From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 10:40:28 MDT
--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but how many terrorist groups have massive automated
> > facilities to play with?
>
> Granted... But who *really* knows what is going on in the mountains
> of Chechnya? We are all aware of Cheyenne Mountain.
Cheyenne Mountain has never had a nuke anywhere near it, nor isotope
processing technology.
> But how many
> of us are aware of deep tunnels around Moscow to protect the Soviet
> elite? I am not certain they exist as I've only heard hints about
> this but I do have some experience with how the Russians operated
> and could easily believe they exist. If one has an opportunity
> to view the Moscow City subway one has an awareness of what
> is possible -- it makes the NY City subway look like an effort
> of children playing with toys.
Actually, there is a second subway in Moscow just for the elites.
>
> I will freely grant that terrorists may currently lack the capital
> resources to do something like this currently. But then we get
> into a question of how long that may be true? And with tons
> of raw material floating around on the open market it is rather
> a serious question.
We all saw the flap about aluminum tubes shipped to Iraq. Our intel
said it was precise enough to use in isotope processing. UNAEA said
otherwise. I think it is rather obvious that there is so much close
tolerance machinery and equipment needed to process isotopes for
weapons work that odds are for detection via monitoring of trade rather
than against. So long as we keep looking.
>
> I agree that it may take time. But terrorists have plenty of that.
No doubt, but there is a limit. With spybots getting smaller and
smaller, there will be a day, probably within a decade, when artificial
ants will detect and disarm rogue nukes without their owners even
suspecting.
>
>
> > The real threat we can't deal with is some group hacking together a
> > nuke in their mountain cave redoubt.
>
> Ok, we generally agree here -- but hacking together a dirty bomb
> requires much less cleverness than a critical-mass nuclear bomb.
>
> > The problem they deal with is also the amount of radiation they put
> > out to the environment increasing the risk of their detection.
>
> I would generally agree, but I suspect that the shielding isn't
> that difficult to attain. How many governments monitor the
> purchasing of lead for example?
Lead is monitored in mass quantities in many countries, but overt
monitoring is not important. Intel agencies know who deals in lead and
can monitor bank transactions of such enterprises. One of the good
things (and bad things) of the Patriot Act is that it makes it easier
for intel agencies to monitor trade in strategic materials more easily
without the knowledge of the traders.
Lead doesn't protect against venting of radioactive dust to the
atmosphhere or water to the river systems.
The only real concern with this sort of passive detection is that areas
that burn lots of coal have a significant mask of radioactive isotopes
due to those naturally present in coal being released by smoke plumes
to the environment. I'd focus more active detection methods in such areas.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 10:52:30 MDT