dead horse for most, But does anyone believe in the Missing nukes from Russia. I have been reading up on shit. I know people say they should come from more credible sourses but what you define as credible may be what The Government wants you to think. You tell me who is credible? Yes, I listen to Art Bell. Yes Art Bell sells ad time, books, t-shirts but then again so does CNN. Yes Art goes off tangent at times but Im more interested in his guest then himself.

One guy who was former CIA was on his show saying he had inside information that when the WTC attacks occured that bush was scrambled into AF1 and they were informed that the terrorist may have purchased as many as 10-15 "Suitcase bombs". is this just a silly little rumor? When former members of the KGB swear by God that they know for a fact that these are unaccountable and that much of the Black Market in Russia is controlled by hardliners of the Communist party trying to bring back the Glory days of Communism.

I think people believe what they are told to. and if you question these you are snubbed like the geek at the frat party.

Why havnt the terrorist used such a device in New York City? maybe they are waiting for the perfect time. A time when America becomes comfortable with itself and lets its guard down.

do we care, no? please go away

You do realise how blindingly easy it is to build a nuclear bomb right?

Yeah, but those are what they call "dirty".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wintermute:
You do realise how blindingly easy it is to build a nuclear bomb right?

---

its not knowing how its getting the materials. Im told it takes 215 differect types of radioactive materials like plutonium, uranium, and every other known thing radioactive as well as creating an emplosion device. i dont think its that easy. If it was that easy you would think at least one psycho with a IQ above 140 would have built one and used it by now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quandary:
do we care, no? please go away

---

i love you. lets be friends.

actually those with a few grand and some physics knowledge can do it. materials are a non issue becasue there is a blck market for it. the dificulty is getting the machinery. nukes have to be built to precise specs or they wont funtion. the plutonium in the center must be perfectly round and the soccerball shaped platic explosive must also be cut to specific sizes and densities. the problem is making it if you dont have the correct equipment and good phyics/chem knowledge

Have you seen designs for the "bullet method" Uranium 235 bomb...?

It is extremly simple...

"It is not answers you seek, but more questions."

I could tell you how to build 3 different types of nuke off the top of my head, none of which is that hard..

uranium, or uranium and plutonium, and some conventional explosives works, as does the "bullet" method someone above mentioned..

It's easy, all you gotta do is start a chain reaction, ie get the amount of radioactive material above critical mass..

And no, it doesn't take that many types of radioactive material to build a nuclear bomb.. why would it? that doesn't make any sense at all.

oh yeah, 215 different radioactive materials, it�s extremly simple, and all you gotta do is start a chain reaction ...

This is so funny, really.

i do not give a fuck because i do not live in america anyway you need either one of these to get them to blow up in america as we all know the people who has them wants to do:
A:a missile silo
B:a scud missile lauch truck(or what evr they call it)
C:and most popular taliban weapon al'quida slam and bang missile (this is 4 dudes with cardboard cuters who hijack a plane and actevate the nuke while crashing it somewhere)
D:some asshole running into the white house i've got a bomb i've got bomb BBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!

Ugh. Misconceptions:

"popular taliban weapon al'quida slam and bang missile", huh? Appaling. There's no proof that the Taliban or even anyone Islamic had anything at all to do with those 'terrorist' attacks. The Taliban isn't any international terrorist organization. It is (was) the official ruling government of Afghanistan, that WE the united states PUT there in the cold war. In addition, they have nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden's Al Quida terrorist network other than not killing them all on the spot. IN ADDITION, Mr. Osama himself was PUT in a position of power by US, the united states, during the cold war. Do you sense a pattern developing, here? All, count them, ALL of the pieces of identification that were magically "found", with no explanation, were admitted to be forged. This means that someone only wanted us to think the terrorists were militant Islamics. Why would they bother to do this if they already were?

Think about it.

The sad fact is I haven't seen any indication that the entire american public isn't being played for a batch of fools. I suggest you do a little thinking on your own and perhaps learn a bit of the truth before you spew your CNN propaganda here. I find it appaling that so many can harbor such blind rage and suspicion without any actual proof of the situation.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this entire nuke debacle was staged (Remember the incicent with the 'terrorists' in mexico? Didn't think so, because the news media didn't want everyone to know it was staged and botched as well.) to garner public support for removing the freedoms of the american citizens in the name of the 'war on terror'.

Why does any of this matter? Why is good old George Dubya so interested in expanding his war against this so-called 'axis of evil'? Oil, my friends. Oil and greed.

Hogwash.

~Zero the Inestimable

This post is so great, I only wish we had a forum to discuss such brilliant thoughts. I'm sorry tr0g, I hope your prostate surgery went well, I'll call you tonite.

take care,

Lokil

well come on over lokil and we can meditate and massage each others prostate.

well, You can use the 5 finger glove and i will use the one finger one

zero use your brain for something besides what daddy says anyway for people who did use their brains saw clearly that was a joke people who did not well zero is your example

The depth of your ignorance is unfathomable.

Why do you persist in dogging me and tacking utterly worthless nonsense onto every post I make?

Go on, shoo.

~Zero the Inestimable

About how easy it is to make the Nuc:

firstly, the uranium is not the hard bit. Its the enrichment process. Noone without a few million is gonna be able to build/buy the gas separator that is required.

Even if you do get it black maket, the "initiator", or the device that starts the initial chain recation still has to be built. This is made of two different, VERY VERY rare metals, ( I think one is Paladium) which are watched far closer than the uranium itself, by the CIA, FBI, MI6 etc.

without the initiaor, the bomb will NOT explode.

But even then you haven't got to the hard bit. The hard bit is not how to make the bomb itself, it's how to get the fluid dynamics of the thing working correctly. Once the thing initiates, it has to be designed so that the chain reaction spreads in exactly the right way, or it all goes pear shaped. The Manhatten project had designed the first nuclear weapon a full year before they set it off, the delay was caused by them not being able to overcome the turbulance and fluid flow problems that meant that iot wouldn't fire once it was triggered.

Still think its easy Wintermute?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RipSlider:
About how easy it is to make the Nuc:
...
( I think one is Paladium)

---

oh yes, of course you have a clue how eazzzzzzzzey it is to make a the NUC

Where did you pull this "initiator" bull from?

That's nothing but movie foolishness. All you need to cause the explosion is to get enough uranium in one place (critical mass) and hold it there for a few milliseconds. You could, if you were quite insane, take two hemispehres of uranium whose masses add up to critcal mass and smack them together with your own two hands and you'd have one small nuclear explosion.

The hardest part of all of this is keeping the critical mass from blowing itself apart before it releases its full potential.

~Zero the Inestimable

Without an initiator, the uranium will not go super critical. Simple as that.

"Assembling a critical mass by firing one piece of fissionable material at another is an obvious idea and was the first approach developed for designing atomic bombs. But it is probably not obvious how you take two subcritical masses and obtain the equivalent of three critical masses by bringing them together. "

"This can be made clear by conducting a thought-experiment. Imagine a spherical pit made up of about three critical masses of fissionable material. Now remove a core (like an apple core) from the pit with a mass slightly less than critical. Since the center of the pit is now hollow, its effective density has been reduced to 2/3 of the original density. Since we now have two critical masses remaining in the pit, and the reduction in density leads to a further reduction of (2/3)^2 = 4/9, the pit now contains only 2*(4/9) = 8/9 of a critical mass."

"The two sub-critical pieces can be brought together by firing the cylindrical core down a gun barrel into the center of the hollowed-out pit. The insertion time is large - over 1 millisecond. This is the design used in Little Boy, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (except that a slightly less efficient squat cylinder was used, rather than a spherical pit). "

"The primary advantage of gun assembly is simplicity. It is as close to a fool-proof design as ordinance technology allows."

"The drawbacks are:
a. the lack of compression, which requires large amounts of fissionable material, and leads to low efficiency;
b. only uranium-235 (and possibly U-233) can be used due to the slow insertion speed;
c. the weight and length of the gun barrel makes the weapon heavy and fairly long."


Google search...two minutes... initiator?

"It is not answers you seek, but more questions."

Modern nukes are dual hollow hemispheres that are compressed into critical mass with explosives. All nukes, more or less, use the same amount of fissionable material. The "power" of the nuke is simply determined by how the material is brought together, how well it is compressed, and how long it can be held there.

~Zero the Inestimable

its funny watching you guys argue. Lets face it. if it was fucking easy as pie someone somewhere would have done it. and its never been done outside of the few hundred demonstrations under the control of Russia, USA, China, France, India and Pakistan. maybe canada i dont know. Still no one has done it. There are millions of people on this planet or at least a few ten thousand or so who would do it if they could but it cant be that easy if one single Terrorist or crazy fuck has done it yet. in the last 60 years no one has ever built a nuke in their fucking garage. so dont tell me it is doable guys. Sure someone can buy a nuke off the black market today and its a matter of time. and a hell of a lot easier then a homemade one. except that stupid dirty bomb, no one will ever make a fucking nuke.

Well, call me once you come up with some plastic explosives for the compression and four and a half pounds of weapons grade uranium.

~Zero the Inestimable