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.'"
Well, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/BritishBombPlans.html [nuclearweaponarchive.org]
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.)
Coming soon... (Score:4, Funny)
it's mostly in "The Making of the Atom Bomb." (Score:3, Informative)
for that matter, any irrespon
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No shit? CHECKING IT OUT RIGHT NOW!
Re:Slashdot Please Stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cheers,
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:5, Informative)
The nuclear cat is out of the bag, and as long as the US has a single nuke, they have no place to lecture others about non-proliferation.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War [wikipedia.org]
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:5, Informative)
While there hasn't been a lot of fighting, North Korea is still at war with the south, so why would they need to initiate another war? They've been at war for 50 years!
And Iran invaded US territory when they took the US embassy in 1980. They've been fighting the US and Israel for 20+years since. Oh sure, there's been no official declaration of war. But you'd have to be extremely naif to believe they aren't actively participating, though indirectly, in a war against the US and Israel.
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)
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:5, Informative)
Once again, it seems people just try to rewrite history, merely spewing fascist crap repeated by rightists with an agenda...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état [wikipedia.org]
The Shah the US/UK helped to reinstall through a covert operation of bribery and supply (Operation Ajax) designed to undermine support of the popular secularist movement that the country was making (nationalising Iran's oil at the expense of British Petroleum) was an illegitimate ruler imposed on the Iranian people at the expense of the established democratically elected government of Mohammed Mosaddeq who could trace HIS lineage back to the elections - and surely that's how democracy is supposed to work... so for anyone who still believes that their country (US or UK especially) has a divine right to remove any democratically elected official who doesn't work for THEIR interests (or at least the interests of their corporations), then beware the precedent you have set, because the same tactic may be used against your own countries in the future. There is one rule for all, or you will find that you reap what you sow.
Re: (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' interpretat
Re: (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
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:5, Informative)
Let me get this straight. You're saying that in 1953, the US sponsored a coup which deposed a the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh, 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 which would not exist for another twenty-seven years?
No, he's referencing Domino theory. We didn't care about democracy (we still don't), we just wanted an ally.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:4, Interesting)
The US violates virtually every treaty established for the good of mankind. They violate the geneva convention, they continue to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal, they are developing and deploying space weapons, they are developing and utilizing chemical weapons, they ignore unfavorable WTO rulings, they are committing wars of aggression throughout the world in response to a simple police matter.
Further the US has rounded up its own people during world war II, forced them into concentration camps and imposed forced sterilization. The US employs a public education system that creates a fabricated version of US history to teach to its youth to instill a false sense of patriotism. Those same impressionable young minds are forced to swear allegiance to their central government.
Lets see, spying on citizens. Requiring 'permits' to openly protest. A well established youth 'education' program. Centralized power. Incarceration without trial. The great atrocities of Nazi Germany really had nothing to do with Jews you know.
Notice I do not include myself as part of the US. I may have been born within its borders and I certainly consider myself part of the PEOPLE but I want no part in the festering evil that is the government in this nation. I do not claim it, I do not recognize its right to exert authority over me by force of arms, and I don't want it.
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:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 natio
Re: (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: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:5, Informative)
So in your terms, the signatories to the NPT who possess nukes are saying "Nyeh, we want to be the only ones with the bomb". Which is why the poster that I replied to was making such a contorted point, why the US is hypocritical in its policy, and why you are flat out wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Truman starting the cold war was the price to pay for avoiding a hot war. The cold war was the best choice, when the alternative was another major war in Europe.
And, strangely, our "immature and shortsighted" foreign policy pretty much worked. We won the cold war with Russia.
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: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: (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 le
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The nuclear cat is out of the bag, and as long as the US has a single nuke, they have no place to lecture others about non-proliferation.
This is dangerous reasoning.
Reasoning? LMAO! Hey buddy, pass me that copy there of Sun Tsu's "The Art of Unilateral Disarmament".
Seriously, how does a person make it into their adult years spouting this kind of sentiment?
The cat is out of the bag. Polarizing, fatalistic, and brinkmanship rolled into a pithy pronouncement of life's harsh realities for the benefit of a gaggle of children crying over spilled milk. Yes, daddy, you know best.
What exactly does that expression mean, anyway? There are dozens of performance parameters on
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:5, Informative)
You just described the "Little Boy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_boy/ [wikipedia.org]). The document in question describes the "Fat Man" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man [wikipedia.org]), a wholly different design.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For some reason, some positively modded -1 AC posts receive the moderation, but not the point. So a score of -1 positively moderated +1 Whatever, ends up with a score of -1, Whatever. The scoring will even show that the moderation gave it zero points. However, this does not always happen, as we can see with the GP. Perhaps the scores are only added when more than one positive moderation is given.
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:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:5, Funny)
If so, drop me a message.
Re: (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 sell
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:5, Informative)
The compression was achieved using a sphere of high explosive lenses which when detonated acted to symmetrically squeeze the plutonium core into a tiny fraction of its original volume. At the same time, the initiator would be crushed, rupture and begin spilling additional neutrons into the core of the bomb. The timing here is crucial, there is actually only a tiny tiny fraction of a second for the bomb to reach optimum conditions for fission, so even though the initiator spits out billions of neutrons, only ten or so are present at the crucial moment!
The Trinity design was pretty much obsolete in the US from about 1948 when the US exploded a series of bombs in Operation Sandstone. These weapons used a so called levitated core - a hollow core of plutonium rather than a solid core. The hollow core allows for much greater compression and allows plutonium to go much further. It also led to smaller, lighter weapons that could be put on a missile.
The broad design of Trinity has been known for some time now, but what has been much less understood are the designs of the explosive lenses, the detonators for the lenses and perhaps most secretive - the initiator.
Knowledge of the initiator design was crucial for the Soviet Union to explode Joe 1 in 1949, they got that from spies within the Manhattan Project, including Klaus Fuchs who had been on the initiator design team. When the US excluded the UK from nuclear weapons research (despite the UK providing them with many of the key technologies), Fuchs and co. went on to help design the first British weapon, Hurricane, which was detonated in 1952 a few days before America exploded Mike, the first true hydrogen bomb.
Re:Perhaps I'm just not clever enough.... (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe for amateurs. Folks who actually study nuclear weapons have known pretty much everything on the diagram and everything you describe as "less understood" for years now.
For the same reason, much of the amateur commentary on the Wikileaks page makes me gag.
"Diagram Roughly to scale. No easy feat in days prior to computerized drafting tools." WTF? Making a diagram to scale, even roughly, is trivial. I was doing it in the sixth grade (1974!) with little plastic ruler and a cheap metal compass. "High Explosives & Miznay/Schardin effect (e.g. shaped charge) Miznay/Schardin effect will work in this design, in all likelihood, though the additional layer of HE after the first layer of lenses is a surprise." Well, no - the second layer isn't a surprise. Richard Rhodes described it in the The Making of the Atomic Bomb" in 1986! "Neutron Initiator Theoretically workable." Well, duh. This has also been widely described in the literature - I'd have been surprised to find if it weren't as diagrammed.
Etc... etc..
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The sticking point is that its rather difficult to refine the uranium and then the plutonium used in more powerful bombs.
So if you have the industrial capacity to create the uranium, the bomb itself is quite simple to assemble. If Wikileaks had an article posted about "How to refine uranium with sea water, bottle of bleach, and a house hold blender" then I would
Hmmm (Score:2, Funny)
Now where did I leave my spare polonium?
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
*Yawn* (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
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."
Well, the truth is ... (Score:2)
Sounds like a short-lifed design (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikipedia gives the half-life of the most commonly used Polonium isotope with about 138 days:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium [wikipedia.org]
This may be fine for a bomb that is to be used shortly after manufacture, but not for a warhead that is supposed to sit in a missile silo for years. Of course, the USA wanted to use the bomb on Japan, so long-term storagewas not an issue
Re:Sounds like a short-lifed design (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
And you base this belief on what exactly?
That's why there
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Manhattan project gets all the press for producing the first bombs
Re:Sounds like a short-lifed design (Score:4, Informative)
Not completely true. Our reserves were small, and so was our capacity to build more - but it was never zero. Had they been zero... How did we do Crossroads [wikipedia.org] in 1946 and Sandstone [wikipedia.org] in 1948?
Novel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Home made atomic bomb (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I'll wait.... (Score:5, Funny)
Propaganda (Score:3, Funny)
Starting to believe in your own propaganda can be an indicator that there is something in your tap water.
Aha! (Score:5, Funny)
- RG>
This is probably from a Russian spy (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't complete. It omits an important detail that has never appeared in US open publications but has appeared in some materials from the former USSR.
What this looks like is close to what Klaus Fuchs gave to the Russians when he was spying at Los Alamos. A similar rough sketch was published decades ago, but not one with dimensions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is probably from a Russian spy (Score:4, Informative)
Analysis of WIkiLeaks' action (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank you for contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation... Looks like you did...
Hopefully, there is, indeed, a fault in there somewhere, which Wikileaks were either sincerely unable to find or are simply lying about having missed.
These — along with their recent run-in with the judge — raises important questions, however. Are there secret documents in existence, that WikiLeaks would refuse to make available if given?
I mean, if it is not an ancient (though just as deadly) nuclear bomb design, but something more recent? How about plans for America's invasion of Iran or North Korea? What about the plans for our defense of Taiwan — there must be some uncomfortable answers to ugly questions in there...
What about civil government? A police-department's plans for riot-prevention, or a coordinated anti-drug raid?
What about "personal" secrets? How about a politician's diary? How about that of a CEO of a big corporation — he may have recorded private thoughts in there, such as whether his secretary is genuinely more affectionate to him, than his wife?
When does "strong transparency" turn into treason, obstructing justice, or invasion of privacy?
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: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.
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?
the secret that exploded (Score:5, Interesting)
In a high-profile First Ammendment case Howard Morland and the Progressive tried to publish Fusion-bomb (aka "Hydrogen bomb") design details in 1979. The government eventually dropped its case
Here's the book; http://www.amazon.com/Secret-That-Exploded-Howard-Morland/dp/0394512979 [amazon.com]
and a background artcile by Howard on his deductions and something of the legal case http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/cardozo.html [fas.org]
oh yeah - even Greenpeace seem to have pretty pictures - wouldn't trust those guys to assemble one though http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/fig05.gif [greenpeace.org]
peter xyz
Appears to be from Penney report... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oppenheimer (Score:3, Informative)
Providence (Score:3, Funny)
That's not a bomb diagram (Score:5, Funny)
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, Interesting)
I don't need to transport it anywhere. A "Fat Man" exploding in a house bought for the purpose years ago anywhere in Brooklyn or Jersey City will still be devastating to New York... Especially, if you scale the project and blow up several of these in different locales.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A "Fat Man" exploding in a house bought for the purpose years ago anywhere in Brooklyn or Jersey City will still be devastating to New York...
...and all that needs is a single waffer-thin mint :-)
Seriously, though - methinks that a terrorist with the brains and resources to acquire or build a nuke would also have the brains to work out that mailing packets of green-dyed talcum powder to minor government officials (or leaving some black boxes with flashing LEDs scattered around) was a far more effective way of causing panic, disruption and economic damage.
Even for a country, posessing one bomb is simply going to give the USA an excuse to go m
Re:Oooookay then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The design is over 50yrs old. Sheesh.
Re: (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 govern
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 prob
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How can we have any meaningful discussion on arms control if we don't know how difficult or easy it is to build nuclear weapons?
Iran and North Korea already know this stuff. It's to our benefit to stop pretending that engineering knowledge can be kept away from the "bad guys", and get everything out in the open.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of what they put out has a rightful place to enable anonymous whistleblowing. However they seem to be unable to d
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oooookay then.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oooookay then.... (Score:5, Informative)
Fission bombs are easy to build. Building them in the '40s, without computers to perform simulations on and without a huge amount of published research to build on was hard. Now it's very expensive but not particularly hard. If you're a terrorist, you are almost certain never to have the resources required to build such a device, although you might already have the required knowledge. If you want a nuclear bomb for terrorist use then finding out where some of the ones that vanished from the USSR when it broke up is likely to be a lot cheaper than building your own. If you are a nation state and want one then you probably already have the knowledge required to build one and just need the materials. Building the facilities to refine them without the international community noticing is likely to be very hard, however.
This document is, however, very interesting to military historians. It's not the sort of think Wikileaks usually carries, since it has very little (if any) relevance to modern events, but for someone researching the history of the Manhattan Project or the end of World War II it's a valuable resource (although less so than it would be if it could be validated for authenticity).
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: (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:Hackaday (Score:5, Funny)
There, fixed that for ya.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
These plans are about as useful as a photo of the moon taken with a backyard telescope. Even if the ideas in them were not already public any competent physicist would rediscover them early in his bomb design project.