · · Score: 1

      It was pretty hard, back then. But 65 years is a long time ago and tools that were state of the art back then are common today. While you need supercomputers to make "real" simulations, I bet this PC has enough power to run a basic boom-or-fizzle model of a nuke. Production technology, measurement tools, I really doubt 40s technology can be that hard to match. The difficulty has always been weapons-grade uranium (or plutonium). That's not exactly something you'd find in the corner store...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... The difficulty has always been weapons-grade uranium (or plutonium). That's not exactly something you'd find in the corner store...

      Hence the plot of several back to the future movies.

    5. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by nschubach · · Score: 1
      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    6. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the technology is not trivial but it's not overly complex that a determined person/nation couldn't figure it out.

      Getting a decent amount of weapons grade material is VERY hard, time consuming, and expensive.

    7. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      I literally had my mouse pointer hovered above one of those before I realized what I would be clicking.

      While not really being NSFW in the classic sense, I really really don't want my employer to see my weblogs including things like "Free Shipping on Yellowcake Uranium!"

      Though I am tempted to pull out my laptop to check out what the users who looked at those items went on to purchase...

    8. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just sugar with caffeine and food colouring.

      Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought:
      Tiger Blood
      Zombie Blood
      Health and Mana Potions

    9. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by quenda · · Score: 1

      Both their first bomb tests fizzled with yields about a tenth of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

      Not the same. Gun-type bombs are so easy that the US and South Africa (at least) built them and did not bother to test them.
      NK and Pakistan also did tests only for the more difficult implosion design. If they have sufficient highly enriched uranium, they will not waste it on a test.

    10. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by clonan · · Score: 1

      They didn't test the uranium device because they didn't have any extra U235. If they had tested it then it would have taken another 3 years to purify enough U235 for another bomb.

      They wanted to test it but couldn't so they crossed their fingers and hit the button.

    11. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      It was just the first one. Marty took the Delorean, which at that time required plutonium to time travel, back to 1955 with no extra plutonium. Hence the reference:

      Marty: Doc look, all we need is a little plutonium!

      Doc: Oh! I'm sure that in 1985, plutonium is available at every corner drug store, but in 1955 it's a little hard to come by. Marty, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you're stuck here.

      At the end of the first movie the fission reactor had been replaced by a "Mr. Fusion" from the future that would run on empty soda cans and banana peals, and the plot of the second movie involved Biff from 2015 "borrowing" the time machine to give Biff from 1955 a 2015 sports almanac so that he could become rich by betting on sporting events and ruin the timeline.

      In the third movie the Delorean is struck by lightning while flying in a storm, which sends Doc back to 1885 and damages the electronics, which can't be repaired with 1885 technology. So Doc leaves the Delorean in a cave for 1955 Doc to fix it. Then Marty goes back for 1885 Doc, at which point the problem becomes not a lack of plutonium but a lack of gasoline to get the car up to 88MPH.

    12. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though I am tempted to pull out my laptop to check out what the users who looked at those items went on to purchase...

      Uh... other caffeine-laced powder candies with similar Echelon-bait names?

    13. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They went on to purchase Mana Energy Potion, Health Energy Potion, Tiger Blood Energy Potion, Energy Drink Zombie Blood Energy Potion and Harcos Labratory Nuclear Energy Powder Radium Raspberry Lemonade Flavor. IE thats pretty danged safe for work it's just candy powder "uranium yellowcake flavor"

    14. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      UH you do realize that North Korea and Pakistan did not develope their bombs 65 years ago. Pakistan was successful in 1998. India in 1974. North Korea, just a couple years ago. So the OP is correct and your assumption not.

    15. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by petteyg359 · · Score: 0

      run on empty soda cans and banana peals

      What does a banana peal sound like?

    16. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by iknowcss · · Score: 2

      It's candy, FYI.

      --
      Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
    17. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both their first bomb tests fizzled with yields about a tenth of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.
      They had been designed to be Hiroshima-size.

      So claiming to be able to make a bomb and actually getting them work properly are two different things.

      Absolutely right !!! He should remember to Test, Test, Test, err....

    18. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by jcwayne · · Score: 1

      Especially when the Israelis are trying to hack into your centrifuge controllers.

      --
      Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
    19. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by quenda · · Score: 1

      I won't need the sunglasses then, will I?

      A truck windscreen was good enough for Fenyman.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_gadget#Explosion

    20. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if your make-shift nuke doesn't go off quite right, the "fizzle" will still be extremely deadly in the immediate surroundings as non-fissioned radioactive material is vaporized and spread around by the chemical trigger blast. N. Korea didn't notice because their tests were underground.

      The real challenge is producing enough fissile material... and not killing yourself in the process. The process is difficult and $$$ enough, but also the material (Pu), and some of the chemicals usable in the process like Uranium-Tetrafluoride (gaseous diffusion separation) are extremely deadly.

    21. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      I never got that... A scientist who can figure out how to make a time machine out of a delorean can't find some crude oil (which should be pretty easy to find back then) and then do some simple distillation to get enough naptha to make a passable substitute. Doesn't seem too plausible to me. Also, it looked like he did try some alcohol, and they should have been able to adjust timing and whatnot to make the car run on ethanol, albeit probably not for very long...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    22. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by mangu · · Score: 1

      It's candy, FYI.

      Still dangerous, it will make your kid hyperactive

    23. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 2
      This is irrelevant because the worst fizzle ever taking place at the appropriate location (e.g., somewhere in Manhattan or Tel Aviv) would be more than enough for any terrorist organization to celebrate victory and a well-deserved retirement. Just look at the reaction of people when possibly confronted to milliSieverts of radiation and imagine reading in the papers that there was a nuclear close-detonation next block to you.

      This is why all this talk about the amount of engineering it would take for terrorists to build an A-bomb is ridiculous. A suicide bomber could clamp together to pieces of U235 by hand and this would create enough of an explosion to fulfill all of their wildest dreams.

    24. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      In regards to finding some crude oil and distilling it themselves, you are forgetting that they only had a few days until Doc was going to be shot.

      In regards to the attempt to run on ethonol, they might have been able to adjust the timing and get it working, if it hadn't blown the entire fuel injection manifold on the first attempt.

      The film didn't imply that making a gasoline substitute would be impossible -- only impossible in the very short time they had available.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    25. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by tgd · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't hard. Building a bomb that'll work with a small amount of enriched fuel is hard. Enriching fuel is hard. If you have enough fuel, building the bomb itself is not.

      That's not some grand secret and is why all the tech for limiting proliferation is around a) keeping how to enrich fuel without massive industry secret and b) detecting massive enrichment industry.

      None of the major nuclear powers had a single failure until they started pushing the boundaries of size (upwards or downwards).

    26. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by NoSig · · Score: 1

      The difficulty has always been weapons-grade uranium (or plutonium).

      Perhaps there is some subtle critical issue that you need to bang out before you can make it work. If so, it would be very convenient if that wasn't known, as then every state who tries have a chance to get it wrong the first time, giving the rest of the world warning about what they are doing. From that perspective, perhaps this guy is actually a government plant whose job it is to describe the process in a way that leads the mind not to realize the problem.

    27. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While not really being NSFW in the classic sense, I really really don't want my employer to see my weblogs including things like "Free Shipping on Yellowcake Uranium!"

      Relax. Have a beer (the label features a picture of a cute chick riding a bomb, so I'm willing to forgive the fact that they got the isotope wrong, and for that matter, they also got the element wrong for the bomb she's riding. It's a tasty beer, though, especially if you like hops.)

    28. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It's candy, FYI.

      Gives a whole meaning to Humans are Cthulhu.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    29. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Peristaltic · · Score: 1

      Something like this.

    30. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by gordguide · · Score: 1

      " ... Also, it looked like he did try some alcohol, and they should have been able to adjust timing and whatnot to make the car run on ethanol, albeit probably not for very long... "

      The ethanol mod would have been pretty easy ... drill the jets twice as big (the Deloran used a carbeurator, not fuel injection). You could make a drill bit .... really just a straight flute reamer is all you would need ... with files, and a brace-and-bit existed then so no power drill required. Carb jets will be brass, self-lubricating, easy to machine.

      You need about a 6:1 ratio instead of 14:1 ( fuel: air, when you're stuck with guessing, run it a bit rich and you're good to go). A gallon of alcohol would have been good for maybe 10 miles at speed.

      Don't need a fuel pump ... just a jug tied to the hood and a twice-as-fat-as-gas-line hose to the carb inlet, and gravity feed. Ethanol burns a bit hotter than gas, so can cause detonation, but it takes a while at full power. So, you add a bit of lamp oil to it to reduce the heat of combustion. I've done that when I ran my truck (70's era, no catalyst) on some 100/130 Leaded Aviation fuel that came from the wing tanks of a wrecked DC-4 they were salvaging. 300 miles highway, ran like a top, till I could get to civilization and a real gas station.

    31. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by gordguide · · Score: 1

      " ... In regards to the attempt to run on ethonol, they might have been able to adjust the timing and get it working, if it hadn't blown the entire fuel injection manifold on the first attempt. ..."

      Timing would be fine, leave as is. Swapping Alcohol for gas won't create enough pressure to blow anything ... it's still at ambient air pressure, same as running on gasoline. I once ran out of gas a few blocks from a filling station in very cold weather and didn't want to walk since I wasn't dressed properly for the weather, filled the tank with a gallon jug of gas-line antifreeze (basically, alcohol) and drove there, rigged the choke to block off some air to get the ratio about right, and drove with a bit of feathering of the gas pedal. You can do that stuff with carbs and a manual transmission, which is what the Deloran had.

    32. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt that the "blowing the injection manifold" bit was not mechanically accurate, just a throwaway line to explain why it didn't work. However, I'm still pretty sure they couldn't just pour whiskey in the tank and expect it to work. Your gas line antifreeze is basically just alchohol, sure -- but whiskey on the other hand, even if it was 180 proof, is still 10 percent water. Ever try to run a car on watered down gas? Even if they could get it running on whiskey -- do you think the car would still be able to accelerate to 88 mph, the scientifically proven speed at which one is gonna see some serious shit?

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    33. Re:not so easy for North Korea and Pakistan by gordguide · · Score: 1

      " ... However, I'm still pretty sure they couldn't just pour whiskey in the tank and expect it to work. Your gas line antifreeze is basically just alchohol, sure -- but whiskey on the other hand, even if it was 180 proof, is still 10 percent water. Ever try to run a car on watered down gas? ..."

      Well, "whisky" is not what you would get from a quick distillation. 180 proof alcohol (95% alcohol, 5% water) most certainly does work fine as a fuel in an internal combustion engine. In fact, aside from the taxes and the fact that it does not have poisonous alcohol added to prevent drinking (denatured alcohol) the liquor store variety is exactly the same thing as acceptable fuel grade alcohol.

      Alcohol absorbs water ... petroleum (like gas) won't. Water will not necessarily prevent combustion if additional fuel is present ... water injection is common in supercharged applications, for example, and gasoline that contains suspended water will still support combustion usually to the point where the fuel filter is saturated with water and won't allow any more gas to pass to the engine. Gas line antifreeze actually works by mixing with water in gasoline fuel, absorbing that water into the alcohol, and since alcohol and petroleum will mix, suspending that water within the gasoline fuel itself, where it can be a component in combustion without ill effects.

      Water will separate from alcohol-based fuel in storage ... in as little as a few weeks in a car's fuel tank if you use E85 from the pump, for example ... but while suspended in alcohol, it's not an issue and it will most definitely run in a vehicle.

      Gas line antifreeze (methyl alcohol) also contains water in the factory-sealed container, as does all alcohol-based fuel ... It becomes fairly stable at the 95% : 5% ratio, but not at higher alcohol concentrations, where it will simply absorb water from the atmosphere when the last 5% is water free. Also, it's difficult to remove 100% of the water from any alcohol, especially once you get to the 95% point, each successive process to remove water removes only a portion, not the full remaining 5%, so most alcohol based fuels still contain some water even in the factory sealed container.

  8. Sensationalist headline is sensationalist by chemicaldave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He didn't reconstruct a bomb, he reverse engineered it and taught himself how to build one.

    1. Re:Sensationalist headline is sensationalist by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Which is why the vision of a nuclear weapon free future is almost certain to never happen. That particular cat is out of the bag, and not going back in any time soon.

    2. Re:Sensationalist headline is sensationalist by am+2k · · Score: 1

      Well, there's one way: Construct a non-nuclear bomb that's easier and cheaper to build and has at least the same level of destruction.

    3. Re:Sensationalist headline is sensationalist by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      whats the going rate for kerosene??

      1 ingnitor(s)
      2 shell of "stuff"
      3 kerosene
      4 a way to disperse the kerosene

      and thats how you build a Fuel Air Bomb

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    4. Re:Sensationalist headline is sensationalist by Rhinobird · · Score: 1
      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    5. Re:Sensationalist headline is sensationalist by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Which is non-proliferation efforts have focused on weaponized designs (that is, advanced designs rather than the crude WWII era designs) and on the availability of the requisite nuclear fuels.

    6. Re:Sensationalist headline is sensationalist by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      I think you're doing it wrong.

    7. Re:Sensationalist headline is sensationalist by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no kidding.

      "Trucker reconstructs A-bomb"
      HOLY SHIT! SEND IN THE FUCKING SWAT WITH DOGS AND GUNS THAT SHOOT SWAT DOGS!

      "Trucker teaches himself HOW to construct an A-Bomb"
      Oh, pft, doesn't everyone know this?

    8. Re:Sensationalist headline is sensationalist by digitac · · Score: 1

      Of course. After all the original bombs underwent energetic disassembly upon delivery. It would be pretty hard to reconstruct the originals.

    9. Re:Sensationalist headline is sensationalist by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      Saw an outer limits once where they had perfected cold fusion, and used it to make bombs.

    10. Re:Sensationalist headline is sensationalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which was way easier than gathering up all the original atoms that constituted the bomb. Once they go off they are so hard to put back together.

  9. It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by Nimey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    which are a rather simple design; among other things, they don't have any safety features.

    Broadly, what you need is two correctly sized-and-shaped chunks of enriched uranium with enough U-235 to cause a chain reaction, a smoothbore gun barrel (IIRC Little Boy used one of 6" diameter), and some gunpowder in silk bags to drive one piece of uranium into the other. There are a few other parts to this, such as the tamper and the fuze, but the toughest part should be obtaining enough enriched uranium.

    Certainly the featured bomb is not a fully-working model. It'll be a reproduction with inert material standing in for the U-235, no gunpowder, and an inert fuze.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

      Certainly the featured bomb is not a fully-working model. It'll be a reproduction with inert material standing in for the U-235, no gunpowder, and an inert fuze.

      That seems a bit overkill. Couldn't he at least use two coconut halves for the U-235, a little bit of gunpower and a real fuse? Then at least you'd get a bang and a "clop!" when you set it off.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by hoggoth · · Score: 2

      > Couldn't he at least use two coconut halves for the U-235, a little bit of gunpower and a real fuse?

      Then the headline would have read "Former Castaway Professor Reconstructs A-Bomb".

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    3. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, some stealthy terrorist sneaks in the dead of the night, replaces the coconuts with real u235 or plutonium, and ... BOOM! There goes a goodly part of Manhattan! As Bruce Schneier would call it - a movie plot scenario. :-)

    4. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, he could use two coconut halves filled with U-235, no gunpowder and no fuse. I hear there are people willing to bang the two halves together for the mere promise of good stuff happening afterward.

    5. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by imaque · · Score: 2

      That seems a bit overkill. Couldn't he at least use two coconut halves for the U-235, a little bit of gunpower and a real fuse? Then at least you'd get a bang and a "clop!" when you set it off.

      You've got two empty halves of coconuts and you're banging them together!

    6. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why silk? I realize that at the time it was a very strong, relatively impermeable, and highly available to the military (e.g.: parachutes were made from it), but it seems like an anti-static plastic bag would do these days.

    7. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by Hooya · · Score: 1

      > ..coconut halves ... and a "clop!" ...

      He could, but then everyone said "neigh".

    8. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      But where'd you get the coconut?

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    9. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by sharkey · · Score: 1

      There was a show on Channel 62 back in the 80's that showed how to make plutonium from ingredients jut laying around the house. Surely they covered Uranium as well?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    10. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by gregfortune · · Score: 1

      From the swallow, silly.

    11. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by rgmoore · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a little bit more complicated than that. The average time between neutron emissions in the fissile material for a gun-type bomb has to be substantially longer than the assembly time. Otherwise you'll get predetonation and the device will fizzle. If the design doesn't incorporate a neutron source, the parts will just sit there until there's finally a spontaneous emission that can start a chain reaction.

      To avoid that unpredictable delay, during which the pieces might move back out of perfect alignment, real-world gun-type designs have incorporated neutron sources that release extra neutrons at just the right moment. The most common design uses an explosion to mix polonium and beryllium, which then release enough neutrons to trigger the reaction. That kind of neutron generator was used in the Little Boy device.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    12. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      Certainly the featured bomb is not a fully-working model. It'll be a reproduction with inert material standing in for the U-235, no gunpowder, and an inert fuze.

      That seems a bit overkill. Couldn't he at least use two coconut halves for the U-235, a little bit of gunpower and a real fuse? Then at least you'd get a bang and a "clop!" when you set it off.

      How many swallows would it take to transport and deploy such a weapon?

    13. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      Did this Alchemy show tell you how to make Gold from household ingredients too?

    14. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That seems a bit overkill. Couldn't he at least use two coconut halves for the U-235, a little bit of gunpower and a real fuse? Then at least you'd get a bang and a "clop!" when you set it off.

      Hey somersault! The seventies called, they want their horses back!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python_and_the_Holy_Grail

    15. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by Nimey · · Score: 1

      It's traditional.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    16. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by somersault · · Score: 1

      When a geek thinks coconuts, what else do they think? Yes, the thing that you thought.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    17. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by MentlFlos · · Score: 1
      Of course.

      First ingredient is "all the gold jewelry in the house".

      After that time consuming step it is simple!

    18. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut. It's a simple question of weight ratios!

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    19. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      So I guess we're going to need a lot of highly-enriched uranium jewelry? With all the chaos going on over there now, maybe we can convince the Libyans to give us some plutonium. Surely they won't find us if we promise to build them a bomb and then stiff them.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    20. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The most common design uses an explosion to mix polonium and beryllium, which then release enough neutrons to trigger the reaction. That kind of neutron generator was used in the Little Boy device.

      No. The Little Boy used a two part initiator - one part mounted on the projectile and the other mounted on the target. The initiator was activated by the physical impact of the two portions when the projectile impacted the target.

    21. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by hamster_nz · · Score: 2

      I am not an a-bomb engineer, but it is 'fine' just to leave Uranium assembled in a supercritical core, sitting round for for a few ms before it explodes.

      But Plutonium has a very high rate of spontaneous emission making it completely unsuited for gun-style devices - as pointed out the chain reaction will start before they are fully assembled. The original solution was to compress a sub-critical mass with explosives, to make it super-critical and able to support a chain reaction.

      A neutron source is mandatory for an implosion device as it only stays compressed for a very short time. Because of this a well timed bust of neutrons is essential to kickstart the reaction. Original designs used a small amount of polonium (a neutron source) coated in beryllium (a neutron absorber) in the center, which mixed under compression releasing the neutrons into the Pu. The problem with this design is that that the half life of polonium is short, so you can't keep them sitting around on shelves for long, so modern 'stockpiled' devices use an neutron source external to the core.

      But as Plutonium ages the ratio of long-lived to short-lived isotopes changes reducing the flux of neutrons (and it's heat output, making it hard for NASA to build Radio-thermal Generators (RTGs) for deep space missions). In the future it may be possible to make a Pu gun-style bomb, but only if you have some well aged Pu.

    22. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by Dabido · · Score: 1

      That's what you think. Wait till tomorrow morning when he yells, 'April Fool' and detonates it.

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
    23. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      “'What? Ridden on a horse?'
      'Yes'
      'You're using coconuts!'
      'What?'
      'You've got two empty halves of coconuts and you're banging them together!'
      'So?'”

    24. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by drwho · · Score: 1

      It depends on which isotope of Plutonium you use. PU-240 has a high spontaneous fission rate, making it dangerous because the bomb can go off ahead of when you want it it. This is why you have grades of plutonium, with relative amounts of PU-240. Reactor grade is above 7% PU-240, weapons grade is 4%-7% PU-240, and 1% and 'supergrade' with less than 4% PU-240. The good stuff is PU-239, which doesn't fission unless it's hit by another particle (it is fissile). PU-238 is used for RTGs, which are useful for space probes and those nuclear beacons that the Soviets sprinkled all over the place and then lost. This is because 2 grams of PU-238 will generate 1 Watt of thermal power via alpha radiation, and no other types of radiation, and alpha can be easily contained.

      Regarding the trucker-bomb-maker, he may have some idea of how old-school bombs work but so what. As so many have pointed out, you need a critical mass of a fissile material such as certain isotopes of plutonium and uranium. There are tricks to lowering the critical mass, and if this trucker is clever and useful he'd publish those. You can get the critical mass down to a volume approximately the size of a baseball. But please don't do this, especially not today, because I have a headache and don't want to have to explain to people which radiation and fission particles are dangerous and why, in the midst of their panic. I've had enough of that these past few weeks.

    25. Re:It's a Little Boy gun-type bomb by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that even 239Pu has too high a neutron emission rate (about 20 neutrons/kg sec) to make a reliable gun-type bomb. That gives you hundreds of neutrons per second in the separate subcritical assemblies. Given a critical assembly time on the order of a millisecond, that gives much too high a probability of a fizzle to make a practical design.

      Also, given that the half-life of 240Pu is about 1/4 that of 239Pu, just aging your Plutonium is not going to be enough to reduce 240Pu levels to a reasonable level. By the time the 240Pu has decayed to the point it has a lower neutron emission rate than the 239Pu, most of your 239Pu will also have decayed and you'll need to reprocess it to recover enough for a bomb. Not really a practical solution.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

  10. 2004 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like it has been out since around 2004 and referenced in many books and TV shows, so if it was going to be classified, I think it would have already happened.

    1. Re:2004 by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apparently you missed this and this and this and this and this and and and and

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  11. One day I'll start actually reading headlines... by Tigger's+Pet · · Score: 1

    ...not just flicking over them with my eyeballs on autopilot. I read "Former Truck Driver Reconstructs A Bomb" and thought - "So what? Is this a particular bomb, a historical bomb or something". It was only about 10 seconds later when my brain caught up and made me re-check what I'd actually read.
    Would it really have hurt to add an extra 5 characters into the headline?

  12. Reconstructs A-bomb? by olsmeister · · Score: 1

    So he has one in his garage or something?
    There is nothing fundamentally difficult about making an A-bomb, particularly a plutonium-based bomb, except obtaining the fissionable material, handling it, and keeping people from finding out about it.

    1. Re:Reconstructs A-bomb? by fnj · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, you've got it wrong. It's a uranium-type gun-type bomb that is dead simple to build and practically foolproof if you've done the elementary physics and workmanship right. The only hard part with that is getting the highly enriched uranium. A plutonium-based implosion-type bomb is another story. The hollow spherical high-explosive lense and the arrangement of synchronized detonators is very, very exacting, and the very specialized grade of krytron tube to set it off just right so it doesn't fizzle.

    2. Re:Reconstructs A-bomb? by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      Of course you're right. My bad.

    3. Re:Reconstructs A-bomb? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Actually plutonium bombs are significantly more complex than HE Uranium gun type designs.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:Reconstructs A-bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are mistaken - a plutonium bomb must be a implosion-type device, i.e. a hollow sphere of plutonium that needs to be compressed precisely symmetrically, otherwise it just fizzles. The "easy" (but also unsafe and non-scaleable) kind of bomb are the gun-type uranium bombs.

    5. Re:Reconstructs A-bomb? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Because they go supercritical faster and need a higher acceleration with more precision. An implosion type HE Uranium bomb only needs "perfect spherical implosion" to a certain degree of precision at a certain pressure with a certain amount of energy; but plutonium fisses so quickly that you need a lot more force, and your precision needs to be higher i.e. a more completely perfect sphere of implosion pressure, otherwise the bomb fizzles out. Gun-type plutonium bombs need the projectile to reach a speed not physically possible to achieve without making the bomb extremely heavy (thick walls to handle the explosive force and a much larger explosive charge)

    6. Re:Reconstructs A-bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not entirely true either. You can build a gun-type plutonium bomb, but you need a longer barrel than was used in Little Boy.

    7. Re:Reconstructs A-bomb? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Gun-type plutonium bombs. NTI[*] and others seem to think the result would be limited to an extremely low order detonation at best. The US certainly intended to make them and gave up the idea during WW II. NTI uses the term "impossible." I often wondered why you couldn't just raise the velocity of the slug to a high enough value; after all, the gun only has to withstand a single firing! My guess is that the velocity required would be very challenging to create.

      [*] http://www.nti.org/h_learnmore/nuctutorial/chapter02_05.html

      "It is impossible to achieve a large nuclear explosion by using plutonium in a gun-type device because the spontaneous neutron release rate is higher and causes predetonation. Nonetheless, a plutonium gun-type bomb could release as much energy as a few tons of TNT, which could conceivably cause many casualties."

  13. NSA by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

    I'm sure someone up at the NSA is saying to themselves "OK wait, this guy is a truck driver and before that was a photographer....and now he's reverse engineered the goddamn A-bomb??". How is that possible?

    --
    Loading...
    1. Re:NSA by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      i doubt anyone at the NSA is that naive

      Back in primary school, at the age of 11-12, i read about the theory of nuclear fision (mostly the basic principals used in a fision reactor), i dont remember wether i also knew about critical mass and the uranium gun-type design, but i truely believe i would have understood the basic design.

      Sure, working out the exact dimensions of various parts would have been beyond the working knowledge of a 12-year old, but once out of high school that shouldn't have been a real problem.

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    2. Re:NSA by srussia · · Score: 1

      I'm sure someone up at the NSA is saying to themselves "OK wait, this guy is a truck driver and before that was a photographer....and now he's reverse engineered the goddamn A-bomb??". How is that possible?

      Yeah, the order is all wrong. As sibling Vectormatic points out, A-Bomb knowledge comes first, then you become a truck driver and finally a photographer.

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    3. Re:NSA by Rik+Rohl · · Score: 1

      Easy, buy these books. The Making of the Atomic Bomb and the follow up The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb

      He goes into amazing detail about the history of how they did it, and along the way describes in excruciating detail the physics behind them and exactly how they are constructed. The end result will be that you know how to make a nuclear weapon.

      The major problem is then finding the several billion dollars and several tons of uranium ore needed to do it and not get caught.

    4. Re:NSA by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      The difficulty in making an atomic bomb is always the first step: inventing the universe.

    5. Re:NSA by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

      No, no! Steal those books!
      ~Abby Hoffman

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
  14. This has been known for years... by Wolvenhaven · · Score: 2

    The difficulty isn't the design, it's getting ahold of enough enriched U-235 to actually have a working bomb.

    Simple design, extremely complex materials.

    --
    Orwell was an optimist.
    1. Re:This has been known for years... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It's also tricky to figure out all the physics and finer engineering points (how much to use, etc.) the first time. After that it's not nearly as difficult.

      But yes, the engineering behind obtaining enriched uranium is enormously more complex than building the bomb itself.

    2. Re:This has been known for years... by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      I think the real purpose of his work is more historical. It's less, "how does one build an A-bomb" and more "how did they build an A-bomb?"

      There was a pretty good magazine article about him a few years back -- I think in Rolling Stone, or maybe Esquire, of all places. They'd spent a lot of time interviewing him, and the picture you got was that he found tiny, probably irrelevant, details of the bomb's construction fascinating. The work he's done for a hobby isn't that of an engineer per-se, but more that of a technical historian.

      Viewed in that light, I think what he's done is quite valuable.

    3. Re:This has been known for years... by amazeofdeath · · Score: 1

      The GP is correct. Remember how USA didn't need any test for the gun-type bomb before deploying it against Japan? The actual calculations involved aren't too hard; you can do the modelling easily on a home computer in short time, assuming that you know the relevant physical properties (neutron interaction cross-section for the part of neutron spectrum the bomb will use, neutron reflection coefficients if you want to reflectors for improved power, and so on). If you have the materials, you can use them excessively to ensure a decent yield in the construct, as this compression method allows large separation of the fissionable parts, so that you don't have to be limited to 2 x barely sub-critical mass.

      --
      U+F8FF
    4. Re:This has been known for years... by nate+nice · · Score: 1

      So it's like making any kind of good armor in World of Warcraft, essentially.

      --
      "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
    5. Re:This has been known for years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find the same hobby interesting. As an example, there is a story about saddams 7xxx series aluminum pipes/missile bodies which essentially details the dimensions of a zippe type centrifuge rotor. All of this is moot when you can bootstrap your way to plutonium using magnox. I'll let you guess what the missing third ingredient is and at what percentage.

  15. He hasn't actually built one by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

    He hasn't actually built one, so the only way we would know whether or not he has successfully reconstructed the design would be if someone who actually designs nuclear bombs today were to look at his plans and say that, "Yes, that would result in a functional atomic bomb." Or if someone were to follow his plans, build an atomic bomb and set it off. It is distinctly possible that he has successfully reconstructed the plans, At this point, all we have is his claim that what he put in his book would be sufficient to build a functional atomic bomb.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    1. Re:He hasn't actually built one by FaxeTheCat · · Score: 5, Funny

      So maybe this is a case for Mythbusters?

    2. Re:He hasn't actually built one by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      I'd buy that for a dollar!

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    3. Re:He hasn't actually built one by pitterpatter · · Score: 1

      "Funny" might not get you karma, but I wish I had mod points.

    4. Re:He hasn't actually built one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As interesting an episode of Mythbusters as this would be, I somehow doubt that even they could acquire the U-235 necessary to actually test the thing. Besides, do you think their bomb range is big enough? I'd watch it, though.

    5. Re:He hasn't actually built one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Jamie Want Big Boom!!"

    6. Re:He hasn't actually built one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Little Boy" design on which this is based was considered so foolproof, the Manhattan project scientists didn't even bother to test it (unlike the Fat Man design). So the odds are pretty good it would work, if the reconstruction is halfway accurate.

    7. Re:He hasn't actually built one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He hasn't actually built one, so the only way we would know whether or not he has successfully reconstructed the design would be if someone who actually designs nuclear bombs today were to look at his plans and say that, "Yes, that would result in a functional atomic bomb." Or if someone were to follow his plans, build an atomic bomb and set it off. It is distinctly possible that he has successfully reconstructed the plans, At this point, all we have is his claim that what he put in his book would be sufficient to build a functional atomic bomb.

      From TFA and TFS:

      His findings are available in a book he continuously updates and publishes himself called "Atom Bombs: The Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man," which has received rave reviews from the National Resource Defense Council: "Nothing else in the Manhattan Project literature comes close to his exacting breakdown of the bomb's parts."

      So assuming the same scientists that run their Nuclear Program are the ones that gave these "rave reviews" you may need to start reading things better before you comment on them or risk sounding like a fool that doesn't know what the fuck is going on.

    8. Re:He hasn't actually built one by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      "Besides, do you think their bomb range is big enough? "

      LMFAO - thanks for that! :)

      I'd mod you if you weren't anon.

    9. Re:He hasn't actually built one by evought · · Score: 1

      would be if someone who actually designs nuclear bombs today were to look at his plans and say that, "Yes, that would result in a functional atomic bomb."

      Anyone who has done so for the US could not comment, even on his published designs. It is (or was?) made very explicit in security briefings that you have to be careful even in how you comment on even unclassified data. If, for instance, you asked me to recommend an unclassified source for statistics on certain Air Force weapons platforms, I would largely not be able to answer because my answer (according to the law as it seems to be interpreted) would have to depend on knowledge of classified data if it was something I had handled during my work with AFSAA. I would, presumably, highlight one source over another based on knowledge of classified topics: not allowed. Similarly, therefore, a physicist or engineer with actual experience with bomb construction (said experience obtained through the terms of a US/NATO security clearance) may not comment in any fashion on this guy's plan even though the plan presumably draws only on unclassified data. Dealing with the nuances of that sort of thing is a pain in the rear, so it ends up being easier to just keep your mouth shut: one of the reasons I did not want to do work like that long term.

      But personally, I am much less worried about someone making a bomb than someone making a working bomb. To be a "nuclear power" one would have to construct multiple bombs adjusted on the basis of actual tests (some of which will doubtless fail), just like we did. A nuclear test (even failed) is something which tends to draw attention and is hard to hide. Terrorists could actually get more mileage for less cost out of much less sophisticated approaches. Certain among those are what keep me awake at night, not a lone-wolf building Hiroshima-in-a-can. The other bigger worry is a terrorist getting hold of a working device by hook or by crook from an unstable nuclear power or threatening independent launch in the service of a nuclear power.

      John Piña Craven in a book called, I believe, "The Silent War", provides some insight into [alleged] incidents where the former USSR nearly lost control of its nuclear forces (some of the inspiration for Red October, apparently) and how that was one of the fears which finally brought them to the bargaining table. Facing a nuclear holocaust in a war with the US was one thing; the thought of doing so involuntarily was yet another.

      The genie is out of the bottle. Living in fear does no good. We just take one day at a time.

      Hmmm... I guess the other point is that if I were a physicist of that sort and the plan had an obvious flaw, I might just say, "Yes, sir, great design; that'd do it!" just to hopefully ensnare a nut or two into making the same mistake.

  16. Honey Pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's the conspiracy theorist in me that smells a terrorist honey pot here. I suspect that anyone contacting this gentleman or his lab would be put on a few watch lists.

  17. Conceptually simple, technically difficult? by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that although the concept is fairly simple (smash a bunch of uranium together very fast, and it goes supercritical), the tolerances are so tight that it's very difficult to accomplish that electronically/mechanically. If it isn't exactly right, it just melts down spectacularly rather than detonating properly.

    I don't know - maybe he's really got it, but I suspect more likely he'd just contaminate a few hundred square miles with radioactive materials if he ever tried building one and testing it.

    (offtopic: damn slashdot eats comments in IE. I tried posting a minute ago using the Ajax post form and clicking "preview" just made my comment disappear and I had to retype the whole thing. Is it too much to ask that this website at least WORKS? This isn't nuclear engineering.)

    1. Re:Conceptually simple, technically difficult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this design ( the barrel type) is even technically simple. So simple, that in fact they didn't even test a bomb of this type before dropping it on Hiroshima. The "problem" being of course, that as far as A-Bombs go, this is a very weak and inefficient one. To make a bigger bomb, for example an implosion type, a lot of stuff has be to be done really right, and actually, this is the source of the failed bomb test in for example North Korea. This type was tested (the first A-Bomb ever tested actually) before being dropped on Nagasaki.

    2. Re:Conceptually simple, technically difficult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You can either smash enriched uranium fast, or smash plutonium ultra fast. I'm not sure which option you're thinking about, but in each case only the thing in italics is hard.

    3. Re:Conceptually simple, technically difficult? by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      i'm pretty sure getting a hollow sphere made out of plutonium isnt exactly a cake-walk either

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    4. Re:Conceptually simple, technically difficult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compressing the plutonium core isn't only about speed. There was a lot of effort into creating a highly-spherical shockwave to compress the Fat Boy plutonium core evenly. It involved materials of different densities between the explosives and core to act as lenses and morph the initial "soccer ball"-like wave into a sphere before reaching the core. Otherwise, you just end up squirting plutonium out the side.

  18. Re:One day I'll start actually reading headlines.. by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

    Maybe not, but by leaving them out they've gotten you to share a funny story which brightened up my day.

  19. no worries, by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I seriously doubt that he's figured out to use a Frisbee to spoof the motion detectors to steal super enriched plutonium from John Lithgow's lab. D'OH!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  20. A model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He built a model, not a bomb. It is made of wood and fiberglass, although it is a very, very accurate historical model. Nothing more than an elaborate historical case study.

  21. Re:One day I'll start actually reading headlines.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it really have hurt to add an extra 5 characters into the headline?

    Which 5? "asdfh"?

  22. The real secret of the bomb .. by scharkalvin · · Score: 3, Informative

    It isn't how the bomb is constructed that is the hard part. 'Little boy' was very simple, but very crude. Most of the Uranium in the bomb was wasted because critical mass was not maintained long enough to consume most of the material. The yield of Little boy was only 9-10 kilotons, compared to 12-15 kilotons for 'Fat Man'. The hard part was the processing of the nuclear material to get enough of the high grade stuff concentrated enough to reach critical mass. That's the part you can't do in your garage. If you can steal enough material that will assemble to reach critical mass the rest is easy. During the war we were able to process enough Uranium for but a single bomb, and enough Plutonium for perhaps four. There was a third core available to drop on a third city in Japan if necessary and a forth was a few months away. (The first core was the Trinity test bomb, the second over Nagasaki).

    1. Re:The real secret of the bomb .. by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      Isn't there another story about how a kid was able to scrape enough material from glow in the dark clock faces?

    2. Re:The real secret of the bomb .. by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      That would be cesium, which is basically worthless. And they don't use that anymore.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    3. Re:The real secret of the bomb .. by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it radium?

    4. Re:The real secret of the bomb .. by Sean · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, only 9-10 kilotons. Almost safe for backyard use then eh?

    5. Re:The real secret of the bomb .. by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was. Had cesium on my mind.

      The 'radium girls' were about 5 minutes from the house I grew up in - in fact, a local park was once that Superfund site. Terrible story - they were licking the brushes to fix the tips, and it was becoming incorporated into their jawbones.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    6. Re:The real secret of the bomb .. by drwho · · Score: 1

      Yes, radium. No, they don't use it anymore, but there's still lots of such clocks and watches out there. As far as the cleanup, if you manage to get a few pounds of radium out of that, can you mail it to me? I have a science fair project I'd like to do. Actually, pretty much anything down to a few grams would be useful. thanks.

  23. Self-published book by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1

    Got some good reviews on Amazon. He self-published and apparently delivers the spiral-bound gems hand signed. I'm thinking the MIB will be visiting him shortly, but if not, it means whatever is in his book is probably not noteworthy.

    --
    ASCII tastes bad dude.
    Binary it is then.
    1. Re:Self-published book by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You forget the 3rd option:

      Your assumption about the government are wrong.

      Oh no, that can't be it, even though how to do this has been published for a while now.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  24. Re:One day I'll start actually reading headlines.. by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

    Which 5? "asdfh"?

    Avoiding the G-Man: you're doing it wrong

    ;)

  25. Re:One day I'll start actually reading headlines.. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

    ...omic ...

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  26. physics and engineering by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    I heard the physics is easy (basic theory) but the engineering is hard. It takes a lot of development to ensure when bomb is denotated all or most of the fissionable material undergoes reaction (split apart), rather than the TNT simply blows the nuclear material into a big toxic cloud (which is probably just as devastating as a nuclear reaction). Then making the bomb small size and a useful delivery system (i.e. reliable missille that has range, payload, and accuracy). Then there is H-bombs, another host of developmental problems. Of course there are nuclear bombs (though typically called devices) that are very small but these are results of billions of dollars spent by a country with a strong technical base.

    On subject of small bombs, there was a bazooka launched a-bomb called the Davy Crockett but the blast area is about the size of the delivery range. Kind of useless like an atomic grenade, you can't throw it far enough away.

    As most /. people know the key ingredients are the fissionable materials (U and Pu) which are hard to get, and may be dangerous to handle. Supposably Pu is very toxic, it will kill you by chemical means first before radiation.

    In 1970s I heard a story where someone found a chunk of plutonium alongside a road, this person was so pissed off that such material used for A-bombs was found unsecure like a piece of litter, he mailed it to his local congressman with a letter protesting government's lax security for such material. This must me a legend of tall proportions since Pu is toxic.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:physics and engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes a lot of development to ensure when bomb is denotated all or most of the fissionable material undergoes reaction (split apart)

      Even in the most efficient fission bombs, only small percentage of the fissionable materials actually 'burn' (become converted to energy), before the whole mass of super-heated material expands enough that a fission reaction simply can't be sustained. Single digit percentages. That's one reason pure fission weapons can't even begin to compare to a fusion bomb--that is also why they're very 'dirty', spewing not only the primary components all over the place, as fallout, but also the fission products (which tend to be more dangerous, unto themselves).

    2. Re:physics and engineering by tibit · · Score: 1

      The legend of tall proportions is IMHO the overblown chemical toxicity of plutonium. Plutonium is minimally chemically toxic. In fact, the whole linked document only ever mentions radio-"toxicity", not chemical toxicity!

      Toxicity of plutonium derives from the biological effects of radiation emitted during the radiological decay of plutonium isotopes.

      Chemically it's a nasty metal for sure, but nothing out of the ordinary. AFAIK you can handle solid plutonium with minimal protection (chemical gloves, particulate respirator). Plutonium oxides and hydrides form when exposed to moisture (with and without oxygen present), and those can spontaneously ignite. In a dry atmosphere, handled in gloves so that you won't get it moist from handling with bare skin, it's OK.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    3. Re:physics and engineering by seanbruckman · · Score: 1

      That lie probably originated with whatever idiot told you it. It lacks the curious plausibility required for a story to have enough legs to get retold. It's like if a 7 year old tried to start a rumor. We're all stupider now. Thanks. =)

    4. Re:physics and engineering by k6mfw · · Score: 1
      >Plutonium is minimally chemically toxic [cdc.gov]

      thanks for the link, I'll check it out. I have no experience with Pu or bombmaking so all I know of the subject is what I've read (in the good, bad, and the marginal).

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    5. Re:physics and engineering by k6mfw · · Score: 1
      >We're all stupider now. Thanks. =)

      I'm sure it was a legend when I first heard it. But sometimes these things take a life (legs) of their own. i.e. how the model of the slealth fighter F-19 was "exposed" to the public when F-117 was still classified. Story goes Revell was not making much sales until a congressman saw it in a window of a hobby shop. He then started with a diatribe back at the House, "Why is it the Pentagon keeps this secret from Congress and the American people while they let Revell sell a model of this?" After that sales of the F-19 skyrocketed (I still yet to assemble mine).

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
  27. THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 2

    Let me yet again recommend everybody read THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB by Richard Rhodes. The descriptions of what the experience was like, on the ground to survivors of Hiroshima at various radii from the explosion are among the most difficult things I've ever read. I constantly read and hear flip comments about atomic weapons. If you think it's a great opportunity for humor, you're not really familiar with the actual history.

    1. Re:THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB by Toze · · Score: 1

      There is nothing so terrible that we can't make jokes about it. If we stop being able to laugh at something, we have made it sacred, and nuking Hiroshima isn't something I want to make sacred. I prefer to make jokes about nukes, Hitler, and 9/11, because comedy balances tragedy.

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
    2. Re:THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      How many Hitlers does it take to screw in a nuclear light-bulb?

      0.8181...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What was Hitlers favorite breakfast:

      LuftWaffles.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB by Toze · · Score: 1

      Sir, I bow to you.

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
    5. Re:THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      Whoa, I totally don't get it. Where's the explainxkcd.com for this one?

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    6. Re:THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's not that funny. :)

      But as a hint, division is involved...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I figured it was something like "nein, nein, nein!" but I still don't get how 1/nein Hitlers are required to accomplish a task.

      Anybody who would make a joke so unfunny is just like Hitler anyway, carrying on with their own ideas of what is proper behavior with no regard for me personally.

    8. Re:THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Lol it's not simple to combine hitler, splitting the atom, and 9/11 in a joke. I cheated and used hitler and the atom as a dstraction from a really bad 9/11 joke.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  28. The Manhattan Project by randall77 · · Score: 1

    Old news. I already know how to build an A-bomb. I watched "The Manhattan Project" in 1986.

    1. Re:The Manhattan Project by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      The hardest part about building an A-bomb is not the design, but the acquisition of weapons-grade VO5

  29. Frightening Article by rogueippacket · · Score: 1
    No, I'm not referring to the fact that he reproduced an historic device. I'm referring to the article itself. From TFA:

    Certainly Coster-Mullen's ambitious project is a neat example of the ingenuity that led America to be the first to develop the atomic bomb. But it's also a stark reminder that our most powerful technologies can end up being reworked and used in other ways, by people much less friendly than truck drivers with lots of time on their hands.

    Seriously? Someone spends the time to fabricate a replica from the 1940s, validating historical records in the process, and the author thinks it's time to go all fear-crazed? It's akin to panicking over someone building a blunderbuss - without any black powder - and then saying it would be easy for sea-faring pirates to loot our merchant ships with their increased firepower and malicious ways.

  30. Bah! by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    Instructions on how to do this have been available for YEARS! They won't even get you a runner-up in a junior science competition anymore!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Bah! by scotts13 · · Score: 1

      MANY years. My eighth grade (circa 1969) science project was a "working" model of a gun-type uranium bomb. If you have the fissionable material and do the math right, the engineering is almost trivial. Unfortunately for me, the hidden flash bulb that triggered when my "uranium" masses met caused my teacher to soil her underwear. I got an "F" for inappropriate subject material (overturned on appeal).

    2. Re:Bah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is truly awesome! :)

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

      I think it could get you to be winner of the competition- by seeing to it that no one was left to take second place!

  31. Re:One day I'll start actually reading headlines.. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

    Oops, too early for me to be a /. editor too.

    "...tomic ..."

    I didn't confuse it with the meaning of the article, because this came out a few years ago, and was posted here then too. Only a few things come to mind when I see "truck driver" and "bomb" in the title.

    1) Truck driver eats too many beans at a greasy spoon diner, gets food poisoning.

    2) The FUD stories just post 9/11 about fuel trucks being hijacked and used as rolling bombs (totally media/gov't driven fiction).

    3) The guy who's been researching the WWII atomic bombs in significant detail, and wrote a book.

        The first isn't news, because it happens all the time. The second isn't news, because it wasn't news when it was claimed to have happened, but never actually happened. And the third isn't news, because it already was news. Good for him, he wrote a book. And publicity is always nice to have, especially when you're self-published.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  32. do disarmed babys get an in bed, or dead, video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not here with stuff that really matters. maybe on cnn? the unproven dead remain uncounted, unmentioned. enough about bombs, chariots, crap. disarm

  33. Allow me to be the first one to say: by muckracer · · Score: 1

    Don't try this at home, kids! ;-)

    1. Re:Allow me to be the first one to say: by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 1

      Holy crap, I can't believe you were the first to say that.

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
  34. Hard to come by ! by Rollgunner · · Score: 1

    "I'm sure that in 1985, you can buy plutonium at every corner drugstore... in 1955, it's a little hard to come by !"

    Seriously, though, atomic weapons are kind of like supersonic jets. They require a fairly high engineering know-how just to make one that barely works at all. To make one that works really well, you need a tremendous amount of know-how (usually gained through repeated attempts), many hours of supercomputer modelling, and highly exotic materials.

    Unfortunately, sometimes even a primitive, barely-functional atomic weapon is "good enough".

  35. Former truckdriver, not surprisingly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who'd want to be a truck driver if they can be a super-villain instead?

  36. Run For it Marty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Libyans!

  37. A recommendation? by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    I've heard glowing reports on the effects of working with fissile materials.

  38. Trruck driver? by PPH · · Score: 2

    Next time one of these guys wants to pass, you'll think twice about blocking the left lane.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  39. On Slashdot two years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  40. More details here by BurntHombre · · Score: 1

    For a more in-depth story about Coster-Mullen and his pursuit of the A-Bomb, check out this New Yorker article published in December 2008.

  41. Two general types of nukes & rules of thumb by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

    Uranium based ones: easy to build, hard to get materials for

    Plutonium based ones: relatively easy to get materials for, very hard to build

    This has been known for years, nothing much is new here.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:Two general types of nukes & rules of thumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true, getting weapons grade Plutonium is a joke. I'm picking up pounds of it everyday off the beach.

    2. Re:Two general types of nukes & rules of thumb by geekoid · · Score: 1

      yeah, we can just go down to the dime store and get Plutonium. sheesh.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Two general types of nukes & rules of thumb by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, basically all you need is breeder reactor, made with Uranium 238 and a neutron emitter. Pure Uranium metal can be hard to come by, but you can buy items that contain Uranium, like chunks of Uranium ore (usually sold as novelty items), or some kinds of antique glass amongst other things. In some parts of the country there are chunks of the ore laying on the ground if you know what to look for. Then you need to build a neutron emitter, which can also be built by harvesting radioactive materials out of somewhat common objects (like smoke detectors). The "Radioactive Boyscout" had pretty much everything you would need to make small amounts of Plutonium, and I believe had actually done so before he was discovered. The most difficult part would be making enough of it without being noticed and coming under scrutiny.

  42. Truck driver, my ass. by dirtyhippie · · Score: 1

    The guy had a white collar job for 30 years before being a truck driver for 10. In other words, he (probably) had a college degree, which most truckers probably wouldn't have had. Sigh. I'm not even surprised by what passes for journalism anymore.

    1. Re:Truck driver, my ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never completed my degree, but dropped out in my junior year to start earning money as a photographer. Then, after spending almost 30 years as an advertising and corporate photographer, I left the field since it was undergoing a quantum change into the new digital realm and my costs were about to increase dramatically. I've been driving semis now for over 14 years

  43. Three types by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    You forgot Boosted fission that use Tritium, Deuterium or Lithium deuteride as a boost.

  44. Gun rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before NRA says citizens have a constitutional right to own A-bombs?

    1. Re:Gun rights by nate+nice · · Score: 1

      You don't have a right to possess the hazardous materials they require though.

      --
      "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  45. For Great Justice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody set up us the bomb.

  46. Agreed by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Once Einstein figured out the physics the rest was pretty easy. There are stories of 'scientists' pushing Uranium samples together with broomsticks during the development of the bomb...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Agreed by jefe7777 · · Score: 2

      "There are stories of 'scientists' pushing Uranium samples together with boomsticks during the development of the bomb..." fixed that for ya! ;-)

  47. Missing the point? by imaque · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like a lot of the commenters here are missing the point. The interesting part of this guy's feat isn't that he reverse-engineered (if that's even the right term) any two atomic bombs, but Fat Man and Little Boy. Apparently, he's the first person to get all of the details of these bombs' inner workings. The difficulty in this isn't the enriched uranium thing (which is what's traditionally the difficult part in building nuclear weapons), the difficulty was in getting all the inner details just right...

  48. The one big new item of information by Animats · · Score: 1

    From the New Yorker article, here's the one big item of new info he's discovered:

    In the standard historical accounts, the way that the bomb's gun mechanism worked was by shooting a cylindrical âoemaleâ 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.

    Now that's a surprise. I wonder why the Manhattan Project did it that way, shooting the larger mass into the smaller mass. Maybe that was to get the assembly to hold together longer while the chain reaction initiated.

    (For those of you who slept through the atomic weapons part of high school physics, the Hiroshima bomb was a "gun" bomb, where the tube from an artillery piece was used to fire one subcritical mass of uranium into another subcritical mass, producing a critical mass. That's been an obsolete technology for half a century, because such bombs are so bulky and require much more fissionable material than implosion bombs, but it works. The Trinity and Nagasaki bombs were implosion devices, of course.)

    1. Re:The one big new item of information by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Also gun-type bombs don't have safety features to keep them from going off accidentally. This is why Little Boy wasn't fully assembled until Enola Gay was in the air, lest it suffer engine failure (common on B-29s), crash, and flatten all of Tinian.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  49. Clancy made sure details were wrong ... by perpenso · · Score: 2

    I'm surprised you didn't mention Sum Of All Fears - not the movie (which almost completely missed the point) but the book, which goes into a fair amount of detail as to the exact amount of work it would take to manufacture not just a fission bomb (a la the bombings in Japan) but a two-stage thermonuclear fusion bomb. Even back then (and this was written in 1992) it would have been well within the reach of a moderately wealthy industrialist. ...

    FWIW Tom Clancy (the author of Sum of All Fears) worked with actual nuclear weapons experts to make sure the details and procedures he depicted in the book were wrong. He wanted the book to sound correct but not actually be correct. You could say something similar for much of what appears in his techno thriller fiction books, sounds correct but is really quite heavy with artistic license.

    1. Re:Clancy made sure details were wrong ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Next you will be telling me we can clone dinosaurs from the blood in amber trapped mosquito.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Clancy made sure details were wrong ... by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Next you will be telling me we can clone dinosaurs from the blood in amber trapped mosquito.

      FWIW. There is an important distinction between Sum of All Fears (Clancy) and Jurassic Park (Crichton). Cloning dino is pure speculative fiction but building an atomic bomb is historic fact. Atomic bombs represented 50 or so year old technology and processes at the time of Clancy's writing. Also where the key in JP was finding usable DNA from the bug in amber the key in SOAF was finding usable parts from a damaged nuclear weapon built by an existing nuclear power. What served Clancy for many years was keeping his fiction closer to the plausibility line. This is just a distinction, not a measurement of goodness. I've enjoyed Crichton's work too.

  50. More HOWTO info by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    If you think knowing how to create an A-Bomb is useful, here are some more "how to do it" items of equal importance and utility!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  51. Yep, we learned it in high school physics by sandytaru · · Score: 1

    At least in my high school physics class. Diagrams and everything, and a wink and a nod to look at Anarchist's Cookbook for more zany projects. Then again, my physics and chemistry teacher was a weird guy. An award winning weird guy, but a weird guy nonetheless. He must have done something right because I still love physics and chemistry and remember a surprising amount of it.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  52. Easier ways to do it by AlecC · · Score: 1

    This appears to describe the original WW2 bombs, which had the advantage of precision machining etc. A few years ago New Scientist published a much easier way to do it, involving a five story building with stairwell and ordinary plastic drainage pipe. IF you had access to a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, their design could be built with ordinary DIY materials over a weekend. It wouldn't make an efficient bomb, but it would take out a few blocks and leave a nasty radioactive mess.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  53. Sure its easy . . . by KenSeymour · · Score: 1

    Just be careful you don't end up like this guy.

    --
    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
  54. Better adjust your tinfoil hat... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    How long before his book get's the Anarchist's Cookbook treatment? I expect we'll see new headlines in the coming weeks, reflecting how the government has now classified all his research and writings

    Considering this book was first discussed on Slashdot two years ago, was published nearly seven years ago, and his work was widely discussed on newgroups, forums, and mailing lists where nuclear historians hang out as much as a decade ago...
     
    The government has had plenty of opportunity to do so, and has declined to do so.
     
    Better adjust that tinfoil hat.

  55. Anarchist Cookbook was an erroneous mashup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before his book get's the Anarchist's Cookbook treatment?

    FWIW the Anarchist Cookbook author admits he was an ignorant poser who produced an error filled mashup. With the possible exception of growing/smoking pot(*) no one familiar with the topics discussed are giving it any awards. The Anarchist Cookbook is just a badge of rebellion for high school kids and college freshman, and a tool to get one step closer to a Darwin Award for those who attempting to use its recipes.

    (*) by the standards of technology in 1970, not today

    1. Re:Anarchist Cookbook was an erroneous mashup by HikingStick · · Score: 1

      Your recollection is correct. It was not intended to be a scholarly work, but was intended only to show the average citizen the kind of counterculture information that was already readily available. [Read the FOIA-released FBI documents for hours of informative reading on the topic.]

      My point is that this work may meet the same fate: that some knee-jerk response by someone alarmed about the subject of the book may end up causing it to receive the same treatment as the Anarchist's Cookbook. This is clearly a more detailed professional work. If anything, that might scare some people even more.

      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  56. I for one, by Higaran · · Score: 1

    Welcome our new truck driveing, nuke makeing overlord. :P

  57. Detailed replica, not crude device. by veg_all · · Score: 1

    There's some misunderstanding here in these comments. I have his book and what he actually does is document painstaking research into the exact specs on all the bomb's parts down to the diameter of fasteners, etc. He didn't just create a template for a crude uranium-based device. The New Yorker published an interesting article about him in 2008.

    --
    grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
    1. Re:Detailed replica, not crude device. by veg_all · · Score: 1

      (sorry -correction, not "the bomb," but both bombs. That is little boy and fat man).

      --
      grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
  58. Not interested... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really wouldn't mind picking this up but I don't want to be put on the Government's watch list or the Do Not Fly list...

  59. I bought John's book a few years ago... by GeneralEmergency · · Score: 1

    ...and it is a f-a-c-i-n-a-t-i-n-g read.

    Probably one of the most interesting items in the book was about the first "weaponeer", a fellow who was present at the Trinity, Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonations charged with assembling, testing and arming the devices.

    Truly, a special place in history for that guy.

    --
    "A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
    GeneralEmergency
  60. Correction by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    Correction: implosion-type device will STILL go critical during the explosion. It just won't go supercritical and won't spend enough time in this state to generate sufficient amounts of heat for a large explosion.

    I.e. you'll get a nuclear fizzle.

  61. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I reconstructed the japanese tidal wave yesterday, minus the water...

  62. It's one this to lean the theory by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    Learning how to make the bomb and the theories of how it works is one thing. Actually making one that works is another. Sometimes there are little details that must be just right, but aren't readily apparent in the theories or drawings. The real world is not perfect theory.

    I remember hearing about the US government trying to update it's aging arsonal of nuclear weapons and having problems with a certain part. They had the schematic diagrams and knew the materials to make it out of, but it didn't work like the original parts did. The bomb would not work without the part, and we could no longer make the part. Some knowledge was lost over time. It could be something that the engineers at the time knew, but didn't document well enough, or the current material didn't match the original in some subtle but important way. Whatever the cause, it demonstrates that it isn't always as easy as it seems.

    I wish I could find some information on this on line. Perhaps my information is incorrect. If anyone is aware of what I am talking about, please give more details.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  63. Now we can blame BOOKS not Video Games! by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    I'm lookin at you, Tom Clancy! Sum of All Fears sound familiar?
    It seems that chapter explaining how to trigger the chain reaction was read by this *one* guy, who just happened to have picked up a hitchhiker who introduced him to the joys of reading. The guy told the driver NOT to read that chapter, which alas, made it more irresistible to read, like when I told my roommate, We're skipping this part where he slices the cop's ear off. Lo and behold that night said roommate kept hitting the BACK/FORWARD buttons on my remote.

    I hope this truck driver won't need to test it in real life, or have kids that play with hammers all day.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  64. The new weapon internals by the_hellspawn · · Score: 1

    The newer weapon internals are all about the size of a coke can. The rest of the weapon is all electronics ensuring it just don't go boom. Former A.F.S.F.

    --
    "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
  65. why is he a "former" truck driver? by BigGerman · · Score: 1

    Was he fired for lack of creativity?

  66. Re:One day I'll start actually reading headlines.. by trentblase · · Score: 1

    One day I'll start actually reading posts, not just flicking over them with my eyeballs on autopilot. I read "I read 'Former Truck Driver Reconstructs A Bomb'" and thought "So what? Isn't that exactly what the headline says?"

  67. Not just thinking required by Livius · · Score: 1

    "we had airliners for 30+ years before someone thought to use them as a weapon" ...and was successful in the attempt.

    Once upon a time there were hijackers who were refused a refuelling because they already had enough fuel for their alleged destination (Paris from North Africa) and the authorities saw through what they were trying.

  68. Imagine dating this guy's daughter by ddd0004 · · Score: 1

    You come over to meet him and he's not cleaning a firearm. He's double checking the fusing mechanism on his atomic bomb.

  69. I did too as a kid by pubwvj · · Score: 0

    Sure, I did too as a kid but I couldn't source one very, er, ahem, critical material. Back then, in 1978, the iron curtain hadn't fallen so the Russians weren't selling it on the black market, yet.

    Just kidding, of course, wait! No! Don't stomp my fingers Mr. Hoover! (Governments can be so sensitive about this stuff...)

  70. Don't forget the stories of them hand assembling a by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    core and irradiating themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  71. Isn't it great? by scdeimos · · Score: 1

    /sarcasm: I love to see current news like this on Slashdot and CNN.

    The interview video on the CNN page was only posted to YouTube nearly two years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xp4KNfBZ3w

  72. Are you quite sure... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    ...they didn't say, "Ni!" to you?

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  73. "Pwuffesuh HaiwyPheet" the dunce wannabe? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060

    (Hairyfeet's SUCH a dumbass, he doesn't know the diff. between STATICALLY ADDRESS IP BASED banners & DYNAMICALLY ADDRESSED ONES using host/domain names!)

    LOL, I mean, ok - listen to his b.s. ALL YOU WANT, but only AFTER you read the URL from this website above, lol!

    (He sure is a "big talker" though, isn't he? Ripping others' work but he can't show he's done better... & he CERTAINLY SHOWED he is a fuckup in his "tech know-how" above!)

    Another instance of his "big talking b.s." is here:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2029850&cid=35450222

    He says "automating McDonalds would be 'easy'" but he's NEVER DONE THAT... I have (one of the programmers for them, Boston Market, & Burger King's "bump bar" system).

    APK

    P.S.=> Just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'", but then again? "Pwuffesuh HaiwyPheet" is only an "ITT Tech Boy" techie... lol! apk

    1. Re:"Pwuffesuh HaiwyPheet" the dunce wannabe? LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  74. 35 years ago by Wolfling1 · · Score: 1

    There was a highly controversial issue of Electronics Australia that covered how to make a Gun-type A-Bomb using household materials, and basically converting a house into a big low yield A-Bomb. The literature had been around for years before that, but this article was contentious because it also had a detailed section on how to enrich the Uranium. At the time, I was only about 7, so I didn't understand most of it, and can only vaguely remember the details. Something to do with home-made ruby lasers, centrifuges and the differences between U-232 and U-235. It was fascinating to me at the time. I wonder if I could find an old copy of it at the local library.

  75. Hairyfeet will try libel me next, to that? This: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  76. Starship Enterprise by Gogogoch · · Score: 1

    This is just some guy's speculation. About as real as the plans for the Starship Enterprise that some people make. Or the drawings I did as an 11 year old of what was inside Steve Austin's bionic arm.

  77. Hairyfeet will libel me next: To THAT? See this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2062904&cid=35684474

    Nuff said, & THAT? That was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"

    APK

  78. JEWS view of others from their talmud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/2385ab653d66252/6cc421202f854b7b

    From their Talmud:

    #1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal."

    #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    #3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    #4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    #5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals."

    #6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

    #7. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    Raping 3 year old kids? My God! Jews are getting others in nations like the USA circumcized so they can hide inside by security by obscurity, so they cannot be identified as jews as they were in Nazi Germany, when they were asked months beforehand to leave, in a nation that was not theirs. They take control of areas like communications, the legal system, the political system, the medical trade, & more... just like any invading conqueror would, albeit, w/out firing a single shot from a weapon. Remember I didn't say it. They did. See above.

  79. Read this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/2385ab653d66252/6cc421202f854b7b

    There can be NO PEACE with an enemy that refuses to accept your right to exist by hairyfeet (841228) on Thursday March 31, @05:58PM (#35683258)

    From their Talmud:

    #1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal."

    #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    #3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    #4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    #5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals."

    #6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

    #7. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    Raping 3 year old kids, My God! Jews are getting others in nations like the USA circumcized so they can hide inside by security by obscurity, so they cannot be identified as jews as they were in Nazi Germany, when they were asked months beforehand to leave, in a nation that was not theirs. They take control of areas like communications, the legal system, the political system, the medical trade, and more. Just like any invading conqueror would, albeit, w/out firing a single shot from a weapon. Remember I didn't say it. They did. See above.

  80. Read this then about Jews and Goyim/Gentiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/2385ab653d66252/6cc421202f854b7b

    Islam is only ~750 years old. Give nature a little time to cull the crazies. by s4m7 (519684) on Thursday March 31, @08:52PM (#35684498) Homepage

    From their Talmud:

    #1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal."

    #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    #3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    #4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    #5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals."

    #6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

    #7. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    Raping 3 year old kids, My God! Jews are getting others in nations like the USA circumcized so they can hide inside by security by obscurity, so they cannot be identified as jews as they were in Nazi Germany, when they were asked months beforehand to leave, in a nation that was not theirs. They take control of areas like communications, the legal system, the political system, the medical trade, and more. Just like any invading conqueror would, albeit, w/out firing a single shot from a weapon. Remember I didn't say it. They did. See above.

  81. The Jew view of Goyim/Gentiles (others) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/2385ab653d66252/6cc421202f854b7b

    you can't have a dialog with someone whose faith teaches that you are less than human by crazyeddie740 (785275) on Thursday March 31, @08:51PM (#35684490)

    From their Talmud:

    #1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal."

    #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    #3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    #4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    #5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals."

    #6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

    #7. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    Raping 3 year old kids, My God! Jews are getting others in nations like the USA circumcized so they can hide inside by security by obscurity, so they cannot be identified as jews as they were in Nazi Germany, when they were asked months beforehand to leave, in a nation that was not theirs. They take control of areas like communications, the legal system, the political system, the medical trade, and more. Just like any invading conqueror would, albeit, without firing a single shot from a weapon. Remember I didn't say it. They did. See above.

    1. Re:The Jew view of Goyim/Gentiles (others) by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 1

      Ironically, the neo-Nazi helps demonstrate my point. Assuming that the neo-Nazi isn't horribly misquoting the Talmud, it does appear that Jews used teach that "gentiles are less than human," but they're getting along with modern democracy just as well as anybody else. Everybody's religious texts say some crazy shit, but we're mostly able to get on with life despite that. There is no reason to think that Muslims are any different.

  82. Most comments are a waste of time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA has Free Speech, but most commenters confuse Free Speech with nonsense. One even thought no Terrorists would want to kill himselfl. Well yes and no!. No 2 people have ever thought alike and never will because that's just the way biology works. Recently we have seen that Nuclear Power Plants are not safe on this planet. Yet people have all kinds of ideas about this, pro and con. Someday for some reason the earth will have no life, but trying to determine when that will be is beyond our ability to know. Whether it is easy or difficult to build an A Bomb is passe', it has already been done. We are just lucky! Lucky that we can build one, and lucky that only 2 have been used to kill people. When the third one blows is a good question. Why anyone would do it is a good question. To think that no one will do it requires idiot thinking. That leads to my point. Talking about it will have no effect if someone decides to use one. After that point, if someone stills lives they will talk about it also, but it won't change the fact it was done. In the meantime, maybe we should talk about how we can get along better!

  83. I am not a neo nazi and experience racism myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been called commie because I have ukrainian in me for my entire life for starters and my grandparents whom I loved (dead now) were in Hitlers labor camps. So don't call me nazi please. 2 of my best friends ever in my life were Jews. The stuff I posted broke my friggin' heart if you want to know because one jew pal of mine didn't deny it but he said he didn't follow that stuff and it was out of the talmud in fact himself. I believed him until I rescanned those points from other sources to verify them and saw the one where it says:

    7. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    and

    4. Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."

    and

    5. Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."

    and

    12. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    specifically.

    After that, from their own talmud how could I believe them?

    Here is the rest of what I found for your reference also:

    http://www.waylanderskeep.com/2009/12/jewish-talmud-quotes/

    1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

    4. Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."

    5. Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will violate this order shall be put to death."

    6. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    7. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    8. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

    9. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

    10. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

    11. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

    12. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    13. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    14. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

    15. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

    16. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    17. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

    18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

    19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish

  84. devil is in the details. by ResidentSourcerer · · Score: 1

    Refining bomb grade material is hard.

    The bomb material has to fit together well. Small discrepencies lower the yield drastically.

    Plutonium is very hard to machine. The turnings are extremely toxic, and they are flamable. I think they machined the bomb chunks in an oil bath.

    One of the two, don't remember which, has multiple crystal structures, and it spontaneously changes from one crystal form to another depending on the temperature. To prevent this, it has to be alloyed. But you have to choose an alloying material that doesn't interfere with the nuclear reaction too much.

    For the implosion type bomb, you have to have precisely shaped explosives -- two different ones, that assemble into a sphere wrapping the hollow sphere of bomb material. These explosives have to be precisely shaped, and be very uniform in shockwave transmission speed. Then you have to set them off at exactly the right time so that they assemble a shock wave that is spherical, directed inward. If using 20,000 fps explosives, and you want a shock wave that is round to within a quarter inch, then the timing has to be uniform to within about a microsecond. This isn't easy.

    I don't worry about terrorists assembling their own bomb.

    --
    Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
  85. "Pwuffesuh HaiwyPheet" impersonating me now as AC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Impersonating me also? Please... To that I post this disproving it & more:

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740

    From the post yesterday where I blew you away, for libelling me, stalking & trolling me there too... hilarious - you made BestBuy Tech level mistakes by the TRUCKLOAD too (heck, their techies "blow your doors out" by comparison).

    APK

    P.S.=> People can read, I'll let THEM decide... after all, I put up concrete, visible & verifiable FACTS (& I didn't impersonate you to do it as you have me hairyfeet - using 1 of the "last resorts" of TROLLS!)... apk

  86. Re:"Pwuffesuh HaiwyPheet" impersonating me now as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a smelly jew who thinks that any post making fun of me must be from a single entity, and is too stupid (likely a nigger as well?) to post non-anonymously to prevent people from impersonating me.

    APK

  87. Re:I am not a neo nazi and experience racism mysel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nazi.

  88. LOL - hairyfeet resorts to the "troll last resort" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trying to "impersonate me", lol! Talk about showing me that the list below of all your technical screwups, is "getting to you" hairyfeet - YOU ONLY DID THAT, to yourself, see below!

    These "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):

    ---

    Static vs. Dynamic (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060

    ---

    Only thing constantly changing's your "math", 3x ++ or more no less:

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686444

    and

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686566

    as well as this:

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686630

    ---

    Hairyfeet's single solutions FAILURES? See inside:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260

    ---

    Your sources vs. mine (AND myself, a source on it):

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328

    ---

    Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):

    http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740

    ---

    The defeat of hairyfeet by APK videos:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536

    ---

    They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted!

    APK

    P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' benefits to the end-user: Why? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you, he's out money... PLUS, lastly? What is all this "jew" & "nigger" racist stuff? I am not of jewish faith OR african descent (assuming that's what you meant) - again: This only shows that the facts above, are "getting to you" & YOU ONLY DID THAT TO YOURSELF, hairyfeet, nobody else... apk

  89. what a crappy headline... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    It makes it sound like he built himself a bomb, where as he was the first to properly document making a bomb, which is a big difference, because I am sure there are still things missing, that you would only know once you created one, like how many times you can wipe your nose, before it starts to bleed because you forgot said protection to handle plutonium etc....

    I guess, this is one of those stories that propagates itself (who sent it out there...the feds?)...to the point that it peaks interest in the right people that you want to catch and log, and then follow for your terrorist paper trail.......anyways, I don't think it is such an accomplishment, the accomplishment would be how to get the materials needed seeing as they are all being monitored.