How to Build a Bomb?

[Airbrush]

Is this info that needs to be available on the internet? Is this knowledge that should be freely available to every dummy on Earth?

 

This kind of knowledge, no matter how simple the bomb, should be banned from the internet, like child porn or how to build a nuclear bomb or bio weapon, and other harmful or deadly subjects.

 

It should be illegal to post this anywhere on the internet. I propose that anyone who posts info on how to build a bomb should be tracked down and arrested, and whatever they post be deleted upon detection.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Airbrush

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

To be clear, before I engage in any personal observation or statement of opinion, that we will not be discussing actual plans for building of bombs, in accordance with rule #3

 

Where do you draw the line, and how do you do that without infringing on one's right to free speech? Can newspapers discuss that the bombs used in Boston used gunpowder and shrapnel, and was housed in a pressure cooker? Child porn has a simple demarcation line: age. With descriptions, how would you describe the line that separates permissible from not, and make it any more meaningful than the age rule for porn? If the rule is that you have to omit some amount of information, how do you prevent the existence of two articles that are each below critical mass, so to speak, but fill in each other's gaps?

 

How do you write a rule that doesn't inadvertently make a description of a baking soda + vinegar, (or Alka-Seltzer + water) rocket, which involves an explosion. Or make a bottle of soda pop (or a soda stream device) illegal, because it makes contents that are under pressure and could explode? I have seen such a law, somewhere — someone was arrested for bomb-making because they had put dry ice into a closed container. But a bottle of soda has the same effect (and yes, I have a soda bottle that exploded as a result of overpressure)

[John Cuthber]

 

It should be illegal to post this anywhere on the internet.

Airbrush is obviously right.

We should go back to the days before the internet when there were no bombs.

Everyone knows that the first and second world wars were fought with pointed sticks and by dropping really really big rocks from aircraft.

Putting some sort of restriction on the sales of gunpowder might help, but nobody would take that seriously.

[Phi for All]

The problem isn't with the knowledge, it really never is. The problem is with what people do with the knowledge.

 

Change the system so parents don't ignore the signs that their children are seriously considering mass murder. Change the system so every child has a healthier respect for life on this planet. Change the system so people grow up knowing that the way they walk through life is their responsibility.

 

But don't try to hide the knowledge. You'll just increase curiosity about it by a couple orders of magnitude.

[John Cuthber]

The problem isn't with the knowledge, it really never is. The problem is with what people do with the knowledge.

 

Change the system so parents don't ignore the signs that their children are seriously considering mass murder. Change the system so every child has a healthier respect for life on this planet. Change the system so people grow up knowing that the way they walk through life is their responsibility.

 

But don't try to hide the knowledge. You'll just increase curiosity about it by a couple orders of magnitude.

All good points, but I think you missed out "change the system so it doesn't piss people off and leave them with the idea that the best they can do is fill a pressure cooker with gunpowder and blow up some runners.".

 

Information is very difficult to control. I can tell you how to make a bomb in a few seconds. If nobody hears me then there is no way to prove that I told you, and no way to tell that you know.

It makes more sense to try to restrict access to the critical materials, (that's pretty much impossible too, but at least , if someone has a garage full of gunpowder, you can prove that they have it.)

[overtone]

All good points, but I think you missed out "change the system so it

doesn't piss people off and leave them with the idea that the best they

can do is fill a pressure cooker with gunpowder and blow up some

runners.".

There is currently a chance - some realistic probability - that the aspects of "the system" that pissed the bomber off were the ones involved in the re-election of an obviously non-white President and the public discussion of some further restrictions on firearm possession.

 

I'm not sure I would want to change those aspects of "the system".

 

I would prefer to change those aspects of "the system" that act to create any assumption - in any vulnerable person's mind - that there is some large and respectable fraction of the US population that needs such action, that such deeds speak for, support, or benefit.

 

As far as making bombs, I recall learning how anarchists and terrorists of the past had constructed their weaponry from books in my high school library, along with tips on blowing stumps from the diary farmers I threw hay for, as a teenager.

Edited April 18, 2013 by overtone

[Airbrush]

"Where do you draw the line, and how do you do that without infringing on one's right to free speech?"

 

Let the word "bomb" or words that indicate such a thing, be where you draw the line. ANY device that is intended to harm anyone. Infringing on one's right to free speech to describe how to build a simple bomb?! Come on, baking soda and vinegar is not a bomb.

 

"We should go back to the days before the internet when there were no bombs."

 

That is absurd. The internet has introduced a whole range of problems of the wrong information getting to the wrong wacko in seconds. The new asymetric aspect of terrorism has enabled a single person to kill thousands of people. Within a few decades from now, it will be illegal to describe how to build any kind of dangerous bomb (not including baking soda and vinegar or any soda pop).

 

"The problem isn't with the knowledge, it really never is. The problem is with what people do with the knowledge."

 

OK then why can't you find instructions for building an atomic bomb on the internet?

 

"Change the system so parents don't ignore the signs that their children are seriously considering mass murder. Change the system so every child has a healthier respect for life on this planet. Change the system so people grow up knowing that the way they walk through life is their responsibility."

 

Change the system? It is a LOT easier to simply omit some sensitive info from widespread distribution.

 

"But don't try to hide the knowledge. You'll just increase curiosity about it by a couple orders of magnitude."

 

I disagree. For specific knowledge to simply not be found, does not increase curiosity in the average yahoo who can now build a bomb ONLY because it is EASY to do thanks to the internet.

 

"Information is very difficult to control. I can tell you how to make a bomb in a few seconds. If nobody hears me then there is no way to prove that I told you, and no way to tell that you know."

 

Nonsense! Info is very easy to omit from the internet. Try to find info about anything that is secret.

 

"As far as making bombs, I recall learning how anarchists and terrorists of the past had constructed their weaponry from books in my high school library, along with tips on blowing stumps from the diary farmers I threw hay for, as a teenager."

 

Only a genius could figure out how to make a bomb from what is in a high school library. You may be a genius, but I don't think the Boston bombers were geniuses. Dairy farmers should get a permit from the local authority and purchase explosives from a reputable licensed supplier and be accountable to the authority for what they do with it.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Airbrush

[ewmon]

Without public knowledge, how would the public know to report suspicious people or activities?

 

So, you're standing in a checkout line at the local Wal-Mart, and the person in front of you is buying a dozen pressure cookers and thousands of nuts, bolts, washers, etc. That's nice, you think, he's going to have a barn raising ... the pressure cookers are to feed the neighbors who volunteer to help, and the hardware is for the barn. Just another cute episode of Americana.

[Airbrush]

"Without public knowledge, how would the public know to report suspicious people or activities?"

 

I don't know what this has to do with anything. How does restricting what info is available on the internet prevent you from calling the cops when you see something suspicious? Do us all a favor and CALL THE COPS!

Edited April 18, 2013 by Airbrush

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

"Without public knowledge, how would the public know to report suspicious people or activities?"

 

I don't know what this has to do with anything. How does restricting what info is available on the internet prevent you from calling the cops when you see something suspicious? Do us all a favor and CALL THE COPS!

How do you know it's suspicious if you don't know what bombmaking involves?

[overtone]

 

Only a genius could figure out how to make a bomb from what is in a high school library.

It hardly takes a genius to look at a picture of a bottle with the soap flake level marked and descriptions of how the wick was sealed. And that's without the slightest familiarity with even high school level chemistry.

 

For example.

 

 

Dairy farmers should get a permit from the local authority and purchase
explosives from a reputable licensed supplier and be accountable to the
authority for what they do with it.

Sounds like a plan. Meanwhile, should they also be given lobotomies to erase the common rural knowledge of how to make a fertilizer bomb - the far cheaper and far more convenient way to break a rock or take out a stump?

 

It's the knowledge you were trying to eliminate from the world, right? Except, of course, farmers and military vets and anyone dealing with anhydrous ammonia or gunpowder or fireworks or natural gas infrastructure or gasoline infrastructure or - - - - it's kind of a long list.

[CharonY]

A bit of a tangent, but it isn't it weird to propose to ban information on things that are relatively easy to design even without a detailed manual , whereas purpose-made devices for causing harm (such as guns and ammunition) are freely available? Isn't that a bit putting the cart in front of the horse?

[Mr Monkeybat]

Chemistry classes are effectively banned. Any history book that describes the invention of gun powder and many other developments chemistry will have to be redacted. Will have to tell children rockets and internal combustion engines are powered by magic instead of controlled explosions. All future chemical engineers etc will have to be imported from countries without such insane policies, but they wont be able to bring any reference books with them, and something akin to the great Chinese firewall will have to erected constantly searching for and blocking forbidden websites.

 

Have you ever met a lawyer or judge they perceive it as there duty to interpret every law as literally as possible Shaken is right they will over interpret any law you write to prosecute children making soda rockets.

 

Neither is it possible to create a country that makes every body happy with schools that turn everyone into care bears. There will always a number of nutters and sadists that crawl out the woodwork and they will always find the information they need, fortunately most of them are stupid enough to get caught or blow themselves up even with the internet at there fingertips. Evolution created man unequal.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

OK then why can't you find instructions for building an atomic bomb on the internet?

 

 

"Information is very difficult to control. I can tell you how to make a bomb in a few seconds. If nobody hears me then there is no way to prove that I told you, and no way to tell that you know."

 

Nonsense! Info is very easy to omit from the internet. Try to find info about anything that is secret.

 

There are a-bomb instructions on the web.

But, since you can't get enriched uranium on eBay, we don't have home made nukes.

 

Even before the 'net, the Russians didn't have too much difficulty finding out how to build a bomb. Nothing stays secret for long and you ought to base your policy on an acceptance of that fact.

[Tim the plumber]

Or you could just put info on the web of how to build a bomb that didn't actually work.

 

Or you could pt stuff on there wich resutled in you setting fire to your kitchen if you tried it....

 

Oh, sorry too late.

[Dekan]

Don't the above posts show that we want a nuclear bomb to explode, and are gagging for it?

 

 

[Airbrush]

A bit of a tangent, but it isn't it weird to propose to ban information on things that are relatively easy to design even without a detailed manual , whereas purpose-made devices for causing harm (such as guns and ammunition) are freely available? Isn't that a bit putting the cart in front of the horse?

 

The difference between bombs and guns is bombs are only offensive and guns can be defensive. In a society that disapproves of vigilante justice, bombs have no good use except industrially for mining or for dairy farmers removing tree stumps. Nobody NEEDS to know how to build such an offensive weapon.

 

Are bombs really relatively easy to design? I bet you a nickel the Boston bombers fine tuned their bomb making by using info they EASILY found on the internet. If that info was not there, they could not have done what they did.

 

I'm afraid to even try to look up this info. I'm afraid that authorities are already monitoring such searches.

 

There are a-bomb instructions on the web.

But, since you can't get enriched uranium on eBay, we don't have home made nukes.

 

Even before the 'net, the Russians didn't have too much difficulty finding out how to build a bomb. Nothing stays secret for long and you ought to base your policy on an acceptance of that fact.

 

Prove to me a-bomb instructions are on the web. Give us a link.

 

Just because the Russians and a few other countries figured it out does not mean any state can accomplish it. That is why only a few countries can build an a-bomb.

 

"Nothing stays secret for long...." How do you know this? Tell us all the trade secrets you have found. Tell us all about all the top secret projects that exist. You can't.

[John Cuthber]

This is probably safer than the bomb instructions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula

On the other hand, those instructions can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon#Types

 

"Just because the Russians and a few other countries figured it out does not mean any state can accomplish it. That is why only a few countries can build an a-bomb."

No, that's because obtaining plutonium or enriched uranium is difficult.

But my point was that the Russians didn't "figure it out" they got the secret from a spy.

That's the evidence behind my claim that nothing stays secret for long.

The key to nuclear weapons was, at the time, the most closely guarded secret in the world, but it leaked.

 

"Tell us all about all the top secret projects that exist. You can't."

I could tell you a few, but it would trash my career.

How much money can you offer me?

[waitforufo]

Is this info that needs to be available on the internet? Is this knowledge that should be freely available to every dummy on Earth?

 

This kind of knowledge, no matter how simple the bomb, should be banned from the internet, like child porn or how to build a nuclear bomb or bio weapon, and other harmful or deadly subjects.

 

It should be illegal to post this anywhere on the internet. I propose that anyone who posts info on how to build a bomb should be tracked down and arrested, and whatever they post be deleted upon detection.

Don't you think the cat is out of the bag on this one? As a 12 year old I made black powder from instructions I found in an old set of encyclopedias. The black powder worked great.

[swansont]

"Where do you draw the line, and how do you do that without infringing on one's right to free speech?"

 

Let the word "bomb" or words that indicate such a thing, be where you draw the line. ANY device that is intended to harm anyone. Infringing on one's right to free speech to describe how to build a simple bomb?! Come on, baking soda and vinegar is not a bomb.

The problem with appealing to reasonability and logic is that we're talking about the law and bureaucracy. How do you write the law so that describing the baking soda and vinegar device is legal, but something much larger is not? What if a device scales up, and I describe a "party popper" device, but all you have to do is use more explosive and a larger container to build something that hurts people?

 

How do you assess intent? There are lots of things not intended to harm people, but can be used to do so.

 

 

"The problem isn't with the knowledge, it really never is. The problem is with what people do with the knowledge."

 

OK then why can't you find instructions for building an atomic bomb on the internet?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy They've even got a diagram. Building it is relatively easy, which is why everyone is so upset when "evil" countries start enriching Uranium. That's the hard part.

[Iggy]

Is this info that needs to be available on the internet? Is this knowledge that should be freely available to every dummy on Earth?

 

This kind of knowledge, no matter how simple the bomb, should be banned from the internet, like child porn or how to build a nuclear bomb or bio weapon, and other harmful or deadly subjects.

 

It should be illegal to post this anywhere on the internet. I propose that anyone who posts info on how to build a bomb should be tracked down and arrested, and whatever they post be deleted upon detection.

 

I have fond memories of this because I got caught trading a digital copy of the Anarchist Cookbook over our high school's primitive computer network in... probably about 1996. I got in a lot of trouble for it, but the highlight that day was in chemistry class where my chemistry teacher was almost pleased to see my interest. She got that my interest was motivated out of curiosity for knowledge and couldn't be malicious. Nobody else got that.

 

A week later I decided that her permissive spirit was enough encouragement to ask her if I could use some of the back room's supply of iodine crystals. She asked why and I said "I was thinking about trying to make some nitrogen triiodide". Without taking a beat, she said "come by after school, we'll make some, it'll be ready by morning"

 

It was inspiring.

 

Do you want to know how to make nitrogen triiodide, Airbrush? It's a high explosive. It's the fun kind of high explosive. The kind you might only really manage to hurt yourself with. Fourth of July kind of fun.

 

Can I tell you that, or should I be prosecuted by law for doing it?

Edited April 20, 2013 by Iggy

[Airbrush]

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy They've even got a diagram. Building it is relatively easy, which is why everyone is so upset when "evil" countries start enriching Uranium. That's the hard part.

 

"...The exact specifications of the "Little Boy" bomb remain classified because they could be used today to create a viable nuclear weapon. Even so, many sources have speculated as to the design...."

 

There must be a lot more to building an a-bomb than what a Wiki article can tell. I suppose you are correct that enriched U is the hardest part, but there must be many untold barriers to building a real a-bomb. "Exact specifications remain classified".

 

Getting back to how easy it is to build a bomb comparable to the Boston event. I have no idea how easy it is, I've never tried and never considered looking into it. Even the stupidest prospective bomb builder must realize how dangerous it is to build a bomb. One wrong but critical move and BOOM. So they would need very good, thorough, comprehensive, detailed instructions to inspire confidence in the novice that he can do it, just from what Utube he can find or detailed instructions available. This is about availability of info on the internet that makes bomb-making just too easy, and we are not concerned about bomb builders who were trained in bomb-making schools which we have no control over.

 

Iggy: "Do you want to know how to make nitrogen triiodide, Airbrush? It's a high explosive. It's the fun kind of high explosive. The kind you might only really manage to hurt yourself with. Fourth of July kind of fun.

 

Can I tell you that, or should I be prosecuted by law for doing it?"

 

I've never even heard of nitrogen triiodide. Hahahahah. No thanks, I can live without high explosives. Hehehe. Just say "No" to high explosives.

 

Edited April 20, 2013 by Airbrush

[Iggy]

I've never even heard of nitrogen triiodide. Hahahahah. No thanks, I can live without high explosives. Hehehe. Just say "No" to high explosives.

 

Of that I had no doubt. Point is that I could tell you how to make it in seven words. Effective instructions are that short.

 

Bombs are common because they are simple, not because of the availability of information. If you can build a model airplane then you can make an incredibly effective bomb through pure intuition. Having the skill set to do the first means that you could to the second. No instructions needed.

[overtone]

You can't safely handle a wide variety of petroleum derivatives, household and farmhold caustics and acids, anhydrous ammonia (and many other ammonia products and derivatives), or a wide variety of common industrial products, unless you know how to keep them from sudden combustion or explosive reaction.

 

You can't load your own shotgun ammo, let alone make fireworks and the like, without knowing how to keep from blowing yourself up.

 

You can't safely manage a cutting torch, or do any oxyacetylene braising and welding, or deal with large projects involving epoxy glue, or paint your car, without being aware of the circumstances that create uncontrolled explosion.

 

There are big, bright warnings on the drain cleaner you buy at the hardware store.

 

Anyone who can safely handle the ingredients of a bomb knows how to unsafely handle them - any bomb, including nuclear.

 

There are tens of thousands of people with military training in explosives walking the streets of America.

 

The car bomb predates the internet by three generations. The terrorist bomb predates the Civil War. The KKK in America terror bombed in the forties and fifties.

 

We have more whackjob terrorists because we have hundreds of millions of people. The proportionale risk is very low - lower than it used to be.

Edited April 20, 2013 by overtone

[waitforufo]

Airbrush,

I think the general consensus is that bombs don't kill people. People kill people.