Nuclear terrorism

How else will Congress allow us to maintain the most powerful military

Japan
>theage.com.au/world/missing-plutonium-leaves-nuclear-industry-red-faced-20030130-gdv57t.html

US
>Project Sapphire

Ukraine (article 404'ed; 12 years old now)
>"Out of 2,400 nuclear warheads which were on Ukrainian territory, the withdrawal of only 2,200 warheads has been verified. The fate of the remaining 200 warheads is unknown," Simonenko told Pravda.ru.
>And his charges were backed up, Pravda.ru writes, by a member of a Ukrainian parliamentary investigation who admits that some of the warheads have been "lost."

Russia
>>Suitcase nukes
>>cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9806/17/russia.loose.nukes/
>>Article on missing Uranium 404'ed (16 years old), CFR has a statement on it cfr.org/backgrounder/loose-nukes

>40065351
Eat a dick nigger
>pic related, it's you

Attached: 1543551617492.jpg (750x924, 106K)

Interesting/concerning.

So 200kg missing from Japan and 50kg from the USA, any idea what that equates to in yield? Of course I understand it’s down to the device but any rough estimates? Assuming it is split into multiple smaller devices as I wouldn’t expect Mbeke to put together a 200kg bomb.

That depends entirely on who's building the devices, and what sort of effect they're going for. This is actually a decent problem, because nuclear safeguards hinge around stopping people from getting enough material to make a weapon. The conversation goes something like this;

>How much do they need to make a weapon?
Well, depends who they are.
>Do they need fifty kilos?
Probably not.
>Thirty kilos?
A guy with a textbook and a garage probably does.
>Twenty kilos?
An old South African scientist probably does
>What about fifteen?
India/Pakistan probably does.
>Could they do it with five?
Russia or China probably could.
>What about one?
America probably could.

So, to answer your question, that depends on where it ends up. But based off of a universal best-guess of how much people need to make a bomb (25kg of enriched U235 or 8kg of pure U235/PU238) you're looking at about twenty-eight bombs, with each bomb producing at least a couple kilotons of energy. Ish.

Interesting. Thanks.

The 200 missing from Ukraine are somewhat more of a concern. Probably in Pakistan or Iran I would imagine. If it was a terrorist group I doubt they would have sat on them for so long.

>not understanding why we do it
Brainlet.

Worrying about suitcase nukes is retarded since literally any warhead capable of blasting a city is small enough to fit inside any four-door sedan, which is plenty small. The well-read amongst you will recall that the OKC bomber used a U-haul filled with barrels. He could have fit ten nukes into that thing no problem, had he been able to acquire them. The size of the warhead is irrelevant - they're all small enough to be concealed and delivered anywhere you care to take them.

There's also a huge misconception about how difficult it is to make a nuclear weapon. The reality is that it is incredibly easy, provided that you have access to the nuclear material. Any idiot can build a bomb if they have material. The only reason that modern nuclear weapon designs are as complex as they are is so they can squeeze the maximum amount of efficiency out of a given amount of material because that means you can pack more bang onto a smaller missile. If you're a terrorist who's just trying to blow up a city none of that matters. You and your retarded stepbrother could build a working nuclear bomb in an afternoon in your garage using stuff you found on wikipedia if you had enough material to make it with. People are totally delusional about how difficult this is, thinking they need to make a perfect arrangement of explosives lenses or whatever. The bomb they dropped on Hiroshima was literally a tube that fired a donut into a sausage. It was so simple and idiot-proof they didn't even test the design before they dropped it on Japan. If you don't think a terrorist group could figure out how to build this you are kidding yourself.

However it is very difficult to get enough of the right kind of material, mostly because it's very difficult and time-consuming to manufacture, and the material that has been manufactured already is difficult to steal. But it isn't impossible to make or steal it, and someday someone is going to get their hands on enough of it to set off a crude bomb.

Attached: Little_Boy_Internal_Components.png (735x675, 44K)

I don't know, ban non-whites, exile left wing white people who have a predilection for terrorism, and build a wall to keep them out? Who are the "terrorist" afterall? I'm pretty sure it's not Jim, the white guy from Appalachia.

Attached: thealternativehypothesis-org-7.png (710x721, 52K)

>It's easy bro
There's a lot of very specific amounts of things you need to get exactly right at exactly the same time. The actual structures used to make nukes is publicly available but the important working bits such as trigger circuits or the implosion geometry isn't available.

Bump

Nothing can be done except maybe blocking certain nationalties, race, and religion. But that kind of power can lead down a slippery path.

I would like to think that you're Oppenheimer posting on the DL.

It would since it would force a shit ton of those faggots to seek refuge in non shit states.