Wikileaks Releases Early Atomic Bomb Diagram 429
An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks has released a diagram of the first atomic weapon, as used in the Trinity test and subsequently exploded over the Japanese city of Nagasaki, together with an extremely interesting scientific analysis. Wikileaks has not been able to fault the document or find reference to it elsewhere. Given the high quality of other Wikileaks submissions, the document may be what it purports to be, or it may be a sophisticated intelligence agency fraud, designed to mislead the atomic weapons development programs of countries like Iran. The neutron initiator is particularly novel. 'When polonium is crushed onto beryllium by explosion, reaction occurs between polonium alpha emissions and beryllium leading to Carbon-12 & 1 neutron. This, in practice, would lead to a predictable neutron flux, sufficient to set off device.'"
Slashdot Please Stop (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not news to say "Hey look wikileaks has XXX up". People can goto wikileaks themselves and see without you guys posting it like its real news.
Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cheers,
*Yawn* (Score:5, Insightful)
Oooookay then.... (Score:1, Insightful)
This probably isn't going to go down well in these parts - but there are some people out there who really don't need any more encouragement in this direction than they already have. Surely this is the engineering equivalent of child porn...
Any publicity is not always good publicity (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect that this is going to get Wikileaks a lot of publicity, but I think it may be harmful publicity-- whenever they try to claim that they're doing a useful service, people are now going to point at this and say "yeah, and also publishing plans for weapons."
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oooookay then.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Oooookay then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having the schematics is a nice start, but even if you manage to collect the components, handle the components safely and actually construct something similar to the Fat Man, you end up with an ENORMOUS device that is relatively weak compared to the nuclear devices of today. Your going to have trouble sneaking this monstrosity, say, through the Holland tunnel into NYC.
Now, schematics for a suitcase nucleur device made from readily available and cheap components... that would raise my eyebrows.
Re:Oooookay then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The design is over 50yrs old. Sheesh.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Possession is not equivalent to proliferation. As long as the US isn't trying to sell the tech to other countries, I don't see the hypocrisy in this particular instance. Maybe the US is doing just that, I don't know.
No, I agree. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Slashdot love for Wikileaks seems childish and immature. I understand that "information wants to be free" and that "censorship is bad", but I think we need to recognize that there is a limit to the healthy release of this sort of information. There's a reason you can't find this kind of material in a library, and it's not because they want to "repress your thoughts" or make you into a "(insert favorite conspiracy theory here) drone".
Obviously we would have little problems if these were plans for a gun instead of a nuclear device, and both kill people. But it seems like we should exercise some judgment before we decide that all information about everything should be available to all people all the time. "Woah! Cool! Nuclear Weapons plans! I bet we'd get a lot of press if we released THOSE!" seems like poor justification for wanting to distribute material of this kind.
I'm uncomfortable with this, and I'm sure others are too. There's a difference between sharing with P2P, sharing scientific information, and sharing nuclear weapons plans, especially on a site called "Wikileaks". The first I can justify by saying, "Lots of good stuff is shared on P2P". The first I second justify by saying, "Although these journals may technically hold the copyright on this information, the American people paid for it and it's ultimately good to release scientific information to the public." The third is ultimately pretty tough to justify. If Wikileaks was instead a book about "Engineering the World War" and parts of the plans were released to diagram how the allies used particular types of circuitry, I think I'd be okay with it. But simply releasing plans like this for no other reason than attention whoring seems at best like an incredibly severe lapse in judgement. And I'm ashamed to be part of a community that is supporting it.
Re:Oooookay then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of what they put out has a rightful place to enable anonymous whistleblowing. However they seem to be unable to discriminate between something that is rightful and something that is completely wrong. They will eventually find themselves far far on the wrong side of the law and will disappear. The shame in that is that the route for anonymous whistleblowing will then have been removed due to their inability to make good judgements.
Re:Sounds like a short-lifed design (Score:5, Insightful)
In practice (I'm no expert, but this is the internet!) when you take the serviceability of weapons, missiles, communications, bunkers and all the other pieces into account, I'd be surprised if more that 1/4 of any major nuclear force could be launched on any particular day, unless there was a lot of build up time to get all the parts reassembled and tested. Just look at how long it takes to get a satellite launch vehicle or the scuttle ready to go.
That does lead to the rather worrying question of just how many nukes are in transit between their SILOs and the (re)manufacturing facilities on any given day.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oooookay then.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Any publicity is not always good publicity (Score:2, Insightful)
Just something to worry about
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Proliferation is how others come into possession. Banning proliferation is saying "we can have X but you can't", which is not a stance that carries any moral weight.
Under the NPT, the nuclear nations had an obligation to work seriously toward disarmament. They chose to ignore it, and at this point, it's too late for nonproliferation. Everyone will have the bomb within fifty years.
I think the best end result we can hope for is every nation with just one or two nuclear weapons as a deterrent, and an international agreement that any government to engage in first use of WMD becomes the enemy of the world and loses its sovereignty.
Re:Oooookay then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, you mean a mostly artificially manufactured boogie-man, the mere mention of which instantly trumps any reasoned debate? Then yes, it probably is that.
I don't really get your "encouragement" argument, though. Do you really think some totalitarian dictator of a god-forsaken country is going to roll out of bed one morning, see this, and go "Whelp, time to start a 20 year plutonium enrichment program"?
This information is nothing new to anyone with any kind of semblance of the resources necessary to make any use of it.
Re:Analysis of WIkiLeaks' action (Score:4, Insightful)
The hard part of making a nuclear weapon is getting the raw materials and the means to shape them precisely enough.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, I agree. (Score:2, Insightful)
We might pompously sound off about "using judgement" yada yada, but the simple fact is that if anyone (say a born-again christian jihadist, for the sake of an inflammatory example) wanted to kill a lot of people in one go, there are plenty of easier and cheaper means available to do so.
My personal interest in the document (if genuine) is in its historical aspect, more particularly in the context of showing part of the process - from the engineers' point of view, in the context of contemporary procedures and technology - in the design of this bomb.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is probably from a Russian spy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The world and its dog knows that it is Be + Alpha emitter. In fact, the first time I read it was in high school.
Po is not the only option here. Ra will also work, so will a few others. In fact if anything makes me doubt this document is exactly this. The Hirosima and Nagasaki bombs were manufactured before the radioactive isotope industry came online. In those years everything was geared towards plutonium and U235. Very few resources were devoted to other stuff. So I would have expected to see Ra there, not Po because Ra was retrieved as a byproduct of the mining and did not require special manufacturing. IIRC the Kurchatov's first Russian bomb was with a Ra/Be initiator, not Po/Be.
Re:Oooookay then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well..
Beware of the trinity : KNOWLEDGE, MEANS, and INTENT.
In order to do anything, you must have knowledge, means, and intent. There are plenty of governments with the intent on making an impression on the global political front by any means necessary including posing a nuclear threat. Some of those governments have the means to accomplish this and lack the knowledge, while others may have the knowledge but not the means.
The trick to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is to keep the government with the means from being able to cooperate with the governments with the knowledge, especially when they both share the same intent. This means trying to limit the flow of information, funding, and materials using any means necessary.
Nice job of trivializing the need for secrecy by equating the information to build a nuclear weapon with child pornography.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets consider a simpler example... I am a gun owner who is very pro-gun and support the second amendment... does that mean I'm a hypocrite because I am all for the barring of certain people from legally owning firearms?
In this country we limit the rights of certain people... such as minors and felons, people who we as an ordered society have deemed either not yet mature enough to handle the responsibility or have shown themselves to be irresponsible through the commission (and conviction) of a very serious crime.
The same thing is seen when the United States (and others) try to stop other countries from developing/processing nuclear weapons. We don't do it arbitrarily and say "Nyeh, we want to be the only ones with the bomb"... instead we do it to generally unstable nations who are less likely to act responsibly with it.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War [wikipedia.org]
Re:Analysis of WIkiLeaks' action (Score:5, Insightful)
wait, lets go thru those 1 by 1. New nuke design: I you have the resources to make it, getting a design for free is just a little bonus, so who cares. Plans to invade Iran/Korea: The US has plans when it invades places? seriously tho if the US invades Iran or North Korea, that would be bad and wrong, I hope any plans are exposed, the US shouldn't do it. Defense of Taiwan plans: lets be brualy honest, the plan is: fuck 'em, let the chinks take it.
ok ok, seriously, joking aside. The answer to all these is basiclly this: Do you not think that if someone can hand these to wikileaks, they could and would sell it the chinese just as easily? Wikileaks exposes not just the data, but the insecurity of the system.
What would you prefer:
Scallywag gives Tiawan defence plans to wikileaks, controversy ensues, generals get kicked in the balls for poor security, plans are rewritten, security tightened. US happy.
OR
Traitor gives Tiawan defence plan to Chinese, US doesn't know, wallows in self satisfaction, US gets pwned.
As for police roit control plans, they should be released, fact is if an angry mob is about to go on the rampage, some nerd isn't going to pop up his head in the middle and say 'quick everyone down this street, the police will be waiting if we go that way' and have the crowd follow. However, if the police plan to use it against a peaceful protest, then the people ought to know how the police plan on attacking them so they can avoid being oppressed. And if the plan involves beating down and teargassing people who aren't doing anything wrong, people ought to know.
As the a drug raid, two words: Legalise It.
Personal secrets, now theres a lamo one. Do you think this stuff wouldn't be published by newspapers? If the government is going to stick thier noses into our lives they should expect the same. Don't want it to get out out you banged your secretary? shouldn't have banged her then. Personally, I like to hear about it when politicians fuck underage kids, or if they have a secret diary full of racist comments. I think its generally a good thing to know if the people who make our laws are liars, or racists or paedophiles.
Also, may I add, one final note, warning someone the pigs are after them is not obstructing justice.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Only on slashdot can someone claim that 2 wrongs make a right and get modded "insightful".
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Any publicity is not always good publicity (Score:-1, Insightful)
In a fission reactor, worst case if you have graphite-moderated core is Chernobyl - a conventional "pop" (well, when compared to a nuclear explosion, it's barely a pop...) that can blow open the core, and then a nasty little fire that releases radioactive fission products into the environment. If your reactor is water-moderated, you get Three Mile Island - a pile of nasty radioactive slag at the bottom of your containment vessel. Since the maximum possible amount of energy in that slag can be calculated relatively easily, it's simple to construct a containment vessel that, well, CONTAINS the results of a catastrophic melt-down, such as happened at TMI.
Making nukes that go BOOM is theoretically simple, such that someone with literally an elementary level of knowledge might THINK they could do it.
But in reality, the engineering is nearly impossible - tolerances for event timing are in nanoseconds. Another problem is that even a very small fraction of the energy released in just the beginning of the chain reaction is enough to obliterate your bomb before the rest of the energy is generated.
And I just worked on nuclear reactors, but from what I know about them it's not too hard to infer just some of the problems with using the same materials to make a nuclear bomb.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of non-proliferation is that unlike the U.S. who used the weapons twice and then stopped because they were horrified, there are a lot of crazy fucks on this planet who know what nukes do and would love to use them.
Nukes and biological warfare are likely end scenarios in our lifetime. As it gets easier and easier to do this kind of thing, smaller and smaller groups can pull it off. I'm certain within my life time some terrorist organization is going to release a deadly flu or enhanced disease into the US using suicidal (or unwitting) humans to transport into the target country.
Do you think the US, Russia, China, or any other rational country is going to use Nukes first again? I think not.
Do you think there are many terrorist organizations that would use nukes if they had them? I think so.
Re:Analysis of WIkiLeaks' action (Score:4, Insightful)
The case for secrecy is often made, but it's made not with examples of where failure to keep secret has harmed us. It's made using fear of what MIGHT happen if those secrets were revealed. We all have vivid imaginations and can think of worst-case scenarios to scare ourselves with what MIGHT happen. But it's far more useful for us to live in reality. I don't think we've ever become a weaker nation for our transparency.
Security through obscurity, as we all know, is no security at all. When did we forget this?
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm arguing against the idea that installing a dictator in power gives you special rights in perpetuity.
By default, messing around with the governments in other countries is "wrong". It'll get you into trouble. Justifying it takes more than saying "Yeah, but we did it there before."
Re:Just because you can (Score:4, Insightful)
This design will do nothing to further the aims of 'terrists'. Obtaining the raw materials is such a great hurdle in itself that the actual plans for this bomb are of secondary importance. I knew fairly specific information about this type of bomb when I was 10. I read about it in my encyclopedia, which I believe was a 1967 edition.
If this seems like dangerous or obscure knowledge to you, then you really have place discussing it.
These plans are about as useful as a map to the moon- They are so useless without an extensive infrastructure that they are practically worthless.
-b
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oooookay then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Will Wikileaks always know what is harmless and what is not?
A mistake could - quite literally - blow up in their face or mine.
It worries me that the Geek so easily trusts and defends an arbitrary power wielded in secret by one of his own.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:3, Insightful)
This doesn't fully excuse the US-sponsored coup. It does, however place it into the proper context of 'two forces in struggle' not the ignorant 'pure evil US government and greedy Oil Companies' interpretaton that the class warriors who lost the Cold War try to frame it in.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. The US is the only one of those countries to actually *use* a nuclear weapon against another country. The US's own "downwinders" don't count here.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me get this straight. You're saying that in 1953, the US sponsored a coup which deposed a the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh [wikipedia.org], a man with no ties to the Soviet Union or to Communism in any form, on the basis of what was going to happen in a country [wikipedia.org] which would not exist for another twenty-seven years?
Well, you've just shown what I would be very generous if I were to describe it as a misapprehension of the basic facts at hand here. Why should anybody trust your characterization of the rest?
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the one Saddam started, using aggression as in unprovoked attack? The one we told him we'd be just fine with? That one?
Iraq was the aggressor, with our full blessings. Please to get your head out of your hat, or wherever it is that you've had it stuck.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely right. Neither Iran nor North Korea have waged wars of aggression in the past 50 years. If you're alleging that the US hasn't done so, you're being extremely naïf.
You're right, sort of. Iran was invaded and fought with Iraq for 8 years. North Korea didn't exist until after the Korean war, and is held in check by the USA. They do, however, kidnap people from Japan and Korea as a matter of course. Sure, they haven't invaded anybody, but it's mainly because they haven't had the chance.
US military history (Score:5, Insightful)
North Korea hasn't waged a war of aggression in the past 50 years... for a reason. The korean war ended with the south free because there were US troups at the border to keep north korean troops from taking the south.
Iran I agree may be exaggerated as a threat, but you should consider the roll that America's wars have played in history over the past 50 years.
Cold War Era:
The Korean War
Lebanon crisis of 1958
Bay of Pigs Invasion
Dominican Intervention
Vietnam War
Tehran hostage rescue
Grenada
Beirut
Panama
Post Cold War Era:
Gulf War
Somalia
Yugoslavia
Bush Era:
Afghanistan
Philippines
Liberia
Iraq
A lot of these conflicts had minor US involvement, but I've listed them for completeness (Liberia involved sending "three warships with 2,300 Marines into view of the coast," and funding Economic Community of West African States troops.)
What should be most notable about every last one of these wars, is that while some of them were major mistakes, all of them were in defense of pretty much every first world democratic country, and not just the united states.
People seem to enjoy bashing the United States for it's mistakes, and sometimes we deserve it, but the truth is that the current balance of power has benefited pretty much everyone posting on slashdot. There have been no new world wars for a reason. The soviet union ended it's domination of europe, and was not able to press in further than they did for a reason. Every first world nation prizes it's military alliance with the US for a reason.
The truth is that the roll that the US plays is maintaining a balance of power with democratic nations at the top, and dictatorial nations at the bottom. The truth is that without the US forces there to maintain that balance of power, this would end quickly. The other first world nations do not have comparable military forces, and largely don't have the forces necessary to defend themselves from their neighbors.
Consider what would have happened without US forces to maintain the ballance of power:
1. In the cold war, pretty much all of Europe would have ended up in soviet hands.
2. South Korea would fall to North Korea *immediately* if US forces weren't there to back them up.
3. Taiwan would end up in Chinese hands *today* if the US wasn't committed to defending them from invasion.
4. Pakistan would have difficulty surviving without US military aid.
5. Israel probably wouldn't survive without US backing.
Israel is probably the most controversial of those choices, and a lot of people, myself included, are pretty unhappy with how they treat the palestinians, but I don't think anyone wants to see Israel destroyed (well... except for the people trying to destroy it) as that would cost considerably more lives than the current conflict.
So while it may be reasonable to criticize specific US actions, it's pretty ridiculous to act like you don't want the US there defending your interests, or that you're unhappy with the status quo.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Politicians of the time really thought that the USSR was waiting for the excuse to invade Western Europe, and reacted to what they knew. That the information was completely wrong is neither here nor there (*why* it was so wrong is open to debate).
\
Re:*Yawn* (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple to do. Light on the damage but very high on the 'terror' scale - especially since the press will inevitably call it a 'nuclear' explosion because they're stupid.
The cleanup will take anything from months to years too.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The reality is that none of these are key steps. They are common knowledge. Now the enrichment is a different story. It takes a lot of design work to get a good centrifuge going. And this is also where the west failed. If we did not tacitly approve the theft of centrifuge design by a "scientist" from Pakistan, if we did not tacitly approve him building a bomb and selling knowhow for many years there would have been much less nutheads with nuclear potential running about. Unfortunately, the usual American desire to perceive all in Black and White along with "the enemy of of my enemy is my friend" made the US ignore this while it was happening.
Too late now. It is now only a matter of time until we have a religious nut with a nuke and we are helping it with our misguided attempts at democracy in Pakistan. Democracy in a poor, hungry country with religious fanatics abound and a bomb. We might as well start blowing our own arsenal in the middle of our capitals. There is not much difference.
Re:Slashdot Please Stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, (Score:4, Insightful)
Was declassified decades ago. The need for the additional neutron source was questionable in the gun-type nuclear weapons, but the scientists who built the bomb wanted to make sure that it detonated. Especially since they had only tested the implosion device. (The gun-type device was considered so simple that it didn't need testing.)
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:3, Insightful)
They ARE (if you believe the US... they do have rather a track record of being wrong) trying to learn how to build nuclear weapons, just like the US did in the 1940's.
I don't think it's a particularly good idea for everybody to have nukes, but I think there are better ways to decide who should and shouldn't have them than leaving it up to the world's last imperial military power.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Love it or leave it? Actually yes, I actively work in a non-violent manner to change and/or overthrow this regime. I pay its taxes and obey its laws, just as I would obey any violent psychopath who forced me at gunpoint to do as he says. But when time comes to resist, you resist, be it an evil regime or an individual psychopath.
'Because I'm sure someone who feels as strongly as you do wouldn't want to benefit from anything the US government or other citizens do to improve your life.'
You act as if the two are related. The US government is not representative of my citizens or community, that is the point.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I find the arrogance of Slashdot incredible. It doesn't matter what history records - the document can't be correct because you "wouldn't expect" the configuration it shows. You can't even be bothered to google or do any other research.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:3, Insightful)
North Korea wants a nuke because it is the another level of assurance that we won't eventually invade. Nukes are things you hide behind, not things you use.
Iran wants a nuke because it gives them some bargaining power with Israel. Again, a nice shield to threaten and hide behind but national suicide to use.
This is the major reason why I also oppose Bush's proposals for next generation mini-nukes. By making nuclear, sorry, "new-killer" weapons more usable we erode the firewall which keeps the big nuclear weapons from ever being used.