Al-Qaida's U.S. nuclear targets

WorldNetDaily ^ | July 18, 2005 | JOSEPH FARAH

[Fruit of the Spirit]

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Al-Qaida's prime targets for launching nuclear terrorist attacks are the nine U.S. cities with the highest Jewish populations, according to captured leaders and documents.

As first revealed last week in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND, Osama bin Laden is planning what he calls an "American Hiroshima," the ultimate terrorist attack on U.S. cities, using nuclear weapons already smuggled into the country across the Mexican border along with thousands of sleeper agents.

The series of attacks is designed to kill 4 million, destroy the economy and fundamentally alter the course of history.

At least two fully assembled and operational nuclear weapons are believed to be hidden in the United States already, according to G2 Bulletin intelligence sources and an upcoming book, "The al-Qaida Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams.

The cities chosen as optimal targets are New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boston and Washington, D.C. New York and Washington top the preferred target list for al-Qaida leadership.

[calenel]

From the link you posted above:

"Fat Man" - The Plutonium Bomb

Plutonium was more challenging to use because it was not as fissionable as uranium. The first major obstacle in designing this bomb was to determine what the supercritical mass for plutonium would be. Richard Feyman and Hans Bethe had calculate the supercritical mass to about 16 kilograms (35.2 lb.). However, it was calculated that this mass could be reduced to 10 kilograms (22 lb.) if the plutonium was surrounded by the U-238 isotope [Dyson, 1997]. This was a major discovery since plutonium was limited and U-238 was not.

In order to start the chain reaction, the mass of plutonium must be fused together while a radioactive source emitted a neutron. The way the bomb was design was that a Beryllium/Polonium mixture, radioactive elements that release neutrons, would be placed in the center of a sphere. The sphere would be made up of equally spaced and shaped plutonium sections. The sphere looked a lot like a soccer ball. When the bomb was detonated, the sphere would implode, or collapse inward, causing all the plutonium to fuse together, reach supercritical mass, and start the chain reaction. The initial explosion, which caused the implosion, would be made by conventional explosive. All this would occur in a fraction of a second (about one ten-millionth). This bomb was also an altimeter bomb. Both bombs had many safety options to guarantee the success of the detonation as well as the safety of the delivery crew.

You are wrong. Your own link (aside from being somewhat misleading about the construction of the beryllium/polonium initiator) describes what I have been talking about for this whole thread. Show me links from sites that actually support your side of the debate.

Fusing together plutonium into a supercritical mass is done with an implosion explosive detonation, not merely storing too much plutonium too close by "piling it" together by hand as you wildly claimed. Further, setting off the chain reaction takes an emitted neutron AT THE PRECISE moment of implosion, a mathematical feat that is not for the faint of heart.

Actually, I never said you could get a supercritical mass by piling it all together by hand. Just the opposite. I said plutonium will go critical by itself and blow itself apart if you put too much in one spot - the dirty bomb effect as virtually none of the plutonium fissions. As for getting that one special neutron in the right place at the right time, well, if you know how hard it is, then you must know how to do it, right? Why don't you tell us how to do it so we can all understand just how tough it is? Never mind, I'll save you the trouble. Look, you use more than one neutron. The polonium-210 in the above described initiator is an alpha emitter. When beryllium is struck by alpha particles, it emits neutrons. The source is a tiny ball, marble sized, of concentric spheres of polonium and beryllium separated by a thin shield (alpha particles can be blocked by a sheet of paper) to prevent the alpha particles from the polonium from hitting the beryllium. When the compression wave from the implosion reaches the marble, it is crushed and the polonium and beryllium are mixed together resulting in a whole slew of ready and willing neutrons becoming available just as the plutonium is being compressed into the center. That's how the one described in your link actually works. But there are plenty of other neutron sources that could be used, or even alternative alpha sources if you don't have polonium.

You've repeated wildly discredited urban myths about nukes being "trivial."

Show me the links. You are the one spreading myths. I will stand by my statements until you show me something better. Instead you cut and paste boilerplate that you don't even understand.

Expect to be debunked time and again around here, with links to reputable sites as support.

So, where are those links? I am waiting and hoping to be debunked.

[calenel]

Plutonium has a very long half-life...meaning that it emits very little radiation naturally...meaning that it is less fissionable than uranium...meaning that it doesn't self-initiate.

I am well aware of the half life of plutonium, having stated it on this thread. Perhaps we should clarify a few terms, such as critical mass. It isn't really mass, so much as geometry that determines when you have achieved critical mass. Critical mass only means that you have a self sustaining reaction. Obviously, 100 tons of plutonium stretched out as a million mile wire will never go critical, yet 25 pounds in a solid sphere will. The theoretical lower limit of the critical mass of plutonium is a few hundred grams, or well under a pound. A supercritical mass is an amount in a geometry that is greater than critical mass.

You can achieve critical mass with Pu239 - achieve a chain reaction - with the 25 pounds. If a supercritical mass, say a bigger sphere, or even the 25 pounds compressed somehow, is used, the chain reaction grows. The logical end result of the growing or runaway chain reaction is that it cannot grow indefinitely and must eventually reach a limit. Equilibrium at a higher energy output? Not in the definition of supercritical mass. A bell curve energy output with the decrease due to the consumption of the fuel? Well, okay, but that is simply the description of a "bang". The longer the plutonium is held together in a supercritical geometry, the bigger the bang. If not held together long enough then not enough of the plutonium will fission before the chain reaction disintegrates due to geometrical anomolies - the dirty bomb scenario.

[calenel]

"a chain reaction - a stabile one - is much more difficult than a bang." - calenel

"Chain reactions have occured naturally on Earth, something that one can't say for atomic explosions." - Southack

I am aware of the natural nuclear reactors at Oklo. A remarkable natural occurance. But how would you know there have never been any naturally occurring nuclear explosions? It seems to me that they would already have happened. But aside from that, the concentration of U235 required for such a natural reactor to occur is incredibly unlikely, making Oklo even more remarkable. The concentrations involved do not qualify as weapons grade and in any case my statement was with regard to plutonium. And since Pu239 does not occur in nature, your point is invalid. But, in general, a self sustained chain reaction must be moderated to keep it from running wild, by definition more complex than just letting it do its thing. And there are millions of such natural reactions that are simply over-modulated through dilution and are therefore not self sustaining. A complex balancing act. Under modulate the reaction and your reaction runs away, possibly resulting in a melt-down (a very slow "bang" in case you still haven't connected the dots). A fast "bang" is not possible as fuel grade fissiles are not sufficiently pure. Too much modulation (either through dilution or neutron capture) and the reaction shuts down - the natural state for the vast majority of U235.

[calenel]

The article does mention Po-210 in the context of the initiator, you are correct. It is an artificial, man-made element. I'll even concede it was exotic 60 years ago. All that given, it serves as an alpha source to generate neutrons from the beryllium and that may be accomplished via alternate means. But there you go, you have your first actual point.

But it is also available for medical research as are other alpha sources and neutron sources (but since they only use ONE neutron for all that research, you have to be patient for your turn and neutron microscopes are really, really slow).

[calenel]

"Are these technological points? Loose lips and all? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that." - calenel

"Exactly - " - DevSix

Well, kudos to you, man, but we seem to be way past that, and, frankly, I have no doubt that the islamonazis are, too. Our military has already recovered more explicit stuff than is posted here. And any information I was hesitant to share, realistically, is posted on the web anyway.

"But furthermore one only needs to look at the recent al Qeade bombings in Madrid and the two latest attacks in Great Britain to see that al Qeade does not have anywhere near the technical capacity to revive and or keep up to date any old former Soviet Union Nukes."

It seems evident that we have degraded their capabilities significantly, but there were always a good mix of bunglers and idiots in AQ to begin with (Reid, Moussaoui, etc.) and who knows if these guys in the UK are really AQ or just more idiot band-wagoneers? And remember, they only need to get lucky once, we need to be lucky every time. One victory can erase all the bungled operations. And they still have 10 or 12 million low grade morons to use up.

"That can't even build simple triggering devices that work half the time."

The reports aren't all in, but I suspect it was actually the explosive that failed. The triggers seemed to have worked but the explosive didn't. It also seems likely that the explosive would have been made all at once, and it was just a bad batch for whatever reason. If the triggers were a proven design it would be unlikely that they would all fail. Unless they "used up" all their bomb making expertise in the previous operation? (Note to self: Send the bomb maker in the last wave, not the first one.)

"A type of biological or chemical attack is of far greater concern than anything Nuclear. A Nuclear attack by al Qeade in the United States is hogwash."

I agree with the first statement.

[calenel]

And any unmoderated chain reactions would have burned themselves out one way or another long since.

[Southack]

"Actually, I never said you could get a supercritical mass by piling it all together by hand. Just the opposite. I said plutonium will go critical by itself and blow itself apart if you put too much in one spot - the dirty bomb effect as virtually none of the plutonium fissions." - calenel 

 

"Plutonium will go critical if you put too much of it in one place - it doesn't even require compression." - calenel 


"Pu239 will go critical all by itself if you put too much of it in one spot. Doesn't need a trigger." - calenel  post #72

...

"When you are using highly sophisticated technology for fission-boosting, ballistic targeting, pressure sensors, yada-yada, then, of course, you need regular maintenance. But don't confuse the maintenance of the delivery and enhancement systems with the bang - which is in the plutonium." - calenel  post #72

At best, giving you some benefit of the doubt, you are thinking about Plutonium Nitrate in solution form...which actually *can* reach criticality accidentally.

But lets not confuse a mere radiation event with a "bang" or an atomic bomb.

If you want to say that the terrorists can create a dirty bomb, then fine, but lets not confuse a casual reader. Dirty bombs are radiation events, not atomic weapons, not like Little Boy, not like Fat Man, not like Gadget.

[Southack]

"You are wrong. Your own link (aside from being somewhat misleading about the construction of the beryllium/polonium initiator) describes what I have been talking about for this whole thread. Show me links from sites that actually support your side of the debate." - calenel

I did. You're quoting and disagreeing with the *link* that I provided to you...then you're playing Senator Kerry and agreeing with that same link later on in your post 81.

[Southack]

"But aside from that, the concentration of U235 required for such a natural reactor to occur is incredibly unlikely, making Oklo even more remarkable." - calenel

It's not remarkable. Oklo was predicted prior to being discovered.

Then 8 more such natural reactors were discovered.

Fission, it turns out, is natural. Who woulda thunk it.

[Southack]

"there are plenty of other neutron sources that could be used, or even alternative alpha sources if you don't have polonium." - calenel

There are other neutron sources, there are other alpha sources...but for a *weapon*, you're limited to isotopes that can be placed *inside* your physics package.

...and every neutron-emitting isotopic combination that is bomb-worthy has the identical problem as does Po-210...a short half-life...by definition (because you need rapid atomic decay to jump-start the reaction, and rapid atomic decay literally *means* "short half life").

[Southack]

"But that is a straw man argument, anyway. Don't let your plutonium rust in the first place." - calenel

Rust is only one worry. Plutonium is also pyrophoric (go look it up).

[Rca2000]

I have been reading this,with some amusement. I am NOT as knowledged as some others are on nuclear weapon design, but I do know MORE than probably 95% of most people(ALL of us, in this discussion, fit the "in the know" group. Nuclear weapons and such have interested me, for a long time. I am not up with all of the math, and calculations (ALL of which are necessary, if you want a BANG, and not a POOF!!), but I know a lot about the basicdesign of the physics package, which has been described.

Therefore, I will tell you,. that you CANNOT use old, consumer-grade parts, like out of a tv or vcr, to make up the firing devices for the implosion assy. We are talking about SUB-MICROSECOND timing, here, and your Solid-state devices, like SCR's, are WAY slower than that. Typically, Krytrons,(filled wiht radioactive krypton) and such are used, to fire the explodinig-foil detonators in the shaped charges, to compress the plutonium. You need a LOT of voltage(thousands)and curerent(hundereds of amps), for a few nanoseconds, to fire these in the timing necessary, to insure that all of the shaped charges fire in symmetry. A delay, of a few microseconds or so, is enough, to cause an unsymmetrical blast wave, and then,you will not get the proper compression of the pit, some of the blast from the shaped charges would most likely be "vented", and then, you would have a small amount of fission, resulting in a big flash, and some heat, in the immediate area of the bomb, and the rest of the plutonium that did not fission would be vaporized by the shaped charges that do fire correctly, and you have a "dirty bomb".

BTW--if you know as much about nukes as you say, then, you will know that the term "dirty bomb" is NOT the correct term for a device that only spreads fallout, and no nuclear yield-- the term is Radiological dispersal device, or RDD. The term "dirty bomb" used to be applied, to a hydrogen bomb, which had a jacket of depleted uranium attached to the secondary, to increase the yield, while, at the same time, GREATLY increasing the radiological emissions,IE, fallout, and hence, the term "dirty bomb". a CLEAN bomb, was one that had an inert shell, like lead, or aluminum, for this outer casing, and did not produce nearly as much fallout as the "dirty" one.

And yes-- plotonium is pyrophoric, as is lithium deuteride.ALL of these must be handled in a properly-prepared,oxygen-free clean-room, or......

[SevenMinusOne]

Well, kudos to you, man, but we seem to be way past that, and, frankly, I have no doubt that the islamonazis are, too. Our military has already recovered more explicit stuff than is posted here. And any information I was hesitant to share, realistically, is posted on the web anyway.

I was actually speaking / regarding ways we can (and do) track nuclear weapon related materials and equipment - (they don't have them in the United States for a number of reasons, this line just one of those)

[Nowhere Man]

I think for RDD's where a conventional explosion is used to spread out the radioactive elements (called a "dirty bomb" in error) was also called an "R-Bomb" in the 1950's when the idea came about. I thin Nikita Khruschev even considered using "R-Bombs" (RDD's) if we went "toe-to-toe" with him because the story was that he had too few warheads for Soviet ICBM's in the early 1960's.

From what I understand, it is somewhat possible to maybe have a gun type nuke with conventional electronics (like "Little Boy") but again you have a lot of technical hurdles to cross. Even for that and much better weapons, you would need to have a lot of scientists, engineers and technicians in your stable to build a nuke so there is a lot more to nukes and timing that just cobbling a bunch of 555 timer IC's together.

[SauronOfMordor]

The assumption here is that AlQ will go for a suitcase-type, rather than just brute-forcing it with a WW-2 design

The purpose of the suitcase nuke is to enable a small group of SF-types to transport it to the target on their backs. If you take away that requirement, a lot of complexity goes out the window. The Little-Boy design used on Hiroshima was dirt-simple, a gun-type device where the two sub-critical parts were essentially placed in the barrel of a large gun and one part shot toward the other. Due to quirks of plutonium, it was easier to use uranium for the gun-type design, and the plutonium Hiroshima bomb was the more complicated implosion type. A plutonium gun-bomb would have been to heavy for the B-29. But it would not be too heavy to transport by one or more trucks, and assembled in a vacant apartment

And there's always the "dirty bomb" approach, which doesn't need plutonium. You just expose cobalt or zinc to a strong neutron source for a while

[calenel]

"But lets not confuse a mere radiation event with a "bang" or an atomic bomb."

You decide exactly constitutes a bang, then, and provide us with that definition. I have the position that any supercritical geometry constitutes a bang. You obviously disagree.

"At best, giving you some benefit of the doubt, you are thinking about Plutonium Nitrate in solution form...which actually *can* reach criticality accidentally."

You didn't read that link, did you?

[calenel]

"I did. You're quoting and disagreeing with the *link* that I provided to you...then you're playing Senator Kerry and agreeing with that same link later on in your post 81."

Spin away. You provided the link. It describes the construction of "Fat Man" which was a relatively simple device. Aside from the description of the initiator, which your link described as "a Beryllium/Polonium mixture, radioactive elements that release neutrons" (a more accurate description has been provided) I agreed with the description of an unsophisticated plutonium bomb. From the point at which you posted the link I have said it supported my side of the debate. Perhaps your apparent misunderstanding of what "fused" means and the absurd idea that somehow only a single neutron was involved and was to be released at some precise instant might make you believe otherwise, but I have been "advocating" the simple spherical geometry all along. But since you are now resorting to name calling, I guess the discussion is essentially over.

[calenel]

"It's not remarkable. Oklo was predicted prior to being discovered."

What is remarkable to you, then? Niagara Falls? The Grand Canyon? The Great Wall? The Pyramids?

"Then 8 more such natural reactors were discovered."

Eight? In all the world? I bet there are many more. No, no, I *predict* that there are many more. See how easy it is?

"Fission, it turns out, is natural. Who woulda thunk it."

What is your point?

[Optimist]

How many times does Farah's dribble have to be posted here?

HOW DARE YOU!
Just in case you aren't aware....

Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, IS the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND...
.....Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...

OK....

NOW you have permission to LYAO.

8-)

[Optimist]

Yeah, but what does DEBKA say?