Smuggling Nuclear Weapons

[Airbrush]

This is a question that I have not heard answered yet.  How likely is it that North Korea, or ANY nation with nukes, could have ALREADY smuggled nuclear bombs into major cities?  How difficult would it be for them to put a nuclear bomb on a small fishing boat and sail south?  Then at night bring it onto land to a waiting car or truck that can drive the device to the center of Seoul, or Tokyo, or any major city?  Then if we totally destroy North Korea, an agent in South Korea, detonates it.  All their missile launches could simply be diversions.  Or could they sell a nuclear device to a terrorist organization?

Edited September 19, 2017 by Airbrush

[dimreepr]

It's important to remember the terrorists are trying to wage war on your imagination, not you personally.

There's nothing wrong in being vigilant but this type of speculation only multiplies their power whilst dividing and subtracting ours. 

[zapatos]

49 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

This is a question that I have not heard answered yet.  How likely is it that North Korea, or ANY nation with nukes, could have ALREADY smuggled nuclear bombs into major cities?  How difficult would it be for them to put a nuclear bomb on a small fishing boat and sail south?  Then at night bring it onto land to a waiting car or truck that can drive the device to the center of Seoul, or Tokyo, or any major city?  Then if we totally destroy North Korea, an agent in South Korea, detonates it.  All their missile launches could simply be diversions.  Or could they sell a nuclear device to a terrorist organization?

I think it is extremely likely that a nation could have smuggled a nuclear bomb into a  major city. I also think it is extremely unlikely that a nation has done so. Smuggling a nuclear bomb into a population center would likely be considered an act of war similar to the attack on Pearl Harbor. The downside of being caught would be extreme. I think it's unlikely a nation would sneak in a weapon 'just in case'.

[Airbrush]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I think it is extremely likely that a nation could have smuggled a nuclear bomb into a  major city. I also think it is extremely unlikely that a nation has done so. Smuggling a nuclear bomb into a population center would likely be considered an act of war similar to the attack on Pearl Harbor. The downside of being caught would be extreme. I think it's unlikely a nation would sneak in a weapon 'just in case'.

Good point.   If a nuclear weapon is caught being smuggled into a country, is there a way to determine where it originated?  Is there a way to build one so that it's origin is not determinable?

[zapatos]

Not my field, but I understand there are many clues in the nuclear material as to where it originated. That won't tell you who built the bomb, but it's a good start.

[Enthalpy]

I too consider that nuclear weapons are not linked with missiles.

The main hurdle to smuggling one to a city's centre is that it could be stolen. But detonating it on a ship while it's still in a container looks easier.

A sub-detail is that the detonation at ground altitude is less efficient than at 500m or 2000m.

If you check history and present:
- Both bombs detonated over a city were carried by aeroplanes, not by missiles;
- Presently, most vectors are manned aeroplanes or cruise missiles, which are unmanned aeroplanes;
so I don't grasp the automatic psychological link between nuclear bombs and missiles.

Do not underestimate the politicians' scientific illiteracy. They have heard that 70 years ago, nuclear bombs and missiles and nuclear powerplants were the future, and they still want to do that.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Enthalpy

[Endy0816]

There are radiation detectors out there. Think major cities and ports.

Here's the EPA's RadNet:

https://www.epa.gov/radnet/near-real-time-and-laboratory-data-state

I'm sure there is more out there that isn't being disclosed. Kind of defeats the purpose if bad guys know where to avoid. Kind of wondering how well shielding would work. Lead or water.

Even spreading radioactive material alone requires an expensive cleanup.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Endy0816
linking

[Airbrush]

My worry is a nuke will slip out of Pakistan, or the former USSR, or now North Korea, into the hands of Al Qaeda, ISIS, or another group, that would not care much about getting caught.  They have nothing to lose.   They would send a message by abruptly destroying a major city, then issue blackmail to any country that is not cooperating with them, that they will destroy another major city, unless payment of a ransom or other demand.

How confident are you that a radiation detector is going to catch every attempt at smuggling a nuke?

[Endy0816]

Alone not really; but detectors combined with intelligence gathering, cost of a nuclear weapon, logistics of transporting one and their finite shelf life? Reasonably confident in our safety.

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

On 9/19/2017 at 8:59 PM, Endy0816 said:

There are radiation detectors out there. Think major cities and ports.

Uranium and plutonium, the major components in a fission bomb, are not strong gamma emitters; I think they're mostly alpha and neutron emitters, and alpha particles are easily stopped in air or by solid materials, while neutrons are just hard to detect in general. Nuclear bombs are actually surprisingly hard to detect from a distance.

I actually worked on a project to detect changes in gamma radiation indicating a radioactive material has been smuggled into an area. It's mostly good for industrial radioactive sources (which are often used for radiography or for sensing at the bottom of oil wells) or medical sources, like iodine-131. Many of these are poorly secured and could easily be stolen and turned into a dirty bomb. With gamma spectrometers regularly patrolling a city, you'd be able to detect an unshielded industrial source at a reasonable distance (under a mile).

Many border crossings do have portal radiation monitors which trucks (or shipping containers) go through before entry. Mostly these can detect gamma emitters. Apparently more recent ones can detect the neutrons emitted by fissile material, although I suspect that's still very difficult.

I am not aware of any major cities with systematic radiation detection systems. RadNet air monitors would detect materials released into the atmosphere, but not sealed sources, unless they get particularly close to a detector. A few cities have police carrying personal radiation detectors like this one, which I got to use a couple times, and a few other cities have done detailed helicopter-borne radiation surveys to map their background radiation. But systematic anomaly detection is too expensive outside of nuclear installations.

On 9/19/2017 at 0:15 PM, zapatos said:

I think it is extremely likely that a nation could have smuggled a nuclear bomb into a  major city. I also think it is extremely unlikely that a nation has done so.

According to a book I'm reading now (Raven Rock by Garrett Graff, page 104),

Quote

Several months into his presidency, John F. Kennedy invited journalist Hugh Sidey to dinner in Palm Beach... Kennedy paused, fork between plate and mouth, and told Sidey, "You know, they have an atom bomb on the third floor of the embassy."

Sidey brushed off the remark, "Sure, why not?"

No, really, Kennedy replied. The president told Sidey that U.S. intelligence believed the Soviets had smuggled atomic bomb components into Washington using diplomatic pouches and assembled it in the embassy's attic. "If things get too bad and war is inevitable," he said, "they will set it off and that's the end of the White House and the rest of the city."

Hugh Sidey's account is in a Time article from 2001.

So apparently it could have already happened?

[Endy0816]

8 minutes ago, Cap'n Refsmmat said:

Uranium and plutonium, the major components in a fission bomb, are not strong gamma emitters; I think they're mostly alpha and neutron emitters, and alpha particles are easily stopped in air or by solid materials, while neutrons are just hard to detect in general. Nuclear bombs are actually surprisingly hard to detect from a distance.

I actually worked on a project to detect changes in gamma radiation indicating a radioactive material has been smuggled into an area. It's mostly good for industrial radioactive sources (which are often used for radiography or for sensing at the bottom of oil wells) or medical sources, like iodine-131. Many of these are poorly secured and could easily be stolen and turned into a dirty bomb. With gamma spectrometers regularly patrolling a city, you'd be able to detect an unshielded industrial source at a reasonable distance (under a mile).
Many border crossings do have portal radiation monitors which trucks (or shipping containers) go through before entry. Mostly these can detect gamma emitters. Apparently more recent ones can detect the neutrons emitted by fissile material, although I suspect that's still very difficult.

Was actually thinking to post how that is a more realistic threat. Not deliberate but the Goiânia_accident stands out as an example of what could occur in a populated area.

10 minutes ago, Cap'n Refsmmat said:

I am not aware of any major cities with systematic radiation detection systems. RadNet air monitors would detect materials released into the atmosphere, but not sealed sources, unless they get particularly close to a detector. A few cities have police carrying personal radiation detectors like this one, which I got to use a couple times, and a few other cities have done detailed helicopter-borne radiation surveys to map their background radiation. But systematic anomaly detection is too expensive outside of nuclear installations.

Alrighty then, firing up Fallout to start prepping. Seriously thought I read something about highway monitoring systems. Trucks don't absolutely have to go along them though so maybe not.

Still wagering not really practical for a Terrorist group to pull off. They tend to go for fairly cheap actions and half the time are a bit stupid(a good thing in this case).

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, Airbrush said:

My worry is a nuke will slip out of Pakistan, or the former USSR, or now North Korea, into the hands of Al Qaeda, ISIS, or another group, that would not care much about getting caught.  They have nothing to lose.   They would send a message by abruptly destroying a major city, then issue blackmail to any country that is not cooperating with them, that they will destroy another major city, unless payment of a ransom or other demand.

How confident are you that a radiation detector is going to catch every attempt at smuggling a nuke?

And right now there are people in North Korea saying "my worry is the U.S. President with destory every man and women in my country". In Pakistan you don't think there are concern people wondering is a drone might mistakely blow up their home? Fear and dread and not exclusive feelings reserved for the righteous. Everyone and image those they perceive to be their nemesis doing something which frightens them. Could a nuclear weapon or nuclear material imaginally be smuggled in to a major city by NK, Pakistan, a former Soviet, or etc; yes. That said there are many more tangible threats and known risks governments can be focusing on. One can scare the piss out themselves all day with baseless scenarios. To our knowledge no govts or groups are actively attempting to move nuclear weapons into a major city.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

9 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

Still wagering not really practical for a Terrorist group to pull off. They tend to go for fairly cheap actions and half the time are a bit stupid(a good thing in this case).

Yes, a fission bomb would be a lot more difficult than, say, stealing some cobalt-60 out of a weakly secured hospital and putting it in an improvised dirty bomb. The radiation wouldn't be a serious hazard, but the panic and fear would be.

I recall reading a GAO report about the security of medical radioactive sources in the US, and it was terrifying. They found large sources "locked" in rooms with the key code Sharpied on the door frame or stored in rooms with a window overlooking a handy loading dock... and it's not uncommon for industrial sources to be stolen out of trucks or off job sites, mostly by people who don't know what they are and just steal anything that looks valuable.

[Moontanman]

Let me dance with the devil here. My main concern is not a missile attack from the NPRK, that is silly, "rocket man" is smarter than that, he enjoys poking the bear far to much to take the lock off the bear's cage. 

ISIS? That is problematic from many reasons but this maybe the most likely way such an attack could occur. ISIS would have to have three things to destroy a US city with nukes. A nuke, a delivery method, and lack of respect for their own lives. Wahabism has already shown they are willing to die to kill their enemies, a possible delivery system is an old diesel submarine, and of course a Nuke. Train a group of men to pilot a diesel sub who are willing to die for their cause and obtain a submarine and a bomb. I would imagine the submarine is the hardest thing to obtain in secrete and train men to operate it in secretly. But a moderate nuke detonated at some depth offshore of a US coastal city would be a disaster. A radioactive wave would surge inland do damage far outside the scope of a bomb smuggled into a city. 

[Airbrush]

"...But a moderate nuke detonated at some depth offshore of a US coastal city would be a disaster. A radioactive wave would surge inland do damage far outside the scope of a bomb smuggled into a city."

I hope the terrorists are not listening to that.  Why would they need a submarine?  Why not a small, beat-up, old, fishing boat?  It could have the bomb in a container thickly shielded by lead and water.  At night it gets hauled up the beach to a waiting truck, driven to the middle of a big city.  They park the truck and get away safely.  Then the terror group announces they are about to destroy a major city.  A minute later it blows up.  That's how they prove it's them.  Then they announce their demands or another city gets destroyed.  Poetic justice to them would be a US city, the Great Satan that created nukes, most likely a decapitation operation to destroy Washington DC.  This scenario seems unavoidable over the next decades. 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Airbrush

[StringJunky]

41 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Let me dance with the devil here. My main concern is not a missile attack from the NPRK, that is silly, "rocket man" is smarter than that, he enjoys poking the bear far to much to take the lock off the bear's cage. 

ISIS? That is problematic from many reasons but this maybe the most likely way such an attack could occur. ISIS would have to have three things to destroy a US city with nukes. A nuke, a delivery method, and lack of respect for their own lives. Wahabism has already shown they are willing to die to kill their enemies, a possible delivery system is an old diesel submarine, and of course a Nuke. Train a group of men to pilot a diesel sub who are willing to die for their cause and obtain a submarine and a bomb. I would imagine the submarine is the hardest thing to obtain in secrete and train men to operate it in secretly. But a moderate nuke detonated at some depth offshore of a US coastal city would be a disaster. A radioactive wave would surge inland do damage far outside the scope of a bomb smuggled into a city. 

Modern nuclear warheads contain subcritical amounts of nuclear material. Their thermonuclear explosive potential is dependent on the electronics, which are keycoded in a specific fashion, split between multiple personnel and can automatically fry their own electronics in the event of unauthorised access. All a successful terrorist will have is a small amount of nuclear material but no bomb. There is no authorised personnel that alone holds the necessary information to arm a warhead.

[John Cuthber]

How much does it cost to get a shipping container to the US?
How much does it matter if a nuke goes off while the ship is in harbour and hasn't been unloaded- never mind checked?

[Moontanman]

49 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Modern nuclear warheads contain subcritical amounts of nuclear material. Their thermonuclear explosive potential is dependent on the electronics, which are keycoded in a specific fashion, split between multiple personnel and can automatically fry their own electronics in the event of unauthorised access. All a successful terrorist will have is a small amount of nuclear material but no bomb. There is no authorised personnel that alone holds the necessary information to arm a warhead.

You are assuming that the nuke was stolen, North Korea has done business with islamic terrorists in the past.  

28 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

How much does it cost to get a shipping container to the US?
How much does it matter if a nuke goes off while the ship is in harbour and hasn't been unloaded- never mind checked?

Setting a bomb off in a harbor would multiply the effect somewhat more than setting one off at ground level on land. Underwater is even better but your point is taken... 

[Enthalpy]

As long as a nuclear bomb is within the ship, it's about impossible to detect. Weak gamma emitter as already stated, and the cargo or water can shield the radiation very efficiently.

A bomb slipping out of Pakistan or the former Soviet union: this is less likely now, as the bombs are better monitored. It was a worry in 1990. To my knowledge, Russia has gathered all Soviet bombs.

A dirty bomb could be much bigger than the medicine-sizes sources that leaked in the past and make ~100 people sick, so it would do real harm, not just panic the population. Fortunately, a dirty bomb could be detected through its radiation.

[Moontanman]

5 hours ago, Airbrush said:

"...But a moderate nuke detonated at some depth offshore of a US coastal city would be a disaster. A radioactive wave would surge inland do damage far outside the scope of a bomb smuggled into a city."

I hope the terrorists are not listening to that.  Why would they need a submarine?  Why not a small, beat-up, old, fishing boat?  It could have the bomb in a container thickly shielded by lead and water.  At night it gets hauled up the beach to a waiting truck, driven to the middle of a big city.  They park the truck and get away safely.  Then the terror group announces they are about to destroy a major city.  A minute later it blows up.  That's how they prove it's them.  Then they announce their demands or another city gets destroyed.  Poetic justice to them would be a US city, the Great Satan that created nukes, most likely a decapitation operation to destroy Washington DC.  This scenario seems unavoidable over the next decades. 

Think of an asteroid strike in the ocean, the Tsunami would be epic, same thing for a nuke just on a slightly smaller scale.. 

[Airbrush]

14 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Think of an asteroid strike in the ocean, the Tsunami would be epic, same thing for a nuke just on a slightly smaller scale.. 

That saves the additional effort of hauling it off the boat, up the beach, onto a truck, and into the city.  Just park your little, old, fishing boat outside the harbor of a major city, set the timer, and get the hell out of there.

[swansont]

15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Think of an asteroid strike in the ocean, the Tsunami would be epic, same thing for a nuke just on a slightly smaller scale.. 

Few have been making a clear distinction between a fission bomb and a fusion bomb. The difference in energy released is significant.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

That saves the additional effort of hauling it off the boat, up the beach, onto a truck, and into the city.  Just park your little, old, fishing boat outside the harbor of a major city, set the timer, and get the hell out of there.

Somewhere many years ago I saw a study of doing this to the mouth of chesapeake bay, I'm not sure how big the bomb was but it generated a tsunami that pretty much wiped out everything in and hear the bay.

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

Few have been making a clear distinction between a fission bomb and a fusion bomb. The difference in energy released is significant.

Yes, A fusion bomb could very well be orders of magnitude bigger than a fission bomb. 

 

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/include/nucleardarkness//images/high_yield_vs_low_yield_4_bombs_750.jpg

Actually if "rocket man" was serious about dealing a real blow to the entire US without killing anyone directly with a moderately large device he is on the verge of being able to do it. Anyone want to guess what that would be? 

Edited September 22, 2017 by Moontanman

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

That saves the additional effort of hauling it off the boat, up the beach, onto a truck, and into the city.  Just park your little, old, fishing boat outside the harbor of a major city, set the timer, and get the hell out of there.

That was, essentially, my point.

54 minutes ago, swansont said:

Few have been making a clear distinction between a fission bomb and a fusion bomb. The difference in energy released is significant.

It may not matter.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/21/kim-jong-un-trump-north-korea-threats

[Moontanman]

Detonating a moderate sized nuke in low earth orbit above the USA would be catastrophic...