History has proven we don't need a centralized standing army.

[Aegeon]

If you're trying to build a real bomb like Little Boy, then you're right. If you just want to make a big mess and piss off a lot of people using something that fits in a suitcase, it's not nearly as difficult. I'm not going to discuss the details here because I think I hear black helicopters, but anyone with an internet connection, a lot of money, and access to some decent engineers could pretty easily turn an urban area into a hot mess.

A dirty bomb is in no way shape or form a genuine nuclear bomb.

The impact, especially using something like regular uranium, would actually not be that great at all physically, with the psychological impact and related economic inconvenience being the real effects. To be clear, a dirty bomb on the scale you're talking about is not even on the same planet as the damage done by any genuine remotely decent sized nuclear explosion.

 

[fskimospy]

It is correct. People could easily carry things onto a plane that would take it down as well, as the current security measures are a complete joke. Why haven't they? Good question. There are a couple of obvious possible answers:
1. Terrorists are very uneducated and, most likely, stupid to begin with, which is why they become terrorists.
2. No one educated/intelligent enough to pull it off has the motivation to do it.

How many engineers and physicists currently work on nuclear arms just in the US? What about Russia, China, India, Pakistan? Thousands. Uranium is cheap - about $70/pound from what I see online. Little Boy used about 141 pounds of uranium. What were the complex bits used in that bomb that would be hard for an engineer to throw together today? How many engineers or physicists do you think it would take to throw something together? Even Wikipedia agrees with me - the simple design of the earliest bombs would be easy to reproduce today. You and Craig are obviously not engineers or you'd have realized that before making an ass of yourself.

Speaking of making an ass of myself, did you even read your own wiki link?

To quote:

With enough highly-enriched uranium (not itself an easy thing to acquire)

It mentions that the design of the bomb itself is not terribly difficult, and in that respect you're right. The acquisition or creation of the nuclear material to make a bomb is TREMENDOUSLY difficult. This is why the idea of some engineer making a nuclear weapon in their house is insane. Your idea that there are large numbers of people out there with the knowhow and the capability to make even small yield nuclear weapons is completely, hilariously false.

What you appear to be thinking of is a dirty bomb. They are much, much different than nuclear weapons, and they basically involve just packaging some radioactive crap in with a regular explosive that never reaches critical mass. There's no fission involved, just radioactivity thrown around. That's not a nuclear weapon by any known use of the term however.

Really, you were just completely wrong.

EDIT: And I do have to note the irony of your signature saying "Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about"

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally Posted by Anarchist420
4. What makes you think that Japan would've conquered us? Don't you know that FDR manuevered them into firing the first shot and that was only possible with a standing military?

So we would be speaking Japanese if you had your way?

 

[guyver01]

The citizens are armed enough, and if they aren't, then ambassadors and a well-maintained and well-guarded federal underground armoury would suffice until an army could be raised.

i think someone's been watching Red Dawn a little too much.

 

[Karl Agathon]

i think someone's been watching Red Dawn a little too much.

LOL

 

[CycloWizard]

A dirty bomb is in no way shape or form a genuine nuclear bomb.

The impact, especially using something like regular uranium, would actually not be that great at all physically, with the psychological impact and related economic inconvenience being the real effects. To be clear, a dirty bomb on the scale you're talking about is not even on the same planet as the damage done by any genuine remotely decent sized nuclear explosion.

I never said they were the same thing. The psychological impact is probably the point for terrorists, hence the name "terrorist."

 

[OutHouse]

OP is a loon

 

[CycloWizard]

Speaking of making an ass of myself, did you even read your own wiki link?

To quote:

It mentions that the design of the bomb itself is not terribly difficult, and in that respect you're right. The acquisition or creation of the nuclear material to make a bomb is TREMENDOUSLY difficult. This is why the idea of some engineer making a nuclear weapon in their house is insane. Your idea that there are large numbers of people out there with the knowhow and the capability to make even small yield nuclear weapons is completely, hilariously false.

What you appear to be thinking of is a dirty bomb. They are much, much different than nuclear weapons, and they basically involve just packaging some radioactive crap in with a regular explosive that never reaches critical mass. There's no fission involved, just radioactivity thrown around. That's not a nuclear weapon by any known use of the term however.

Really, you were just completely wrong.

EDIT: And I do have to note the irony of your signature saying "Anything is possible if you don't know what you're talking about"

Really?

 

[fskimospy]

Really?

Uhmmm, yes. You just owned yourself again.

Specifically from the sources of the Wiki article you apparently posted once again without reading: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=3848473&page=1 This whole article, cited by the article you linked is all about how incredibly difficult these things are to make and maintain. Superpowers such as the US and the Soviet Union/Russia been the only states with programs advanced enough to create nuclear weapons of such high complexity, not some 'engineer in a bathroom'.

What on earth does the existence of a suitcase nuke made by a superpower have to do with your idea that nuclear weapons are easy enough to construct that there are large numbers of people around the earth who could make them at any time? Let's just be honest here, you made a mistake because you didn't know how complex uranium enrichment was.

Just say: "I was wrong".

 

[CycloWizard]

Uhmmm, yes. You just owned yourself again.

Specifically from the sources of the Wiki article you apparently posted once again without reading: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=3848473&page=1 This whole article, cited by the article you linked is all about how incredibly difficult these things are to make and maintain. Superpowers such as the US and the Soviet Union/Russia been the only states with programs advanced enough to create nuclear weapons of such high complexity, not some 'engineer in a bathroom'.

What on earth does the existence of a suitcase nuke made by a superpower have to do with your idea that nuclear weapons are easy enough to construct that there are large numbers of people around the earth who could make them at any time? Let's just be honest here, you made a mistake because you didn't know how complex uranium enrichment was.

Just say: "I was wrong".

I'm not sure what would make me think that the nuclear material is accessible... It could be the part of the article that says,

I'm saying that more than a hundred weapons out of the supposed number of 250 are not under the control of the armed forces of Russia. I don't know their location. I don't know whether they have been destroyed or whether they are stored or whether they've been sold or stolen, I don't know.

Do you really think all of these idiots running around in the USSR in the late 80's/early 90's with access to this stuff and virtually no oversight or fear of reprisal wouldn't try to sell it? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[piasabird]

It is only a large centralized military force that has allowed the USA to develop superior weapons! Anyone that does not recognized this fact is somewhat lacking in intelligence. Think some family can afford to buy a new Tank? Who is gonna pay for Blackhawk helicopters? How much you plan on spending on Artillery next year?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not sure what would make me think that the nuclear material is accessible... It could be the part of the article that says,

Do you really think all of these idiots running around in the USSR in the late 80's/early 90's with access to this stuff and virtually no oversight or fear of reprisal wouldn't try to sell it? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

So you're saying that terrorist groups have had access to fissile material for two decades, but not a single one has detonated or even threatened to detonate a nuclear weapon.

This is particularly surprising as apparently all you need is a few engineers with some knowhow and a bathroom to construct a nuke in. When you think about it, Iran has been wasting millions (billions, really) of dollars in building these extremely complex centrifuge systems when they could have just gone over to Russia and bought some HEU. North Korea endured sanctions in order to reprocess its fuel rods for plutonium when all they needed to do was talk to some guys in Russia!

Looks like you might have bought a bridge of your own. Like I said before, use your head.

 

[CycloWizard]

So you're saying that terrorist groups have had access to fissile material for two decades, but not a single one has detonated or even threatened to detonate a nuclear weapon.

This is particularly surprising as apparently all you need is a few engineers with some knowhow and a bathroom to construct a nuke in. When you think about it, Iran has been wasting millions (billions, really) of dollars in building these extremely complex centrifuge systems when they could have just gone over to Russia and bought some HEU. North Korea endured sanctions in order to reprocess its fuel rods for plutonium when all they needed to do was talk to some guys in Russia!

Looks like you might have bought a bridge of your own. Like I said before, use your head.

Having enough enriched uranium for a national nuclear weapons program is not the same thing as having enough for a terrorist attack. Lack of an attack isn't indicative that you're right any more than a lack of attacks on planes is proof of the efficacy of TSA. Looks like Obama agrees with me.

 

[Brovane]

It is only a large centralized military force that has allowed the USA to develop superior weapons! Anyone that does not recognized this fact is somewhat lacking in intelligence. Think some family can afford to buy a new Tank? Who is gonna pay for Blackhawk helicopters? How much you plan on spending on Artillery next year?

Back when the US was first founded it was ok to not have a large standing Army. However that was back in the day when situations took months to develop. Weapons where simple and you could essentially build a Navy and Army when it was needed.

Around the 1880's this started to change. The US first realized this with naval power. You couldn't quickly build a navy out of steel when needed. Also with Steam Power navies could quickly cross the oceans to the US shores. If the US was going to protect its shores it needed a strong navy. This was ok until after WW2. However you had a new branch of the US military , the US Air Force. Bombers could now cross Oceans and attack targets thousands of miles away, within hours. A large standing Air Force was needed in addition to a standing Navy. The Korean War made us realize that we also needed a standing Army. We needed a well trained Army. Also weapons started to get more complex and tactics where more complex. Aristocratic officers on horse back could no longer direct forces. The killing weapons, Artillery, tanks, vehicles all required a well trained force. You couldn't just put a civilian through 8-weeks of bootcamp and expect them to understand the workings of a walking artillery barrage or a TOT barrage. So you really cannot just quickly increase the size of Army with roughly trained civilian draftees. The modern armies weapons are just to technical to allow this to happen and have a effective force.

 

[fskimospy]

Having enough enriched uranium for a national nuclear weapons program is not the same thing as having enough for a terrorist attack. Lack of an attack isn't indicative that you're right any more than a lack of attacks on planes is proof of the efficacy of TSA. Looks like Obama agrees with me.

Actually it is indicative that I'm right. Terrorist groups have powerful motivations to either threaten to use or actually use nuclear weapons, and no such threat or action has ever materialized. You've retreated to the 'you can't prove a negative' defense, which while technically true, is a pretty ridiculous debate strategy.

Also, the articles you keep linking are baffling. The focus of that article is that while Obama agrees with you, the actual experts think he's full of shit. In addition it talks about how Al Qaeda, the poster child for effective, well funded international terrorism, has been trying and failing to obtain HEU/plutonium for FIFTEEN YEARS. Why do you keep linking articles that disprove your own point?

Groups have the desire and (according to you) the capability to create and use nuclear weapons. If nothing else I believe it is incontestable that these groups would be made immeasurably more powerful by showing that they have such ability, even if they don't use it. Please provide a credible explanation as to why this capability and desire has coexisted for more than two decades without a single attack or even a single threat/statement of capability occurring. Are the engineers busy? Is there no group with a few million dollars available? Are there insufficient free bathrooms?

 

[QuantumPion]

Yup. He needs to be robbed at knife point and stabbed a couple times. It'd fix his world view.

How so? He's a liberal, which means he doesn't have anything to steal to begin with. At least not anything he earned for himself :awe:

 

[cwjerome]

Could you imagine if the US disbanded the military? Forget about America, this WORLD would be 100% fucked within 10 years.

Loon OP is loon.

 

[fskimospy]

How so? He's a liberal, which means he doesn't have anything to steal to begin with. At least not anything he earned for himself :awe:

I can never figure this out. Are the Evil Liberals the elite, pushing their elite agenda down on the downtrodden Average American, or are they the poor lazy leeches, sucking away the hard work of the downtrodden Average American?

I am only asking for the ridiculous caricatures to have some sort of internal consistency.

 

[CycloWizard]

Actually it is indicative that I'm right. Terrorist groups have powerful motivations to either threaten to use or actually use nuclear weapons, and no such threat or action has ever materialized. You've retreated to the 'you can't prove a negative' defense, which while technically true, is a pretty ridiculous debate strategy.

Also, the articles you keep linking are baffling. The focus of that article is that while Obama agrees with you, the actual experts think he's full of shit. In addition it talks about how Al Qaeda, the poster child for effective, well funded international terrorism, has been trying and failing to obtain HEU/plutonium for FIFTEEN YEARS. Why do you keep linking articles that disprove your own point?

Groups have the desire and (according to you) the capability to create and use nuclear weapons. If nothing else I believe it is incontestable that these groups would be made immeasurably more powerful by showing that they have such ability, even if they don't use it. Please provide a credible explanation as to why this capability and desire has coexisted for more than two decades without a single attack or even a single threat/statement of capability occurring. Are the engineers busy? Is there no group with a few million dollars available? Are there insufficient free bathrooms?

My original argument, before your seemingly endless diversions, was that a low-yield nuclear device/dirty bomb could be built by lots of people. I can't tell you why cave-dwelling idiots haven't done so yet. I can only tell you, as I did a while ago in this thread, that they are irrational idiots by their very nature. This tells me that their actions are likely to be both stupid and unpredictable. That they have not pursued this path to this point means absolutely nothing. Your argument is that it hasn't been done yet, therefore it can't be done. My argument is that they are cave-dwelling idiots and, for inexplicable reasons, they haven't done it yet.

There are at least 25 labs just at my university possessing radiation sources which could be used for a dirty bomb by anyone who has taken a high-school chemistry class or has internet access. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that one such source "disappears" within the US each day, and about 70 per day within the EU; about 20% of these thousands of missing sources are classified as "high-risk." So, either the cave-dwellers are idiots (as I've been saying all along), or they've been thwarted at every turn by vigilant lab staff using martial arts to repel terrorists from radiology laboratories and hospital imaging rooms everywhere. I'm sure there are other explanations, but the fact of the matter is that the limitations to this approach are technically and materially minimal.

 

[fskimospy]

My original argument, before your seemingly endless diversions, was that a low-yield nuclear device/dirty bomb could be built by lots of people. I can't tell you why cave-dwelling idiots haven't done so yet. I can only tell you, as I did a while ago in this thread, that they are irrational idiots by their very nature. This tells me that their actions are likely to be both stupid and unpredictable. That they have not pursued this path to this point means absolutely nothing. Your argument is that it hasn't been done yet, therefore it can't be done. My argument is that they are cave-dwelling idiots and, for inexplicable reasons, they haven't done it yet.

There are at least 25 labs just at my university possessing radiation sources which could be used for a dirty bomb by anyone who has taken a high-school chemistry class or has internet access. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that one such source "disappears" within the US each day, and about 70 per day within the EU; about 20% of these thousands of missing sources are classified as "high-risk." So, either the cave-dwellers are idiots (as I've been saying all along), or they've been thwarted at every turn by vigilant lab staff using martial arts to repel terrorists from radiology laboratories and hospital imaging rooms everywhere. I'm sure there are other explanations, but the fact of the matter is that the limitations to this approach are technically and materially minimal.

NOW you are differentiating between nukes and dirty bombs, something you did not do in the past, instead labeling them all nuclear weapons. (which they are not) You are backpedaling.

Your argument that a low yield nuclear device can be built by lots of people is as insanely wrong now as it was the first time you said it. You claim that lots of people have the capability to build nuclear weapons. Well funded, organized groups have expressed the desire to build just such weapons for a very long time. They have explicitly attempted to act upon this desire on numerous occasions spanning almost 20 years. There is zero evidence that they have been successful.

My contention due to these facts is: They haven't done it because nuclear weapons aren't as easy to build as you think, in fact they are very difficult to make.
Your contention is: They are crazy cave dwelling idiots and for reasons that defy human explanation, they haven't gotten around to it yet.

That is not a real argument, that is you grasping at straws.

 

[Craig234]

You kill me sometimes Craig. Have a nice time living in Namby-Pamby land.

Your posts have really deteriorated to having no substance, add water get ignorance.

 

[Craig234]

In McNamara's day, you were probably right - the knowledge and tools to make it happen were not widespread, but they certainly are now. There are plenty of people with the knowledge needed to singlehandedly build a low-yield device, and plenty more idiots with the money and insanity needed to supply them with the motivation and supplies. You're living in fantasy land if you really think there aren't enough engineers out there with the know-how to make a low-yield device. I can buy vastly improved versions of all of the tech used in the early bombs at Radio Shack at this point. How tight a leash do you really think we can keep on the world uranium market that someone can't score a pound or two? What if that crazy bastard has $10 million to pay for it? It's ridiculous to suggest that you can control every ounce of material everywhere in the world, but that's what you're suggesting.

We're not talking 'McNamara's day', he was busy running the nuclear arsenal getting it under control from the crazy 50's policies. We're talking the last decade.

You aren't listening to what I'm posting, so I'm wasting time evern more if I repeat it.

I say 'the knowledge is common, the materials are extremely controlled'. You respond about the 'know-how' ignoring what i said.

 

[CycloWizard]

NOW you are differentiating between nukes and dirty bombs, something you did not do in the past, instead labeling them all nuclear weapons. (which they are not) You are backpedaling.

Your argument that a low yield nuclear device can be built by lots of people is as insanely wrong now as it was the first time you said it. You claim that lots of people have the capability to build nuclear weapons. Well funded, organized groups have expressed the desire to build just such weapons for a very long time. They have explicitly attempted to act upon this desire on numerous occasions spanning almost 20 years. There is zero evidence that they have been successful.

My contention due to these facts is: They haven't done it because nuclear weapons aren't as easy to build as you think, in fact they are very difficult to make.
Your contention is: They are crazy cave dwelling idiots and for reasons that defy human explanation, they haven't gotten around to it yet.

That is not a real argument, that is you grasping at straws.

Your argument is that if a nuclear attack hasn't happened yet, it's because it's too difficult for either technical or material reasons. My argument is that it is possible to build one from a technical standpoint, and that enough enriched uranium has gone missing that acquiring it is certainly not out of the question. My argument appeals to me because it agrees with historic fact (i.e. someone has previously constructed a nuclear weapon, and a revolution took place in a nation with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads). Yours appeals to you because you aren't an engineer and don't understand that the technical side isn't all that difficult at this point given the appropriate nuclear materials, you think the CIA really has managed to track down every bit of relevant uranium, you don't realize that a revolution took place in a nation with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, or you're simply ignorant (willfully or otherwise).

How many decades were commercial planes being flown before one was hijacked and flown into a building?

 

[CycloWizard]

We're not talking 'McNamara's day', he was busy running the nuclear arsenal getting it under control from the crazy 50's policies. We're talking the last decade.

You aren't listening to what I'm posting, so I'm wasting time evern more if I repeat it.

I say 'the knowledge is common, the materials are extremely controlled'. You respond about the 'know-how' ignoring what i said.

I also addressed the materials aspect. You simply ignored that part of my post. Shocker.

 

[fskimospy]

Your argument is that if a nuclear attack hasn't happened yet, it's because it's too difficult for either technical or material reasons. My argument is that it is possible to build one from a technical standpoint, and that enough enriched uranium has gone missing that acquiring it is certainly not out of the question. My argument appeals to me because it agrees with historic fact (i.e. someone has previously constructed a nuclear weapon, and a revolution took place in a nation with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads). Yours appeals to you because you aren't an engineer and don't understand that the technical side isn't all that difficult at this point given the appropriate nuclear materials, you think the CIA really has managed to track down every bit of relevant uranium, you don't realize that a revolution took place in a nation with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, or you're simply ignorant (willfully or otherwise).

How many decades were commercial planes being flown before one was hijacked and flown into a building?

No, my argument is that it is extremely difficult for these groups to assemble the materials they need. I never once said that the engineering required to construct the mechanism through which to detonate it was outside of the technical ability of people. You started with that point because you either didn't know about or didn't understand the fissile material problem. This has nothing to do with me not understanding the engineering details, this has to do with you not understanding the reality details.

Your argument states that significant numbers of people have both the will and capability to produce nuclear weapons. When asked why not a single one of them has, you state "They're crazy and haven't for inexplicable reasons". By your own words in order for you to be correct, these groups must be afflicted by mass insanity that prevents them from accomplishing this task that you consider to be relatively simple.

When you are relying upon mass insanity to show why the logical conclusions of your argument haven't happened, that should be a really simple sign to you that your argument is bad. But hey, you just KNOW that there's tons of highly enriched uranium out there just waiting to be made into a bomb. Al-Qaeda can't get its hands on it because, like in a Saturday morning cartoon, wacky mixups just keep happening!