How To Safeguard Loose Nukes

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday February 20, 2013 @02:54PM from the in-the-wrong-hands dept.

Lasrick writes "The Bulletin has an interesting article about the likelihood of terrorists obtaining nuclear material. 'Since 1993, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has logged roughly 2,000 cases of illicit or unauthorized trafficking of nuclear and radioactive material. Thirty illicit radioactive trafficking incidents were reported in the former Soviet region alone from 2009 to 2011. As Obama said in December, "Make no mistake, if [terrorists] get [nuclear material], they will use it."'"

18 of 167 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The real worry is 3D printing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 14:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Soon, with the whole periodic table available in one giant print cartridge, people will be able to 3D print nuclear weapons. If someone manages to download plans for the Tsar Bomba, we're cooked.
Obama also said he would close Gitmo by e065c8515d206cb0e190 · 2013-02-20 14:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Seriously, what's the point of that Obama quote?
1. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by c0lo · 2013-02-20 15:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Seriously, what's the point of that Obama quote?
  "Be afraid, be very afraid! That all you need to know" - seems like a good point to me (even if it's not necessary good for me or, for the matter, for the rest of about 7 billions with the exception of the people in power).
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
2. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by girlintraining · 2013-02-20 15:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Seriously, what's the point of that Obama quote?
  To continue the fascade that a bunch of people who kick it out in the desert and shoot their guns in the air at weekend training camps are evil because they're muslims or whatever, as opposed to people who kick it up in the woods and shoot their guns in the air at weekend training camps here, but aren't? Just a thought.
  I'm sure there are terrorists out there... but I'm also reasonably sure they are so few in number as to not be a serious threat. Even if a 9/11 happened every year, it wouldn't be serious, in terms of economic damage and loss of life. However, there are legions of people who have been labelled as such because it's the only way to justify spending trillions of dollars... I mean, what if there were only 300 terrorists in the whole world. What then? We spend a trillion dollars to "contain" them... when we really ought to just pay them 3 billion dollars each to move to a secluded island and live out their remaining days in luxury. Bonus: It would be cheaper than what we've been doing so far...
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
3. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by girlintraining · 2013-02-20 16:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Hint: they don't want luxury and they don't want peace, until their flags are flying over all corners of the civilized world and their ideas about Islam (not just any brand of Islam either) dominate.
  Three billion dollars buys a lot of change in thinking. You can get a Congressman to sell his soul for a lot less.
  
  They are America's sworn enemies. We can't wish or negotiate that away, we have to defend ourselves. And the best defense is a good offense. That's why Obama's administration deserves huge props for taking out Bin Laden. That's how it's done, Dubya. That's how it must always be done.
  Yes! We must bomb them! shoot them! Drop nukes! At a cost of many trillions of dollars! Because they don't want money! They don't want to be rich! They're poor, living in mud huts in the desert, and don't wanna change! Not ever! Not one single one! So passionate is their belief, they would happily choose suicide over spending the rest of their days rolling in hundred dollar bills naked! YES! I BELIEVE YOU!
  Also, your fly is down.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
4. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by lesincompetent · 2013-02-20 21:48 · Score: 3
  
  To continue the fascade that a bunch of people who kick it out in the desert and shoot their guns in the air at weekend training camps are evil because they're muslims or whatever[...]
  Yes. They are (doing) evil (things) because of their religion. Like some christians. Religion is the problem here.
  
  Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
  -Steven Weinberg
As Obama said in December, by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 15:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Make no mistake, if [terrorists] get [nuclear material], they will use it."
This coming from the world's biggest terrorist, the Drone Ranger
Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 15:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

People need to stop conflating radioactive materials and nuclear weapons. The only 3 isotopes that matter for nuclear weapons are U-233, U-235, and Pu-239. These are the fissile nuclides. Get enough of these together and you can level a city. Contrast this with any dirty bomb material. If you get enough of that together and blow it up, you've simply provided contractors with 3 months of decontamination work with pressure washers. Not the same thing.
1. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by thesupraman · 2013-02-20 15:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And dont forget, it better be a pretty damn small city, and you need a way to get the (not small...) bomb to correct altitude, AND it would have to work..
  It would probably be much more effective, and one hell of a lot easier to mail what ever fissile material you have to the local media, claiming to have a bomb...
2. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by Mr.+Slippery · 2013-02-20 15:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Contrast this with any dirty bomb material. If you get enough of that together and blow it up, you've simply provided contractors with 3 months of decontamination work with pressure washers.
  "The Federation of American Scientists...says a bomb made using just one piece of radioactive cobalt [of the sort used in food irradiation] could make [New York] city uninhabitable for decades, and seriously contaminate one thousand square kilometres of the states of New Jersey, Connecticut and New York."
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
3. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by Bomazi · 2013-02-20 16:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Neptunium-237 is weapon-usable as well.
4. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:28 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I read that and I find that rather stupid. I'll tell you why.
  You see, I just spent part of this week getting a new Cobalt-60 source exactly like is described in the article installed in the facility where I work. 2500 Curies. You definitely don't want to be around it when it is exposed. If you were to steal it, grind it up, and evenly dust it over a thousand square kilometers, you'd have 2.5 Ci per sq kilometer, or 2.5 microCuries per square meter, or about 3700 dpm/m^2.
  Just so that you know, the typical standard of cleanliness when cleaning up an area which has been exposed to a Co-60 spill is about 200 dpm per 100 cm^2, or about 20000 dpm/m^2. In other words, the dirty bomb scenario described in the paper would be barely within the limits of detection, and if someone performed a contamination test, the area would register as "clean".
  Now, of course, in real life the dust would not be spread evenly, but then we aren't talking 1000 sq km as the article said, now are we? In real life, it would also be fairly easy to clean up as well, at least to a livable standard.
  I get really tired of dealing with all the locks, alarm systems, etc. that are now required just to have one of these sources on site. I totally understand and approve safety precautions like interlocks, etc. But having to get a key to unlock the key box to get the other key that unlocks the bunker where the source is, when it takes 12 hours to install or remove the source, just so that phantom terrorists don't steal it is a daily pain in my ass.
Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by confused+one · 2013-02-20 15:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

If we didn't keep building nukes, forcing other countries to keep building nukes to compete....
We haven't built any new nuclear weapons in decades. In fact, we've been gradually decomissioning them, in step with Russia, as we reach new treaty agreements.
Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by NalosLayor · 2013-02-20 15:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

How many nuclear weapons do you think the US has built in the last twenty years? Hint: It's zero.
Sane foreign policy... by Darkness404 · 2013-02-20 15:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

The US needs to adopt sane foreign policy, our entire stance on nuclear weapons is this mythical idea that no country other than allies of the US can reproduce an invention from the 1940s. If a third-world country wants to be assured that it won't be invaded by the US, it needs to have nuclear weapons.

Consider the different attitude the US has when discussing negotiations with nuclear-armed states and states without nuclear weapons. Nuclear-armed states are treated with much more respect and resort to diplomacy rather than outright invasion.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
1. Re:Sane foreign policy... by khallow · 2013-02-20 18:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In some cases, some cultures are completely alien to another.
  It's worth noting that none of the cultures you mention count. There's two problems that people often don't get about nukes. One is the crazy person with nukes. For whatever reason, including the above mentioned "completely alien" culture, you could have someone far more willing to use nukes than you would expect.
  
  Another is extremely short decision time frames. There are countries which because they are near one another, have only a few minutes to decide whether some blips on a screen (or the equivalent) are either innocuous (could be flaws in the detector hardware, rocket test, whatever) or the end of their civilization. The faster this decision needs to be made, the more likely it is that someone makes a bad choice, such as launching a retaliatory strike.
  
  Proliferation increases the chances that either of the above potential problems becomes an actual problem that kills lots of people.
Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by anagama · 2013-02-20 15:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree with the idea that America can't survive another terrorist attack -- I don't mean of course, the political entity, I mean the ideals America is supposed to be built on -- things like privacy, the right to a fair trial before the government kills you or executes you, the right to travel ... you know, freedom.
In fact, if you really think about it, it seems we didn't survive 9/11.
And of course, 80% of the populace likes it this way.
What will be interesting is whether after the next terrorist attack -- there will be one because it is completely impossible to prevent every such possible instance of terrorism -- is whether we will just overtly shift into police state mode. The unitary executive theory will sure prove handy to whoever is president at that time.

--
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Obama catch phrases by phantomfive · 2013-02-20 15:53 · Score: 4, Funny

"Make no mistake" is what Obama says so you'll think he's serious. When he tells someone they're wrong, he says, "let me be clear." "It will not be easy" means you should vote for him (the voting booth is just down the street, you can do it!), and when he says, "here's the deal" who knows what it means.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."