It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by nathraq
As you can see, that diagram for the nuclear projectile is completely outdated. They have a totally different design now.
Originally posted by cyberdude78
Nice post. Makes me want to go make my own nuke at home. Now were to find some uranium.
Originally posted by Hyperen
Originally posted by nathraq
As you can see, that diagram for the nuclear projectile is completely outdated. They have a totally different design now.
It does say that it is 'one of the simplest' designs. The article is about what it takes to make a bomb and it is really to show us how a country might start it's nuclear weapons program where it designs and builds all it's weapons itself.
They would start off with one of these 'simple' bombs just as other countries have in the early stages of their programs.
Originally posted by nathraq
There was concertina wire lining the ceiling of the bunker, in case of a break in: the wire would fall on the culprits, and a gas(don't know which one) would be emitted. The doors took two keys to open.
Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
Originally posted by cyberdude78
Nice post. Makes me want to go make my own nuke at home. Now were to find some uranium.
about five years ago i wrote through the freedom of information act and got charts in michigan, ohio, indiana, and wisconsin of where uranium is. it basically tells you where and how far down you need to dig. i'm sure you can't do that anymore though.
A terrorist group or country may find it easier to acquire plutonium from civil nuclear reactors, rather than enriched uranium, to produce a nuclear explosive.
Experts believe a crude plutonium bomb could be designed and assembled by terrorists possessing no greater level of skill than needed by the AUM cult to attack the Tokyo underground with nerve gas in 1995.
A nuclear explosive of this nature could explode with the power of 100 tonnes of TNT - 20 times more powerful than the largest terrorist bomb attack to date.
Originally posted by Hyperen
I find that quite worrying when only about 4kg of plutonium is needed to make a bomb.
A 100t nuclear weapon may be small for something nuclear but it would still do a huge amount of damage.
Originally posted by thematrix
Originally posted by Hyperen
A 100t nuclear weapon may be small for something nuclear but it would still do a huge amount of damage.
Considering the bomb in Hiroshima was somewere around 15KT, I'd say 100KT is just plain NASTY.
Originally posted by Hyperen
I'd imagine that would still do a huge amount of damage, maybe wipe out an area of a city.
Originally posted by cyberdude78
Oh I think they could do better than just a city block. And the problem is once its in the US its near impossible to stop. Just drive into downtown NYC with the bomb in you car and just detonate the thing. Anybody ever read the Sum of All Fears? Well I doubt they could get into the superbowl but you get the picture. Read the book it gives you a good idea of how something like this could happen.
[edit on 7/28/2004 by cyberdude78]
Originally posted by soothsayer
I remember reading (or seeing) somewhere back in the early 1980's that the glow-in-the-dark hands of most night stand clocks could be scraped and the residue used for a make-shift radioactive bomb/device...
Any truth to that?