Where are the missing nukes from the 90s now?

[Dmytry]

I wonder, how much impressive would it be if you took two subcritical hemispheres of plutonium and slapped them together by hand? I know it wouldn't explode much, but it would still do quite a lot of fissions, meaning quite a lot of neutrons, meaning giant doses to everything around. And i don't mean barely critical like Slotin's experiment. No, two hemispheres which together are very strongly supercritical.

Replica of little boy would also be easy. Think, even 100T is a lot.

 

[Drakkith]

I wonder, how much impressive would it be if you took two subcritical hemispheres of plutonium and slapped them together by hand? I know it wouldn't explode much, but it would still do quite a lot of fissions, meaning quite a lot of neutrons, meaning giant doses to everything around. And i don't mean barely critical like Slotin's experiment. No, two hemispheres which together are very strongly supercritical.

Replica of little boy would also be easy. Think, even 100T is a lot.

The difficulty isn't the building of the nuclear weapon, it is aquiring the required material without arising suspicion. That plus making the weapon small enough to get it to where you need it. The original nukes were massive multi-ton bombs and only later were developed to a few hundred pounds that we have in some warheads now.

 

[Danuta]

I remember the number from a news story from a major network, mid 90s (can't remember date) reported that "80" attache' cases containing, I believe, 1 K ton nuclear yield each. The report showed one and mentioned that they had been stolen from somewhere in Russia and were possibly made available on the black market. I definitely remember thinking, "WTF?" Nothing was ever again reported to my knowledge after that.

You mean some of this "WTF" stuff? Only 10% accounted for if you believe it's just 220 pounds of uranium.

http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/incidents/35353"

Or was it some of this? Oh boy, 310-360 pounds of plutonium.

http://www.bellona.org/news/news_2008/missing_pu"

 

[minerva]

Well if you want to be derogatory and call me names that's fine, but you're still wrong. I never said you couldn't make a dirty bomb using uranium and plutonium. I simply stated the fact that such a weapon would not be effective in any way, and it would not cause any casualties or damage, apart from the conventional explosive itself.

Maybe you should educate yourself on the topic before insulting forum members whom you know nothing about.

In terms of actually giving people radiological dose with a dirty bomb, U or Pu are really not "useful" at all, and the hot radionuclides used in industry and medicine (¹³⁷Cs, ⁶⁰Co ¹⁹²Ir, etc...) are the sorts of things considered real threats for dirty-bomb weaponisation.

But dirty bombs never really post a great threat in terms of actual radiation dose to people... they do damage through fear, panic, FUD, diversion of government resources for decontamination and surveys and regulation of the contaminated area, etc.

Dirty bombs actually do their damage, basically, because of the public's health physics illiteracy and anti-nuclear fear.

So, actually, in fact, a bit of plutonium would be a really, really effective dirty bomb weapon - not in terms of giving people actual radiological dose or health effects, but simply because plutonium is so feared, rationally or not.

 

[zapperzero]

You take the cake! You did not have the slightest idea what a dirty bomb is or could be. But, now, you are trying to weasel your way out of an embarrassing post that makes you look like an annoying nincompoop. A dirty bomb is a dirty bomb, set off by conventional means and intended to spread radiation and other dirt and fear over a designated area. Sure, some dirty bombs can be designed to spread more radiation than others, but I did not post a topic about how to build the most effective radioactive dirty bomb. Mine was a very simple statement that "they" could be used in a dirty bomb. They can. That was the end of the statement.

My statement stands, Plutonium and Uranium can still be used in a dirty bomb.

Ohh, but this is QuantumPion and to him, everything nuclear is GOOD (or at least, mostly harmless).

 

[Drakkith]

Why are we going back to name calling and such on a thread that has been inactive for 2 months?

 

[Joe Neubarth]

Ohh, but this is QuantumPion and to him, everything nuclear is GOOD (or at least, mostly harmless).

QuantumPion consistently downplays dirty bombs. A dirty bomb is a terror weapon and as such can use uranium and plutonium as part of the dirt along with hospital radioactive waste and cesium samples and crap like that. The damage comes not from the explosion, but from the terror it brings to an uneducated populace. Radioactive contamination is something that is fearful to Americans, Canadians, Europeans, yet 99 percent of them can not tell you what a REM or a Sievert is without quickly looking it up on Wikipaedia.

We all need to learn. I have started a thread about the Nuclear Power Industry and Cancer, asking for actual scientific study links so that we can see the correlating data (IF ANY). It is here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3382425#post3382425

 

[rollcast]

If you wanted to make a criticality weapon you wouldn't even need to plutonium sphere, you could just take one sphere of plutonium and then put a block or 2 of tungsten carbide or some other neutron reflector beside it and reflect the neutrons back into the sphere causing criticallity.

I think that would be possible, anyone know any better

 

[QuantumPion]

QuantumPion consistently downplays dirty bombs. A dirty bomb is a terror weapon and as such can use uranium and plutonium as part of the dirt along with hospital radioactive waste and cesium samples and crap like that. The damage comes not from the explosion, but from the terror it brings to an uneducated populace. Radioactive contamination is something that is fearful to Americans, Canadians, Europeans, yet 99 percent of them can not tell you what a REM or a Sievert is without quickly looking it up on Wikipaedia.

I have never downplayed the terror aspect of a dirty bomb. I merely refuted your original claim that a dirty bomb containing uranium could make a large area uninhabitable. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you went on a tantrum of childish personal attacks against me. And now you are resorting to making false attributions about what I said, which is kind of silly since you only have to back one page in this thread to see what I actually said.

 

[Joe Neubarth]

I have never downplayed the terror aspect of a dirty bomb. I merely refuted your original claim that a dirty bomb containing uranium could make a large area uninhabitable. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you went on a tantrum of childish personal attacks against me. And now you are resorting to making false attributions about what I said, which is kind of silly since you only have to back one page in this thread to see what I actually said.

Playing your silly games, again, I see. I will not bite this time.

 

[QuantumPion]

Playing your silly games, again, I see. I will not bite this time.

It's a good thing you edited your post. You probably would have been banned from the forum for what you originally said

Anyways, since you are too lazy to look back one page, I'll make it easy on you.

If there are indeed nukes missing, they are at least 20 years old - and have not been maintained during this time.
I don't think that they are still operational...

Though they more than likely would not detonate, The Uranium and Plutonium could be recycled or used in a Dirty Bomb. One well placed Dirty Bomb could make a large population area uninhabitable.

Actually it wouldn't, especially not one made of plutonium. The only way for a dirty bomb to be remotely effective would be if it were made of a high activity isotope like cobolt-60. But the whole premise of a dirty bomb is flawed, since the explosion would spread the material out to non-dangerous concentrations. You could not make a whole city uninhabitable with a transportable amount of radioactive material. The only damage would be due to the explosion part itself, and any panic the news causes.

 

[Joe Neubarth]

Well if you want to be derogatory and call me names that's fine, but you're still wrong. I never said you couldn't make a dirty bomb using uranium and plutonium. I simply stated the fact that such a weapon would not be effective in any way, and it would not cause any casualties or damage, apart from the conventional explosive itself.

Maybe you should educate yourself on the topic before insulting forum members whom you know nothing about.

You see, the quote above shows that you do not understand the importance of a Dirty Bomb. When you say it will "not be effective in any way," you show tremendous ignorance.
When you say it will "not cause damage," you show tremendous ignorance.

I point out that you need to learn a little about terror and you take offense. That is a shame. Learn a little and profit thereby. I will gladly educate you if you want.

 

[Joe Neubarth]

It's a good thing you edited your post. You probably would have been banned from the forum for what you originally said

Anyways, since you are too lazy to look back one page, I'll make it easy on you.

Quantum, you know that I will tease you when you disagree with me. They really should not ban people for teasing, but they do.

Hey, let's be friends. You did not know what the purpose of a Dirty Bomb was. It shows in everything you post. You were most wrong and I was right as usual. People will flee from an area that is contaminated. Thus it becomes uninhabitable for a season. The only people who do not flee from contaminated areas are the Japanese and they have some serious contamination.

Regardless, you now know that a Dirty Bomb is a psychological terror weapon first and foremost.

 

[Joe Neubarth]

If you wanted to make a criticality weapon you wouldn't even need to plutonium sphere, you could just take one sphere of plutonium and then put a block or 2 of tungsten carbide or some other neutron reflector beside it and reflect the neutrons back into the sphere causing criticallity.

I think that would be possible, anyone know any better

Well, for the layman that would be a whole lot of trouble, and besides, putting those pieces together could be seriously injurious to your health.

 

[clancy688]

Well, for the layman that would be a whole lot of trouble, and besides, putting those pieces together could be seriously injurious to your health.

Not that any islamic suicide fanatic would care...

I think the big problem lies in carrying the radioactive materials from its obvious source (ex-soviet russia with all its orphan sources, for example obsolete lighthouse beacons), to a western country.
I recently read that sensors for detecting radioactive materials at ports are sensitive enough to go off when measuring bananas.

 

[Joe Neubarth]

Not that any islamic suicide fanatic would care...

AMEN, brother.

I think the big problem lies in carrying the radioactive materials from its obvious source (ex-soviet russia with all its orphan sources, for example obsolete lighthouse beacons), to a western country.
I recently read that sensors for detecting radioactive materials at ports are sensitive enough to go off when measuring bananas.

Bananas will tip your scale if there are enough of them. We need those sensitive sensors. Sadly there is no fool proof way of detecting a primitive atomic bomb if it is hidden in the middle of a deep full fuel tank on a cargo ship. Thus our harbors will make good terrorist targets.