At 03:26 PM 1/10/01 -0800, you wrote:
>Well, actually, there's density--or atomic weight, if
>you will. Now of course, lead shielding is quite
>likely to screw this up--but the lead shielding would
>have only some easily penetrable covering--wood, thin
>metal, etc.--both of which can be "seen through" with
>current technologies, though mind you I'm not saying
>that can (or can't) be done by satellite. Simply
>detecting lead shielding would be a tip-off, depending
>upon context. So, just to throw another wild Q--might
>it be possible to pick it up that way--detection of
>heavy elements in unusual places? Some tech analogous
>to GPR, perhaps? (Though yes, I realize GPR itself is
>unsuitable.)
>
>john marlow
Density is easily foxed - simply support the bomb, and it's shielding,
inside a larger container such that the density of the whole thing is
within expected ranges.
We have whole-truck X-ray systems now - did you see the radiograph of the
truck in Europe that had a secret compartment with smuggled illegal aliens
in the back? It was in the papers here recently...
Neutron activation can detect elements - that's one way of detecting nitro
based explosives, from the nitrogen return signals (gamma?)
Terahertz "radar" can see through dielectric materials, but would be
useless against a steel container...
The biggest problem is that for any present tech, there are ways of masking
or swamping out the characteristics which shout "nuke".
Chuck Kuecker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:18 MDT