The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
G'day Roger and everyone else, I'm not a physicist, I'm a historian, but I'm familiar with the history of how the current lot of statist criminals shysters acquired WMDs. The answer is, as usual 'it depends'. Once you've refined your uranium, uranium bombs are very simple - indeed, give me 100kg of weapons-grade uranium, six months, and ten million dollars, and I could probably make one myself, not that it would be very efficient. The Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb: the design was not tested beforehand because Oppenheimer and co were completely confident that it would work as planned. The South African A bombs were the same, and they do not appear to have been tested either. The recent IISS report is a therefore a red herring - of course Saddam can make a bomb in a few months given some crucial ingredients. The same is true of half the governments on the planet. Nagasaki bombs, plutonium implosion devices, are complex and much harder to build: they would probably need testing if you wanted to make sure they would work. The advantage of plutonium is that once you've got a reactor and a reprocessing plant, you can make lots of them: uranium bombs require less of a effort to set up, but reprocessing plants will only give you enough of the stuff for one every six months or so. Hydrogen bombs, fusion devices, are harder still, and you almost certainly have to test an a-bomb before you can be sure about how it works well enough to act as a trigger for the fusion bomb. So - it's highly unlikely that any low-budget bomb can be made to yield more than 50 kilotons without some serious testing and development. The Stalinists got 250kt out of one once, but that involved a test and development programme that was hard to miss. So - you don't necessarily need to test an a-bomb to be pretty confident that it's going to work. Chris -----Original Message----- From: VnStroope@aol.com To: soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk Sent: 13/09/02 14:21 Subject: [casi] bombs and such [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] Morning/Afternoon/Evening, I was wondering if any of you nuclear physicists might know whether or not SH would have to conduct N-tests prior to having a functioning bomb. I received good info from Glen R. on the aluminum tubes, but was thinking that if nuclear tests were required then geological 'listening' stations would pick it up...yes? No? Roger Stroope Peace is a Human Right Austin College _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk