Fuel for nuclear weapons more available than realized

[cerulean]

I hate to think about this subject, but here it is. What is to be done to prevent rogue states and groups from getting nuclear bombs, and if they get them, from using them?

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...7/4902623s.htm
Fuel for nuclear weapons is more widely available than the public has been told.
By Peter Eisler
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- U.S. officials have insisted for a decade that getting plutonium or highly enriched uranium is the big hurdle for rogue states or terrorists trying to build nuclear weapons. But for much of that time, they've known a secret: Other materials can be used to make atomic bombs, and they're a lot easier to get.

Now, officials believe the bad guys know the secret too.

Classified nuclear threat reports warn that rogue countries and terrorists have learned it is possible to make atomic bombs using low-enriched uranium, a common fuel for nuclear reactors used to conduct research and generate power. The reports, described to USA TODAY by top federal officials, also conclude that it would be easier than previously believed for enemies of the United States to make such weapons using spent nuclear fuel, the waste generated by reactors.

Neither of those substances is listed as ''weapons usable'' under U.S. or international security protocols. As a result, they get little protection from theft at civilian nuclear reactors worldwide. That includes reactors in former Soviet states and nations such as Indonesia, where public sympathy runs high for Iraq and al-Qaeda.

And the threats are real.

Five years ago, U.S. scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory secretly designed an atomic bomb with low-enriched uranium, USA TODAY has learned. The bomb, which could have fit easily in a small pickup, was weak in nuclear terms but strong enough to destroy a square mile of a city.

U.S. scientists also have proved in experiments that it is possible to create nuclear weapons using several elements that could be extracted from spent fuel by a rogue state or perhaps even a well-organized terrorist organization.

Officials stress that there is no evidence that al-Qaeda or any other terror group has the skills or tools to build an atomic bomb using low-enriched uranium or spent fuel. There's a big gap, they say, between knowing such things are possible and being able to do them. Rogue states are a bigger concern: U.S. officials believe that Iran and North Korea are trying to develop the capability to make nuclear weapons using spent fuel. . . .

[Mediocrates]

I sniff at this one. Maybe technically or theoretically possible but it seems that it's more trouble than it's worth if all it can destroy is one city block. I could probably find someone who is capable of stealing enough conventional military explosives to do this.

I'm also dubious of crude untested designs with no quality control. Sounds like they would 'fizzle' more often than not.

[cerulean]

if all it can destroy is one city block

No, it said one square mile, so that would comprise 64-144 typical city blocks (8 x 8 or 12 x 12). I'm not sure what the radiation effects in the immediate area would be. Plus, if they are that easy to make, just use a bunch of them.

I hope you're right that the threat is not that great.

[minusthejihad]

I just watched a Nova/PBS special on radiation, nuclear devices, and dirty bombs, and almost every single expert agreed that more people would die from the panic resulting from a dirty bomb (car accidents leaving the area) than actual bombing casualties.

The sad part, is that most of the experts also agreed that this will inevitably happen "some time" in our future.

Man, I wish I believed in god.

[Mediocrates]

That's possible, a cluster of sorts. I still think the biggest worry is the flat out sale of military technology. Why build a bomb when you can sell/steal one. Of course the failsafe technology is somewhat more complex and, we have to keep in mind that most current trigger complexes degrade over time so they have a finite shelf life (for those interested, deterium trigger complexes have to be refreshed - they lose a constant fraction of deuterium at a constant rate - in effect they have to be 'topped off'). There are other complexes - I don't know the plethora of Soviet bomb trigger complexes so the risk is there.

All the same - you make a good point. The genie's been out of the bottle for 50 years and we can't put it back. The only thing that's saved us so far is nuclear doctrine and the fact that it was country vs. country. Now both of those things may be missing.

What we can't forget though is that such a crude bomb would be somewhat more detectable so it's just as likely that a crude bomb would be used against a regional neighbor.