New at Reason

September 1, 2004

Ron Bailey ponies up for loose nukes.

Comments

|9.1.04 @ 1:18AM|#

The "grievances" are largely cultural in nature, and include things like our freedom, economic power, and lack of Islamic faith. Basically, it comes down to envy and cultural insecurity on the part of Islamics.

Historically, we have been a mixed bag for Islam. We have supported Israel, but we have also supported the Afgan resistence. We fought Saddam, but we defended Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We helped the al Quada connected KLA obtain local superiority over the Serbs, but we supported the Shah (until we withdrew support for the Shah . . .). Carter and Clinton were both close friends of Arafat, while Bush and Reagan favored Israel. We went into Somolia to provide aid, but got involved in hunting down warlords. And so on.

If the issue was about our forign policy actions, etc., then the bin Laden response of flying airliners into major buildings is clearly counter productive and irrational. Bin Laden would have been much better off buying time in the Lincoln bedroom during the Clinton years, and otherwise lobbying the US. But viewed as a cultural war, it all makes sense.

As a side note, one of bin Laden's sisters (you know, one of the bin Laden family members Bush moved out of America as part of some Right Wing conspiracy) came back to America and was on some radio show. To her, Osama is engaged in a cultural war.

|9.1.04 @ 1:29AM|#

Don,

Whether its a "mixed bag" from our perspective means very little from their perspective.

We fought Saddam, but we defended Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

And defending the autocrats that run both countries is somehow supposed to be "friendly?" :)

Carter and Clinton were both close friends of Arafat, while Bush and Reagan favored Israel.

Clinton was very friendly with Israel; so friendly that he was the most popular politician in Israel in the 1990s.

Anyway, the "grievances" are still largely historical in nature, some of which are cultural.

|9.1.04 @ 1:36AM|#

Carey Sublette, author of the Nuclear Weapons FAQ, has written an article on The Terrorist Nuclear Bomb Threat that's worth reading.

|9.1.04 @ 1:37AM|#

As another side note, the way the KLA played us in Kosovo presented a road map for efficient manipulation of US forign policy by Islamic terrorists. Granted that level of success was exceptional (and was probably dependent upon incopetent forign policy), but the 9/11 attacks "success" (the overthrow of the Taliban and Saddam, al Quada on the run) is a counterpoint of failure. That is, if we assume that the terror attacks were intended to manipulate US forign policy towards the policies the terrorists claim to prefer.

|9.1.04 @ 1:42AM|#

Don,

As another side note, the way the KLA played us in Kosovo presented a road map for efficient manipulation of US forign policy by Islamic terrorists.

After all, the Serbian government was all sweetness and light, and they did absolutely nothing to the Kosovars. :) Let's note that Milosevic's rise to power was built originally on attacking the Muslim Kosovars (remember his speech where he stated that "No one has the right to beat you?") - its how he ousted his rivals in the Serbian government when he came to power. You're a pretty despicable guy if you are trying to find someway to defend Serbia's actions here.

|9.1.04 @ 1:49AM|#

"Whether its a "mixed bag" from our perspective means very little from their perspective."

One supposes that someone like bin Laden, well educated and traveled (and according to the leftists, a benifit of Reagan's largess in the 80s) would understand world affairs enough to understand how the Cold War influenced our policies, our general public indifference to the Middle East, the ability to influence our political/policy activities via forms of lobbying, etc.

"And defending the autocrats that run both countries is somehow supposed to be "friendly?"'

Well, bin Laden (and his merry men) offered to defend the autocrats of SA from Saddam. His bitching against the US seems to have begun in earnest when the US was selected for that task.

"Clinton was very friendly with Israel; so friendly that he was the most popular politician in Israel in the 1990s."

He certainly wasn't popular with Ariel Sharon. Perhaps Clinton was popular in Israel pre-Sharon, when kissing up to Arafat seemed to be a good idea even in Israel. And Arafat was the most popular forign "politician" in the White House during the Clinton years.

|9.1.04 @ 1:52AM|#

Ron, why wouldn't the death toll for a 10-kiloton blast be in the tens of thousands? That's about the same yield as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which resulted in 40-50 thousand deaths immediately following the explosion. I hasten to add that I know virtually nothing about this issue--I just thought the number sounded low. I suppose better construction and a lower population density in the most likely U.S. targets could reduce the number.

Given that the technology for building a fission bomb is sixty years old, I'd say it's inevitable that some group or other will eventually acquire (or build) and use one. Not to mention that the fall of certain governments (e.g., Pakistan) could result in nuclear weapons becoming available to people willing to use them. Incidentally, the idea that we'd sit at the table after the use of such a weapon on civilians is amazingly unlikely. I imagine the quickest way to really make the U.S. imperialistic would be to nuke us. I shudder to think what would happen to a lot of innocent people overseas in such a scenario, not to mention the effect on our civil liberties (Didn't Franks or some other general say something about "suspending" the Constitution in the case of a nuclear attack? Fine, just so long as he understands that that also means the federal government would have no legitimate authority to do anything--Jesus that statement pissed me off).

|9.1.04 @ 1:58AM|#

GG,

I am not defending Milosevic. At least, not unless you are defending Saddam by opposing our invasion of Iraq.

But there is solid evidence that the KLA--with its ties to al Quada--manipulated US forign policy. That suggests to me that such forign interests can get more milage out of lobbying the US rather than terror attacks against the US--assuming the goal is moderating US forign policy. And that the bin Ladens of the world know this.

I suppose one could argue that by 2000 bin Laden was locked into war with the US, and had been for some time, so that such knowledge gained from the KLA experience wasn't useful. However, I'm pretty sure bin Laden would have realized this reality long ago, based upon his experience in the US and the West.

fyodor|9.1.04 @ 1:58AM|#

Judging from quotes attributed to bin Laden in Bailey's article, their goal was to effect deficits in our budgets.

Which of course means...

THE TERRORIST HAVE WON!!

:-)

|9.1.04 @ 1:59AM|#

Don,

One supposes that someone like bin Laden, well educated and traveled (and according to the leftists, a benifit of Reagan's largess in the 80s) would understand world affairs enough to understand how the Cold War influenced our policies, our general public indifference to the Middle East, the ability to influence our political/policy activities via forms of lobbying, etc.

So what? Would such knowledge require that OBL have some sympathy with US actions?

He certainly wasn't popular with Ariel Sharon.

So what?

Perhaps Clinton was popular in Israel pre-Sharon...

There is no "perhaps" about it.

...when kissing up to Arafat seemed to be a good idea even in Israel.

So let's see here; in the 1990s Clinton met with Arafat and his Israeli counter-parts, yet that makes Clinton a bad guy, but the Israeli counter-parts are what? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

|9.1.04 @ 2:01AM|#

Don,

But there is solid evidence that the KLA--with its ties to al Quada--manipulated US forign policy.

I smell bullshit. Do demonstrate these ties.

fyodor|9.1.04 @ 2:03AM|#

Pro Libertate,

Good post, but I wonder what you mean by, "Fine, just so long as he understands that that also means the federal government would have no legitimate authority to do anything"? Surely the men with the guns don't care if their authority is "legitimate"!

|9.1.04 @ 2:04AM|#

Ruthless-

If terrorists nuke a US city, I suspect that focusing on "terrorist grievances" will be the very last idea on the minds of most people. You might think that's a shame, but that's the way it is.

Personally, revenge would be the first thing on my mind. The only place where I'd differ from a lot of posters on this forum is that my idea of revenge would be to hunt down the savages responsible for the attack, and a lot of posters here would want to invade countries with no connection to the attack.

But the common thread would be revenge. The only grievances being addressed would be OUR grievances, not theirs. And, to be honest, that's the way it should be. Although I oppose many aspects of our interventionist foreign policy, I view a reduction in terrorism as a fringe benefit from reducing our interventions, not as the main motive. If reducing terrorist grievances became the main driver of foreign policy, that would in essence be a surrender to terrorism.

|9.1.04 @ 2:08AM|#

A ground blast results in a significantly lower radius of destruction than an air blast. The ground blast is, however, much more dirty with respect to residual radiation.

I think that that is the delta between Ron's estimate and the Japanese bombs, or at least a large part of it. I think that the death toll could be increased significantly by placing the bomb in the top of a large building (at the center of a large city, of course). But the residual radiation would be reduced from a ground blast.

|9.1.04 @ 2:08AM|#

WASHINGTON - In a dramatic reversal, the Justice Department acknowledges its original prosecution of a suspected terror cell in Detroit was filled with a "pattern of mistakes and oversights" that warrant the dismissal of the convictions.

In a 60-page memo that harshly criticizes its own prosecutors� work, the department told U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen on Tuesday night it supports the Detroit defendants� request for a new trial and would no longer pursue terrorism charges against them. The defendants at most would only face fraud charges at a new trial.

The Justice Department is "concurring in the defendants� motions for a new trial" and asks the court to dismiss the first count of the original indictment charging the defendants with material support of terrorism, the government�s filing said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5880004/

|9.1.04 @ 2:16AM|#

Don-

Are you sure that the radiation situation would be worse with a ground blast? In a very risk averse society, a ground blast might be better. Here's why:

A ground blast would concentrate a whole lot of radioactive material in a smaller area, while an aerial blast would disperse it. If people have a very low threshold for what level of radioactive contamination they'll accept (said threshold may or may not have any connection to actual scientific data), then a wider dispersal radius would mean much more land rendered unused (notice I don't say "unusable").

|9.1.04 @ 2:27AM|#

"So what? Would such knowledge require that OBL have some sympathy with US actions?"

Obviously he doens't have sympathy (a stupid question is one you could have answered yourself if you thought about it).

No, the point is if his goal was based in terms of forign policy, he would have known how to better achieve his goals by other means. The means he chose indicate that forign policy isn't at the root of bin Laden's grievances.


"So let's see here; in the 1990s Clinton met with Arafat and his Israeli counter-parts, yet that makes Clinton a bad guy, but the Israeli counter-parts are what? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways."

I think the Israeli "counterparts" were stupid for thinking they could work out a real peace agreement with Arafat. I think the same about Clinton (and Carter). I don't think that Clinton is bad due to this, per se, but I do find his continued close personal relationship with Arafat (that extended into the Sharon days) revolting.

so, yes, in effect I can have it both ways. You just have to lay out the timeline . . .

|9.1.04 @ 2:41AM|#

thoreau,

It is my understanding that air burst present very little residual radiation compared to ground busts, and that most of it is widly disperesed in the upper atmosphere.

My BS is in physics, and at one point I read up on some of the effects of nuclear such weapons (actually, it was around the time that the TV movie The Day After aired). One thing I recall (but am not certain of at this point, memory being what it is--perhaps even repressed) is that near-ground bursts don't result in nearly as much radiation as actual ground busts.

|9.1.04 @ 2:45AM|#

"I smell bullshit. Do demonstrate these ties."

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/KLA-drugs.html

"The intelligence reports document what is described as a "link" between bin Laden, the fugitive Saudi millionaire, and the KLA --including a common staging area in Tropoje, Albania, a center for Islamic terrorists. The reports said bin Laden's organization, known as al-Qaeda, has both trained and financially supported the KLA."

|9.1.04 @ 2:45AM|#

fyodor--

Well, I was probably being more sarcastic than anything else, but legitimacy had better matter to those fellows. Without it, they'll have trouble keeping the military together, let alone the rest of the population. That's why throwing the Constitution out--even "temporarily"--is so dangerous. I'm about to make some silly analogy to the fall of the Roman Republic, so it's time for me to stop typing ;)

|9.1.04 @ 3:09AM|#

Don,

My limited knowledge of nuclear physics tells me that thoreau is correct about the residual radiation. If the detonation is several thousand feet (2,000 - 3,000 ft) above ground level, then your scenario of most of it dissipating into the upper atmosphere holds good. This is kind of what happened in Hiroshima, since the US dropped the bomb from up above.

In a blast from the top a tall building in downtown, versus a blast from ground-level, the later is less lethal It renders the land (ground zero) radio-active, but concentrates most of the blast/heat/radiation energy within a smaller radius, compared to an elevated blast.

[thoreau]

"...and a lot of posters here would want to invade countries with no connection to the attack"

actually, a lot of posters would want to invade countries *which they believe* have connection ...

|9.1.04 @ 3:17AM|#

"That's why throwing the Constitution out--even "temporarily"--is so dangerous."

Well, we haven't paid much attention to the 10th Amendment since 1930-something. So it appears that we can throw out portions of the Constitution at will, and no one cares. As long as it isn't a portion most people know or care about . . .

|9.1.04 @ 3:19AM|#

Thoreau,
You may be right that revenge would be uppermost on US minds, but I was thinking, since we've obviously been down that road since 9-11, it could make a few wonder if that was the road from the fork that will get us to where we want to be.
Not everyone is Yogi Berra, willing to take a fork when he comes to it.

|9.1.04 @ 3:32AM|#

I think that there is a breakpoint in the positioning of a nuclear explosion. Most "fallout" is not material from the bomb itself, but rather material which has been irradiated in the initial nuclear explosion, and then dispersed by the physical shock wave that results from the sudden release of energy.

Thus, a bomb exploded at high altitude will create a shockwave with heavy winds which will cause massive destruction initially, but with fewer lingering side-effects (radioactive fallout).

Exploding a bomb at the surface will cause heavier shock-based destruction due to winds over a shorter area, as well as seismic effects in ground shaking. At the same time, it would blow a cloud of irradiated material in the air, but, as much of the energy is absorbed by the surrounding environment (ground, buildings), the extent of fallout dispersion would be limited.

Exploding such a bomb at a point in between (just above most buildings) would cause heavy wind-based damage, heavy radioactive fallout, and some ground shock. The fallout would be more widely dispersed due to the limited absorption of the shock wave by the ground and buildings.

|9.1.04 @ 3:36AM|#

In other words, it would be a two-part process. First, the radioactive material must be created, then it must be dispersed. I'm sure that the U.S. and the Soviet Union came up with graphs that show the optimum height-above-ground for various effects, way back when.

There's probably a point on the graph where the material irradiation line meets the material dispersion line, and that would maximize the radiation-related destruction.

|9.1.04 @ 3:44AM|#

db,

From what I've read (I read it in the early 80s and it wasn't exactly new material then), near ground bursts produce much less radiation than ground bursts. This sounds weird, since as you indicate, the material near the blast is what becomes radioactive. If what I recall is correct, you can either maximize initial destruction or fallout, but trying to find some intermediate point may not make much sense.

I think the idea behind choosing a ground blast would be to penetrate into dug in fortifications. For "soft targets", high altitude blasts would yield the most bang for the buck, so to speak.

|9.1.04 @ 3:50AM|#

Ruthless,

If where we want to be is "no more Islamic terrorism", I've only seen two approaches.

1) We face Islamic terrorism due to our intervention in the Middle East--so we must stop our intervention.

2) We face Islamic terrorism for cultural reasons--and we will continue to face this terrorism until liberal, free market nations take root in the Middle East (or something at least somewhat comparable).

I don't buy number 1. I do buy number 2. I think a reasonable argument could be made on the current Iraq adventure adressing number 2 (on both sides).

|9.1.04 @ 3:51AM|#

Don--

You won't get any argument from me that the Constitution has been diluted. Still, it ain't quite gone, yet, either. Even the 10th gets a victory every other year or so. Sort of.

|9.1.04 @ 3:59AM|#

Hmm. I'm not certain, but I think we both have good arguments here. I'd really have to do more research. You're probably right. Although I bet hitting a water target would be worse than a ground target since you'd have a lot of radioactive vapor/rain in the area.

|9.1.04 @ 4:03AM|#

Hmm, it never occured to me that most of the radioactive fallout is actually from irradiated materials becoming radioactive. I always thought for some reason it was mostly pulverized plutonium. But the irradiation theory makes sense. In which case I can buy the notion that a blast even from a few hundred feet up might actually create less fallout. Of course, to be certain of this I'd have to have more information on bomb physics (my work is on optics), but it makes enough sense for me to accept it for now, unless and until I see evidence to the contrary.

|9.1.04 @ 4:09AM|#

back to my Yogi Berra analogy:
Putin took the wrong path at the fork in dealing with Chechnya.
Will he finally get on the right path?

|9.1.04 @ 4:39AM|#

Don,

No, the point is if his goal was based in terms of forign policy, he would have known how to better achieve his goals by other means.

Well, just because you think one way of doing something is better than another is hardly a reason for him to think so. In other words, foreign policy could very well be the chief gripe, yet he need not take the methods that see as rational as the best methods by which to undertake a foreign policy change.

I think the Israeli "counterparts" were stupid for thinking they could work out a real peace agreement with Arafat. I think the same about Clinton (and Carter).

This is contrary to the implications of your earlier statements.

As far as your "geocities" link is concerned, all I can do is laugh.

Regarding the 10th Amendment, I can think of its use in cases going back to the 1860s. See Kentucky v. Dennison, (1861).

|9.1.04 @ 4:41AM|#

db,

There is probably some data or info about that, given the bomb tests in the ocean.

thoreau,

The irradiation theory is basically what I read about. But I was a sophmore physics student at the time, and my reading consisted on several books that talked about the results of nuclear testing at a relatively non-technical level (that is to say, none of it was beyond my sophmore level knowledge).

IIRC, the initial blast includes considerable gamma radiation. Which likely you don't care about (directly, at least), 'cause the blast itself (heat and pressure) will kill you if you are close enough for the gamma rays to be deadly. Material close to the blast will become radioactive due to the initial gamma radiation, decaying according to its place on the periodic chart, giving off alpha and beta particles and gamma rays as appropriate (so you might indirectly care about the initial gamma rays). Basically, if something recieved little gamma radiation during the initial blast, it isn't going to become very radioactive. And obviously, the gamma radiation falls off as the distance squared (in 3D space), so doubling the distance reduces the gamma rays 75% (and also reduces their ability to create radioactive material by 75% -- at least that's how I think it works).

|9.1.04 @ 5:38AM|#

Gary Gunnels,

"The "grievances" are largely historical in nature and they include things like our actions in Iran."

You want to be very careful about asserting historical grievances - every nutjob irredentist claims historical greivances. Every ancient culture, bar none, has factions straining at the leash to settle centuries-old scores. In fact, the Serbs postured quite a bit over historical grievances, how they had been mistreated by the "Turks" etc, etc. But thats no excuse for bad bahaviour, ethnic cleansing or for hijacking planes.

|9.1.04 @ 5:47AM|#

"Well, just because you think one way of doing something is better than another is hardly a reason for him to think so. In other words, foreign policy could very well be the chief gripe, yet he need not take the methods that see as rational as the best methods by which to undertake a foreign policy change."

If his goal was reduced US involvement in the Middle East, his plan sure backfired!

I'm inclined to think of bin Laden as a smart guy, but sometimes smart people do stupid things. So, maybe you are correct. It just isn't likely.

"This is contrary to the implications of your earlier statements."

My earlier statement:

"Carter and Clinton were both close friends of Arafat, while Bush and Reagan favored Israel."

Clinton was close to Arafat, and Reagan and Bush clearly favored Israel. I guess my "implication" that you percieve is that Clinton was more pro-Palastinian than pro-Israeli, which I think he was. He liked Israel as long as they were on good terms with the ugly guy who was always trying to grow a beard . . .

"As far as your "geocities" link is concerned, all I can do is laugh."

Theat link was origionaly either a Washington Post or Times article. I found links to Independent and other articles, inlcuding some from Jane's (although not the originals in some cases, since most date back to 1999 or 2000).

"Regarding the 10th Amendment, I can think of its use in cases going back to the 1860s. See Kentucky v. Dennison, (1861)."

Back in the 1860s, the Tenth was still taken seriously. The position of the government from the 1930s seems to be: "we will do what we want unless the courts say otherwise", and the courts have only enforced the 10th on a few occasions. Consequently, it has in effect been null and void.

|9.1.04 @ 6:45AM|#

Bailey completely missed the most obvious next target: chemical plants. Barely defended, full of deadly substances. If the they had crashed the planes on 9/11 into the New Jersey plants across from New York the death toll would have been in the ten of thousands. Much simpler than a nuke or biologics.

|9.1.04 @ 7:07AM|#

To be honest, as long as they can create chaos with crude tools, I doubt they'll go to the trouble of getting WMD. Not that they don't want them, and if an opportunity comes along I'm sure they'll take it, but I doubt they'll divert too many resources away from bombing and beheading.

If you really want to disrupt life in America and sow a deep sense of fear, forget WMD and forget major cities or big symbolic targets. Go strike at some random suburb of some mid-size city in the Midwest. And don't hit a symbolic target like the City Hall or airport or museum. Don't even hit the big mall. Hit a strip mall.

No, better yet, don't hit the mall itself. Hit the Applebee's that's located at the front of the strip mall right next to the traffic intersection. The rest of the strip mall is separated from the street by a huge parking lot. Hit the Applebee's or TGI Friday's located right at that corner, so traffic is stalled. Or, hit the gas station across the street from the Chili's and get a force multiplier effect from the gasoline going BOOM! The gas station and its customers will be gone, the street will be gone, and the Chili's will probably be in bad shape too.

No, this isn't a joke about American consumerism or anything like that. In other places or times I would advise attacking an open air bazaar or general store or shopping district. The point is to hit a place that almost everybody goes to as part of their normal lives, a place that is almost impossible to control.

It's one thing for wonks and pundits and politicians to talk about a plan for securing every ocean port or talk about the latest airport security plan or wring their hands over "Why isn't the government forcing corporations that make chemicals to spend more on our security?" It's quite another thing to try to secure every strip mall.

However numerous chemical factories and shipping ports and sports stadiums may be, their numbers pale in comparison to strip malls. There's simply no way to secure all of our strip malls against car bombs.

|9.1.04 @ 7:24AM|#

In Israel they go for cafes and buses and such--using vest bombs. Or, sometimes AK-47s or even knives, although those have been effectively dealt with by widespread use of small arms (in one case a South African "agriculture expert" terminated a terrorist attack in an Israeli hotel by several AK-47 armed killers, with several shots from the pistol he carried).

|9.1.04 @ 8:23AM|#

thoreau,

Careful about supplying expert advice for terrorists... ;)

|9.1.04 @ 9:31AM|#

crimethink-

Although you meant it as a joke, in the era of the Patriot Act my post might actually be a felony.

|9.1.04 @ 12:04PM|#

I regret having to make this prediction, but it will take a "loose nuke" exploding in the US to cause the US government to shift its focus to terrorist grievances rather than simply killing terrorists.
The war on terrorism is as misguided as the war on drugs and more dangerous.

|9.1.04 @ 12:21PM|#

What are their "grievances"? I'll grant you that I haven't done any scholarly research on the topic. But I can't recall hearing any demands that could actually be delivered to them. Their demands sound like this:
-Destruction of Israel
-Infidels out of Saudi Arabia
-Your way of life is an affront to Islam

Just how is GWB, or any president, supposed to bargain with such people?

If a nuke explodes on US soil, I don't think the reaction will be a new willingness to address the grievances of Arab terrorists....it will be "Fortress America". Take that prediction to the bank.

|9.1.04 @ 12:34PM|#

The "grievances" are largely historical in nature and they include things like our actions in Iran.

|9.2.04 @ 1:00AM|#

thoreau:

Don't worry about "spilling the beans." As in the case of flying a jetliner into a national symbol, "Tom Clancy"* got there ahead of you, in The Teeth of The Tiger, featuring a ".....villains' plot, as Islamic terrorists cut a deal with Colombian drug smugglers, sneak into the U.S. and move toward their killing-field objectives, four shopping malls in mid-America." [From the PW blurb posted at Amazon]

Serious people in law enforcement probably have a list of soft targets more extensive than I could manage on short notice, though the clever folks who read H&R might figure out some they have missed.

Kevin

*or Jeff Rovin, or whoever writes that stuff nowadays.

|9.2.04 @ 4:07AM|#

"Perhaps, but that does not demonstrate your assertion."

No, but it undercuts yours.

"Your implication was that Clinton disliked or otherwise was an enemy of Israel - that he was anti-Israeli in other words; which is a load of crap."

No, my implication was that Clinton was pro-Arafat.

"If it has been enforced - even sporadically - then it isn't null and void."

It is, in effect, null and void. Notice the term "in effect". The fact that the 10th remains in the BoRs, and that some future court may uphold it in some decision doesn't help us much in the here and now as our federal government ignores it.

|9.2.04 @ 9:55AM|#

Don,

If his goal was reduced US involvement in the Middle East, his plan sure backfired!

Perhaps, but that does not demonstrate your assertion.

Clinton was close to Arafat, and Reagan and Bush clearly favored Israel.

Your implication was that Clinton disliked or otherwise was an enemy of Israel - that he was anti-Israeli in other words; which is a load of crap.

...and the courts have only enforced the 10th on a few occasions. Consequently, it has in effect been null and void.

If it has been enforced - even sporadically - then it isn't null and void.

Tim Worstall|9.3.04 @ 6:45AM|#

Umm, the sources that Ron points to about nuclear black markets and so on don't actually seem to support the idea that there is enough material floating around to make a bomb. The IAEA site is claiming 16 kg of HEU over the past decade and a bit. That's not enough to make even one bomb. Plutonium is in grammes, not the kilos required. The TNTI database is filled with things that have nothing to do with bombs at all. In fact, most of them are refutations of the fact that the items could be used in a bomb. Europium? The coloured dots on the inside of a CRT. Ytterbium? Nothing nuclear about it. Osmium (actually Os-187 but the report doesn't state that) has no known use at all let alone in a nuclear programme. "Radioactive tubes" ? These would be Zr/Nb tubes used in reactors. Nasty, yes, as they are, after use, radioactive, but of use in a bomb? No way, the danger is to people like me who deal in Russian scrap metal. I've bought 50 tonnes (unused of course) of these things in the past. Ended up being turned into AlMg alloy car wheels.
The "nuclear black market" in things you can actually use to make a bomb almost doesn't exist. There is a market which is highly dangerous and active, and that is in the technologies necessary to build a bomb making plant: Iran currently being the poster boy, Khan in Pakistan being the one before. But these are run by states, not Russian mafiosi. Don't confuse the one with the other.