It is amazing how many Americans believe the science of Hollywood over the science of legitimate science organization. More people believe in the existence of a suitcase bomb then believe that humans are causing global warming. More people believe you can carry a nuclear weapon in a coffee container with some pretty lights on it then understand how difficult it is to maintain uranium.
In a recent article found here the reality of the "suitcase nuke" was discussed. The FBI and other security organizations admit the likelihood of their existence is small and most would say none. While I am no big fan of unnamed "intelligence officials", the facts are not hard to qualify. The officials said, "true suitcase nuke would be highly complex to produce, require significant upkeep and cost a small fortune." When worry about Islamic fundamentalist you have to realize that so far their most complex and devastating plan required some butter knives and some low level pilot training. The article does cite Vahid Majidi (FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate.) "No one has been able to truly identify the existence of these devices."
The problem seems to be that first they would be highly traceable. So you would need to find a government that wouldn’t mind being removed from the face of the earth once the US found out they were involved. Plutonium, which requires reprocessing, leaves "chemical fingerprints". Uranium, which can be obtained naturally, takes a complex amount of processing to get a nuclear grade material out of. It is also would need a weight that would require two people to carry it. Hardly worthy of sticking in a suit case. The article says that at least 130 pounds of uranium would be required to cause a nuclear reaction. Hardly something you can run from Jack Bauer under your arm.
Another problem is that an active nuclear core is really corrosive and requires constant maintenance. The smaller the device them more regular maintenance interval has to be. It would just not be very practical. The amount of explosives needed to get the reaction going efficiently would pose yet another problem.
While the article says that it would not be impossible to create a small nuclear device, the impractical nature of it would be counterintuitive to the purpose. The amount of money and technical resources needed are overwhelming.
The problem is that this is a democracy, and voters are the bafoons who believe in hollyscience are the majority of the voters. They are most apt to vote for people who acknowledge their insane fictional fears. And we think Kucinich is a kook(not a cook, He is a vegetarian you know. there is an old adage, don't trust a vegetarian cook) because he believes in UFO’s.
In a recent article found here the reality of the "suitcase nuke" was discussed. The FBI and other security organizations admit the likelihood of their existence is small and most would say none. While I am no big fan of unnamed "intelligence officials", the facts are not hard to qualify. The officials said, "true suitcase nuke would be highly complex to produce, require significant upkeep and cost a small fortune." When worry about Islamic fundamentalist you have to realize that so far their most complex and devastating plan required some butter knives and some low level pilot training. The article does cite Vahid Majidi (FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate.) "No one has been able to truly identify the existence of these devices."
The problem seems to be that first they would be highly traceable. So you would need to find a government that wouldn’t mind being removed from the face of the earth once the US found out they were involved. Plutonium, which requires reprocessing, leaves "chemical fingerprints". Uranium, which can be obtained naturally, takes a complex amount of processing to get a nuclear grade material out of. It is also would need a weight that would require two people to carry it. Hardly worthy of sticking in a suit case. The article says that at least 130 pounds of uranium would be required to cause a nuclear reaction. Hardly something you can run from Jack Bauer under your arm.
Another problem is that an active nuclear core is really corrosive and requires constant maintenance. The smaller the device them more regular maintenance interval has to be. It would just not be very practical. The amount of explosives needed to get the reaction going efficiently would pose yet another problem.
While the article says that it would not be impossible to create a small nuclear device, the impractical nature of it would be counterintuitive to the purpose. The amount of money and technical resources needed are overwhelming.
The problem is that this is a democracy, and voters are the bafoons who believe in hollyscience are the majority of the voters. They are most apt to vote for people who acknowledge their insane fictional fears. And we think Kucinich is a kook(not a cook, He is a vegetarian you know. there is an old adage, don't trust a vegetarian cook) because he believes in UFO’s.
Propaganda is a topic of particular concern to peace associations. This is a matter of educating the population in general, and not least the voters. - Fredrik Bajer
Comments