'Loose Nukes' Threat Growing - The Orange Mane

Bronco_Beerslug · 01-30-2007, 11:41 AM

Probably only a matter of time until one is lit off somewhere.

-----------------------------------------
'Loose Nukes' Threat Growing, Nunn Says

January 30, 2007 · A Russian citizen arrested in the former Soviet republic of Georgia reportedly had weapon-grade uranium for sale. The incident highlights the overall problem of securing nuclear material after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Former Sen. Sam Nunn discusses the case with Steve Inskeep:

SN: There have been numerous instances of this kind of smuggling. There have been a lot of stings, there's been a lot small trafficking, there's been a lot of low-enriched uranium.

The thing that really stands out here is this was weapon-grade material. And by that, we mean that knowledgeable people could take that kind of material, in sufficient quantities, and make a nuclear weapon or device that could take out an American city, or a city around the world.

SI: Is there enough evidence to know that this suspect actually had access to as large a quantity of uranium as he claimed?

SN: I have no way of knowing that. I'd have to defer that question to people who did the investigation.

But this overall problem, trying to keep materials out the hands of the wrong people, and trying to secure the weapon-grade material all over the globe, has been the mission of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a foundation I head. And, in fact, it is the main aim of the program known as the Nunn-Lugar Program that you alluded to. So, we've worked this problem for a long time. But the threat, in many cases, seems to be outpacing the response.

The other big program, we call it "the global cleanout," and that's a U.S.-Russian initiative to try to get material that is weapon grade back from research reactors all over the globe.

SI: Given all the efforts you've made, how safe would say that Russia's nuclear stockpiles are now?

SN: Let me give you a brief scorecard, and I would have to say this is totally subjective, this is my view, but I think it's based on facts.

On a scale of 10, 10 being we would have secured all of the Russian and former Soviet Union stocks, we are at about five. That's real progress; but we have a long way to go.

On a scale of 1-10, globally, in terms of getting all of this material under control, we are at about three, so we have much further to go in that regard. But this does take cooperation. And we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe.

SI: So even though this particular smuggling case seems to involve Russia, that's not the area of gravest concern at the moment?

SN: I would say it is. But that's not the only one. I think Russia still has the largest stockpiles. But there are other countries that probably have less security over much smaller stockpiles. So I would say they're all very important.

SI: I want to follow up on a couple of things you said, senator. You said the threat is outpacing the response. Does that mean that, even though you're making progress, you're a little more worried now than you might have been 10 years ago?

SN: Yes, because I think groups, fanatical groups, have worked on this. There's no question that Osama bin Laden has announced publicly that he is trying to get nuclear materials. So there's a willingness there. And there would probably be access to the kind of people that could put a weapon together. Although it's not an easy task, it can be done.

And the nuclear material is taking far too long to secure. There are over 40 countries that have small amounts of nuclear material. And even if they don't have enough for a weapon, there's nothing to prevent a group like this that's determined, that has access to money, that can corrupt people inside, nothing to keep them from putting several different stocks together to be able to have enough material to make a weapon. And that's my worst fear.

As hard as the problems are with Iran and North Korea, and these things come together at some point, because the more nations that have nuclear weapons, the more nations that go into the enrichment process, the harder its going to be to keep this stuff out of the hands of someone who would use it.

SI: People sometimes refer to "suitcase" bombs. I wonder how real that is, even if you're talking about the raw material, smuggling nuclear material. Could you put enough uranium to make a bomb in a suitcase, with enough lead or other insulation, that it would not be blindingly obvious and extremely dangerous?

SN: I'm afraid the answer to that is yes.

Bronco_Beerslug · 02-08-2007, 12:18 AM

Nuclear terrorism risk seen growing
By Mark Trevelyan, Security Correspondent Wed Feb 7, 7:17 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Western governments must take seriously the possibility of terrorists exploding a nuclear bomb as the necessary materials and know-how become easier to acquire, security analysts argue in two new reports.

The mushroom cloud of the first test of a hydrogen bomb is seen in a 1952 file photo. Western governments must take seriously the possibility of terrorists exploding a nuclear bomb as the necessary materials and know-how become easier to acquire, security analysts argue in two new reports. (Handout/Reuters)

"The threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons is real ... moreover, the likelihood of terrorists acquiring such weapons is growing as more states aggressively pursue their own nuclear ambitions," the EastWest Institute said in a study.

It said the first nuclear terrorist may turn out to be an American or European, reflecting a likely evolution in security threats over the next 10-15 years and a possible shift away from al Qaeda-style Islamist militancy toward eco-terrorism.

In a separate report, London's influential Chatham House think-tank said it was feasible that terrorists could acquire an atomic bomb, build one themselves, create an "improvised nuclear device" or blow up a nuclear power station.

Another risk was the collapse of government control over civil and military nuclear facilities and materials in countries like Pakistan or
North Korea.

The design, materials and engineering for a bomb "have all become commodities, more or less available to those determined enough to acquire them," said Paul Cornish, head of the international security program at Chatham House.

He said the science and engineering challenges were very difficult but not insurmountable.

IMPROVISED BOMB

Rather than aiming to build a military-grade atomic weapon, terrorists might settle for a cruder improvised device that would require more uranium but a lesser degree of enrichment, thereby reducing one of the key technical barriers.

"The device might then 'fizzle' rather than detonate its entire mass instantly and efficiently. But if the resulting explosion were to be equivalent to just one or a few kilotons of TNT rather than tens of kilotons, terrorists could still find this option attractive," Cornish wrote.

He stressed that such a scenario was just one of a range of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats which were all appealing options for terrorist groups.

Security analysts see a CBRN attack as a logical escalation for groups such as al Qaeda, which in the past has frequently varied its strikes and sought to increase their scale -- notably with the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of Britain's domestic intelligence agency MI5, said in November that future threats "may include the use of chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology."

Ken Berry, author of the EastWest Institute report, said the rise of environmental militants would bring "an even bigger prospect that scientific personnel from the richest countries will aid eco-terrorist use of nuclear weapons or materials."

Some security analysts believe the effects of global warming will exacerbate the world's rich-poor divide, intensify conflicts over land, water and other resources and help to radicalize populations and fan terrorism.

The study highlighted the recent poisoning of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko in London, apparently with radioactive polonium smuggled in from Russia, as proof that the international community lacks proper controls on nuclear materials that could be used by terrorists.

Greg Austin, a Brussels-based analyst for the institute, said the episode showed that secular Europeans were not averse to using nuclear substances as weapons. "We need to deal with the prospect that the first nuclear terrorist is in fact more likely to be American or European," he said.

cutthemdown · 02-08-2007, 12:25 AM

Pretty scary but I think it takes quite a bit of enriched uranium to make a bomb.

Hotrod · 02-08-2007, 10:20 AM

Oh its going to happen somewhere someday the question of when is the problem. Tomarrow or in 50 years who really knows but I think its prolly 99.9% certain to happen.

Bronco Bob · 02-08-2007, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Pretty scary but I think it takes quite a bit of enriched uranium to make a bomb.

The simplist type of bomb a terrorist could make would be a "Little Boy"
type bomb, which would need 50 pounds of enriched uranium,
yielding around a 10 kiloton blast.
Plutonium won't work in this type of bomb because plutonium generates
too many stray neutrons and it would predetonate, resulting in a fizzle
instead of an explosion. However for terrorist purposes even a fizzle
might be good enough as even a 1/2 kiloton explosion would cause
a lot of damage.

The more sophisticated "Fat Man" implosion type bomb would need
about 30 pounds plutonium and could yield from a 10 kiloton up to
a 100 kiloton blast, depending on the sophistication of the design.
However this type of bomb is probably beyond the capabilities
of most terrorists to fabricate.

Bronco_Beerslug · 02-09-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

The simplist type of bomb a terrorist could make would be a "Little Boy"
type bomb, which would need 50 pounds of enriched uranium,
yielding around a 10 kiloton blast.
Plutonium won't work in this type of bomb because plutonium generates
too many stray neutrons and it would predetonate, resulting in a fizzle
instead of an explosion. However for terrorist purposes even a fizzle
might be good enough as even a 1/2 kiloton explosion would cause
a lot of damage.

The more sophisticated "Fat Man" implosion type bomb would need
about 30 pounds plutonium and could yield from a 10 kiloton up to
a 100 kiloton blast, depending on the sophistication of the design.
However this type of bomb is probably beyond the capabilities
of most terrorists to fabricate.

With suitcase nuclear bomb technology available, I worry that anyone with a lot of money can acquire one. I also wonder if someone, anyone might try and alter our economy to make money on that by detonating a nuclear bomb in a city.

Bronco Bob · 02-09-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

With suitcase nuclear bomb technology available, I worry that anyone with a lot of money can acquire one. I also wonder if someone, anyone might try and alter our economy to make money on that by detonating a nuclear bomb in a city.

Basically it would be easier for a terrorist to buy or steal a pre-made
nuclear bomb than to try to build one on their own. Even North Korea's
first bomb test was a dud, assuming they actually did try to test a nuclear
bomb.

01-30-2007, 11:41 AM	#1
Bronco_Beerslug Angling in the Deep Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains Posts: 24,281	'Loose Nukes' Threat Growing Probably only a matter of time until one is lit off somewhere. ----------------------------------------- 'Loose Nukes' Threat Growing, Nunn Says January 30, 2007 · A Russian citizen arrested in the former Soviet republic of Georgia reportedly had weapon-grade uranium for sale. The incident highlights the overall problem of securing nuclear material after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Former Sen. Sam Nunn discusses the case with Steve Inskeep: SN: There have been numerous instances of this kind of smuggling. There have been a lot of stings, there's been a lot small trafficking, there's been a lot of low-enriched uranium. The thing that really stands out here is this was weapon-grade material. And by that, we mean that knowledgeable people could take that kind of material, in sufficient quantities, and make a nuclear weapon or device that could take out an American city, or a city around the world. SI: Is there enough evidence to know that this suspect actually had access to as large a quantity of uranium as he claimed? SN: I have no way of knowing that. I'd have to defer that question to people who did the investigation. But this overall problem, trying to keep materials out the hands of the wrong people, and trying to secure the weapon-grade material all over the globe, has been the mission of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a foundation I head. And, in fact, it is the main aim of the program known as the Nunn-Lugar Program that you alluded to. So, we've worked this problem for a long time. But the threat, in many cases, seems to be outpacing the response. The other big program, we call it "the global cleanout," and that's a U.S.-Russian initiative to try to get material that is weapon grade back from research reactors all over the globe. SI: Given all the efforts you've made, how safe would say that Russia's nuclear stockpiles are now? SN: Let me give you a brief scorecard, and I would have to say this is totally subjective, this is my view, but I think it's based on facts. On a scale of 10, 10 being we would have secured all of the Russian and former Soviet Union stocks, we are at about five. That's real progress; but we have a long way to go. On a scale of 1-10, globally, in terms of getting all of this material under control, we are at about three, so we have much further to go in that regard. But this does take cooperation. And we are in a race between cooperation and catastrophe. SI: So even though this particular smuggling case seems to involve Russia, that's not the area of gravest concern at the moment? SN: I would say it is. But that's not the only one. I think Russia still has the largest stockpiles. But there are other countries that probably have less security over much smaller stockpiles. So I would say they're all very important. SI: I want to follow up on a couple of things you said, senator. You said the threat is outpacing the response. Does that mean that, even though you're making progress, you're a little more worried now than you might have been 10 years ago? SN: Yes, because I think groups, fanatical groups, have worked on this. There's no question that Osama bin Laden has announced publicly that he is trying to get nuclear materials. So there's a willingness there. And there would probably be access to the kind of people that could put a weapon together. Although it's not an easy task, it can be done. And the nuclear material is taking far too long to secure. There are over 40 countries that have small amounts of nuclear material. And even if they don't have enough for a weapon, there's nothing to prevent a group like this that's determined, that has access to money, that can corrupt people inside, nothing to keep them from putting several different stocks together to be able to have enough material to make a weapon. And that's my worst fear. As hard as the problems are with Iran and North Korea, and these things come together at some point, because the more nations that have nuclear weapons, the more nations that go into the enrichment process, the harder its going to be to keep this stuff out of the hands of someone who would use it. SI: People sometimes refer to "suitcase" bombs. I wonder how real that is, even if you're talking about the raw material, smuggling nuclear material. Could you put enough uranium to make a bomb in a suitcase, with enough lead or other insulation, that it would not be blindingly obvious and extremely dangerous? SN: I'm afraid the answer to that is yes.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-08-2007, 12:18 AM	#2
Bronco_Beerslug Angling in the Deep Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains Posts: 24,281	Nuclear terrorism risk seen growing By Mark Trevelyan, Security Correspondent Wed Feb 7, 7:17 PM ET LONDON (Reuters) - Western governments must take seriously the possibility of terrorists exploding a nuclear bomb as the necessary materials and know-how become easier to acquire, security analysts argue in two new reports. The mushroom cloud of the first test of a hydrogen bomb is seen in a 1952 file photo. Western governments must take seriously the possibility of terrorists exploding a nuclear bomb as the necessary materials and know-how become easier to acquire, security analysts argue in two new reports. (Handout/Reuters) "The threat of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons is real ... moreover, the likelihood of terrorists acquiring such weapons is growing as more states aggressively pursue their own nuclear ambitions," the EastWest Institute said in a study. It said the first nuclear terrorist may turn out to be an American or European, reflecting a likely evolution in security threats over the next 10-15 years and a possible shift away from al Qaeda-style Islamist militancy toward eco-terrorism. In a separate report, London's influential Chatham House think-tank said it was feasible that terrorists could acquire an atomic bomb, build one themselves, create an "improvised nuclear device" or blow up a nuclear power station. Another risk was the collapse of government control over civil and military nuclear facilities and materials in countries like Pakistan or North Korea. The design, materials and engineering for a bomb "have all become commodities, more or less available to those determined enough to acquire them," said Paul Cornish, head of the international security program at Chatham House. He said the science and engineering challenges were very difficult but not insurmountable. IMPROVISED BOMB Rather than aiming to build a military-grade atomic weapon, terrorists might settle for a cruder improvised device that would require more uranium but a lesser degree of enrichment, thereby reducing one of the key technical barriers. "The device might then 'fizzle' rather than detonate its entire mass instantly and efficiently. But if the resulting explosion were to be equivalent to just one or a few kilotons of TNT rather than tens of kilotons, terrorists could still find this option attractive," Cornish wrote. He stressed that such a scenario was just one of a range of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats which were all appealing options for terrorist groups. Security analysts see a CBRN attack as a logical escalation for groups such as al Qaeda, which in the past has frequently varied its strikes and sought to increase their scale -- notably with the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of Britain's domestic intelligence agency MI5, said in November that future threats "may include the use of chemicals, bacteriological agents, radioactive materials and even nuclear technology." Ken Berry, author of the EastWest Institute report, said the rise of environmental militants would bring "an even bigger prospect that scientific personnel from the richest countries will aid eco-terrorist use of nuclear weapons or materials." Some security analysts believe the effects of global warming will exacerbate the world's rich-poor divide, intensify conflicts over land, water and other resources and help to radicalize populations and fan terrorism. The study highlighted the recent poisoning of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko in London, apparently with radioactive polonium smuggled in from Russia, as proof that the international community lacks proper controls on nuclear materials that could be used by terrorists. Greg Austin, a Brussels-based analyst for the institute, said the episode showed that secular Europeans were not averse to using nuclear substances as weapons. "We need to deal with the prospect that the first nuclear terrorist is in fact more likely to be American or European," he said.

02-08-2007, 12:25 AM	#3
cutthemdown A verbis ad verbera Zimm to HOF Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Long Beach Posts: 32,460	Pretty scary but I think it takes quite a bit of enriched uranium to make a bomb.

02-08-2007, 10:20 AM	#4
Hotrod Self Appointed Expert aka Dortoh Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 25,136 Adopt-a-Bronco: Miss I	Oh its going to happen somewhere someday the question of when is the problem. Tomarrow or in 50 years who really knows but I think its prolly 99.9% certain to happen.