From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Jun 08 2003 - 20:46:46 MDT
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Non-weapon isotopes act as neutron absorbers.
Ok, I think I understand this and it is a good point.
So, with respect to weapons that have a "critical mass",
the degree of enrichment is very important.
> 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. 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.
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.
I agree that it may take time. But terrorists have plenty of that.
> 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?
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 08 2003 - 20:56:48 MDT