Re: Can hydrogen deliver?

From: Tim O'Flaherty (pinwheels_Fudge__at_gwi.net)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:36:22 -0500

"Richard Bell" <rlbell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:clv782$jv2$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
> In article <baednVO6kroQbR3cRVn-qA@gwi.net>,
> Tim O'Flaherty <pinwheels_Fudge_@gwi.net> wrote:

> Seperated Pu is ***not*** weapons grade Pu,

<Snip>

You don't need weapons grade to make a nuclear explosive.

>
> Pu240 in a mixed oxide fuel is a non-issue,

<Snip>

Unless it is stolen or bought/bribed by terrorists.

<snip>

Then they could do as described below.

> >
>
>http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/nuclear/plutonium/EnergyReviewSubmiss
i
> >on0901.htm
> >[ The construction of the conventional explosive device that destroyed
the
> >PanAm jumbo jet over Lockerbie on 21st December 1988 required
considerable
> >planning and scientific skills, as did the construction of the nerve gas
> >weapon used in the Tokyo underground by the AUM group on 20th March 1995.
It
> >is a sobering fact that the fabrication of a primitive nuclear explosive
> >using reactor-grade plutonium, obtained from MOX, would require no
greater
> >skill than that for the production and use of the two terrorist weapons
> >mentioned above ]
> >
> >That is from MOX, use PU already separated and it get's even easier.
>
> The paper totally glosses over Pu240 contamination and assumes that the
MOX
> is made using weapons grade plutonium.

No they don't. They specifically name "reactor-grade plutonium", read it.
You are trying to gloss over the fact that separated Pu can be used to make
a nuclear weapon.

<Snip>

> >The more there is the harder it is to guard and there is more every year.
>
> Reprocessing sites will never be so numerous that finding enough reliable
> manpower to guard them will become onerous.

There is already a stockpile of hundreds of tons of separated Pu. It's only
a matter of time.

> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Plutonium from spent fuel, Pu240 contamination and all, can be made
> >into
> >> >> a weapon of sufficiently tweaked design, but the only way that you
can
> >be
> >> >> certain that it will detonate with a bang, not a whimper, is to
> >actually
> >> >> embark on a test program.
> >> >
> >> >You only need to be certain if it is to be used as a detererent as
> >between
> >> >two opposing states like the US and Russia or India and Pakistan. A
> >> >terrorist group will use NY, CLE or LA as a testing ground.
> >>
> >> That would be a terrorist group's undoing, as the fizzle may not even
wipe
> >> the fingerprints on the bomb casing, let alone vaporise the vehicle
used
> >to
> >> deliver the bomb (WTC bombing, all over again, with every bit as much
> >> evidence to find the perpetrators).
> >
> >That didn't stop them from trying again. There's a whole mess of them
out
> >there and they run the gamut from Osama to Tim McVey.
> >
> Neither Timothy McVeigh, nor the 1993 World Trade Center Bombers have
gotten
> a second chance to build a terrorist bomb.

So there's nothing to worry about, the bad guys are gone now?

> >
> >>
> >> If building a bomb from spent reactor fuel was so easy, <snip>
> >
> >It's not but making it from Pu produced by reprocessing of spent reactor
> >fuel is. They don't need to do the reprocessing if we do it for them.
>
> You snipped the important bit: The US, UK, USSR, and many others with the
> still unproven, but possible, exception of North Korea have not used
plutonium
> seperated from spent fuel rods to assemble their arsenal of nuclear
weapons
> (though they all may have tried a 'one-off' device).
>
> The difficult bit of making a bomb from spent reactor fuel is making a
weapon
> that will actually detonate. Not having the material at the start just
> adds extra hurdles.

Those nations had the option of building dedicated reactors to produce Pu,
Terrorists don't have that but with growing stockpiles of separated Pu they
will not need that. All they need to do is steal or buy/bribe some small
portion of the existing tonnage. They don't need 100% success or accuracy, t
hey won't be using it as a deterrent if at first they don't succeed they
*will* try and try again. Eventually they will succeed.

Regards,
Tim O

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can hydrogen deliver?
    ... You don't need weapons grade to make a nuclear explosive. ... > Pu240 in a mixed oxide fuel is a non-issue, ... >>It's not but making it from Pu produced by reprocessing of spent reactor ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Invisible Kitty Lord Accidental Hit
    ... good start getting healing and killing raider lord, ... Damage caused with your missile weapons: ... snip junk... ... His willpower score was modified by +14 during his career. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.adom)
  • Re: Nuclear Power - the only answer.
    ... > can end up with a bigger quantity of fuel after withdrawing power from it. ... like is the bit about spent fuel being weapons' grade ... On the bright side, Bob, if the reactors are shut down ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: North American Vigilante
    ... but with much less drag and started as a nuclear strike platform tossing the ... as a fuel tank and with a dedicated recce nose ... The weapons bay was considerably longer than the nuclear ... The tanks, which were ejected with the bomb, acted as ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Another Picture Of My Truck...
    ... My truck -delivers- trucks like yours, ... That Futile John doesn't care to see that is just a further reflection on ... there are lots of automatic weapons out there. ...
    (rec.scuba)