How to Build a Bomb?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

"...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".

You would probably enjoy the book The Curve of Binding Energy, in which a former nuclear weapons designer explains just how easy it would be to steal some nuclear material and make your own nuke.

 

Sure, it might not be a very good bomb, but you don't need sophistication. You need a very large bang.

[John Cuthber]

"...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...."

The exact specs are classified because they include details of maximising the yield.

But if all you need is an nuclear explosion then it's not very difficult if you have the right fissionable material.

[overtone]

There's a "documentary" around, I think it's fairly easy to find, about a trio of teenage coal country hicks learning how to build a working rocket back in the Sputnik days. "October Sky", iirc.

 

In the sense of this thread, they learned how to make a bomb right away, by accident, if that's what they had wanted - making something blow up was so easy they had a hard time not doing it.

Edited April 20, 2013 by overtone

[Mr Monkeybat]

The calculations for critical mass can be done by many university students with access to much more information on nuclear physics than was available in the 1940's. The gun type nuclear weapon is a simple design with a very high degree of tolerance. They were so sure of that design that they flew it over Hiroshima without testing it first (Trinity went the Plutonium route). Its almost guaranteed to go off, that is partly why they did not make many, the risk of accidental detonation is too large. No doubt there are some classified details that could improve the yield but also have no doubt that this design will work.

Many people who start work in classified fields expect it to be all fandoogally like in the films. But then are surprised find inefficient primitive technology trailing behind the commercial sector all over the place. Secrecy leads to stagnation, stifling the spread of ideas.

[waitforufo]

The hard part is figuring out that it can be done. Hence the Manhattan project. Once its been done, repeating it is generally not a problem.

[SomethingToPonder]

I dont agree, And before everybody starts heckling me it's due to reasons that some people have already stated. Where do we draw the line? If you restrict the knowledge it will simply move to a deepnet site and people will think it's "cool" or will be intrigued by it. You could never actually limit this knowledge now that it's been on the internet it's out there, It will never be able to be taken down.

Millions of people probably know how to make bombs, All it requires really is some high school maybe college level chemistry. It's idiots that decide to blow people up for their own agenda that ruin it for everyone, because out of 1000 people you might have the odd couple who would, But it's the same as guns or knifes, they have their uses, but if you let idiots get their hands on them people are going to get hurt.

restricting the materials? half the ingredients for bombs are used in many different science experiments and limiting access would create so many problems for the normal people out there who need them. This reminds me of chemistry sets, just because the materials in them are toxic, and a stupid few might eat them, They stopped making suitable chemistry sets, You try and find one where you cant eat everything in it, it completely ruined it for everybody who wanted to get a chemistry set to teach their children about science etc.

The misuse of knowledge has always been a problem and always will, The only way we can fight it is the way we always have. Keep it as hidden as possible. We can never restrict knowledge, where would we stop? Would we restrict knifes because people stab each other?

the information to make nuclear bombs is already pretty hard to find, And the ingredients harder, even harder than that is finding somebody who could construct one properly.

[Moontanman]

I am going to have to come down on the side of freedom of information here, restricting information does not result in that information being unattainable or keep whatever is being restricted from being made. We have discussed everything here from child porn to atom bombs and restricting those things has had no effect on their manufacture. Atom bombs were once highly classified, yeah that kept anyone else from making them, given the right isotopes all you need is a machine shop and little regard for your own life, back in the day dynamite was available at many hardware stores, restricting it's sale really solved the problem of explosions being used to nefarious purposes.

 

Somethings are simply disgusting, others are actively dangerous but making it illegal to posses them is more likely to make them widespread or at least very profitable than it is to actually stop them. Humans have a bad habit of wanting what is kept from them, in the aquarium hobby the best way to make sure a fish is widely desired is to make it illegal to posses. Piranhas are a good example, in some states they were outlawed, people's homes were actively searched and a great many fish destroyed but piranha breeders sprung up like clover in newly mown lawn, today only an idiot couldn't get a piranha if they wanted one...

 

Stop people from making meth by restricting the information that describes how to make it, make possession of the anarchists handbook illegal, then expect meth to vanish or bombs to stop being made. It's the people who actually do these things that needs to feel the full brunt of the law, information should not be restricted, but actually doing what this information describes can and should be...

[zapatos]

I think it is interesting that so many of the posters here that object to 'regulating' bomb making information, are very much interested in regulating guns.

 

What is the fundamental difference?

 

Both can be used for fun or sport. Both can be used for death and destruction.

 

Saying you shouldn't regulate bomb making information because so many know how to do it anyway is not really different than saying we shouldn't regulate guns because so many have them anyway.

 

Objecting to regulating bomb making information because it is hard to draw the line, is not really different than trying to draw the line on magazine capacities or what constitutes an assault style weapon.

[Iggy]

I think it is interesting that so many of the posters here that object to 'regulating' bomb making information, are very much interested in regulating guns.

 

What is the fundamental difference?

 

Both can be used for fun or sport. Both can be used for death and destruction.

 

Saying you shouldn't regulate bomb making information because so many know how to do it anyway is not really different than saying we shouldn't regulate guns because so many have them anyway.

 

Objecting to regulating bomb making information because it is hard to draw the line, is not really different than trying to draw the line on magazine capacities or what constitutes an assault style weapon.

 

+1

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

I built m80 sized pipe bombs in high school out of emptied out co2 bb gun cartridges. Set them off in a field, me and a buddy did. Fun. I built a potato gun... I call it that... it was more the size of a cannon. Fun. You can't imagine how far we launched a can of peaches.

 

15 years on now and I've shot a watermelon with a .50 cal. Fun.

 

I can't abide being regulated of these things. I can't imagine people being denied such experiences if they seek them, either through their own ingenuity or the ingenuity of a confidant. It somehow seems all or nothing to me.

[CaptainPanic]

Bomb technology as simple as that used in Boston is no different than a firecracker. Removing information of such simplicity will achieve nothing, except that the terrorists win because the disruption caused in society by such draconian measures is a thousand times larger than the effect of the actual bombs.

[zapatos]

Bomb technology as simple as that used in Boston is no different than a firecracker. Removing information of such simplicity will achieve nothing, except that the terrorists win because the disruption caused in society by such draconian measures is a thousand times larger than the effect of the actual bombs.

I don't see how that means terrorists win, but to my point...

 

I would suggest that the effect of requiring a nine round magazine instead of a 10 round magazine is a thousand time greater than the effect it would have on actual shooters.

[Dekan]

The US President is prepared to order thousands of nuclear bombs to be fired at Russia. Each bomb would incinerate thousands, or millions, of innocent human beings.

 

Is the President a psychopath? Or is this discussion too silly for words.

 

When a war starts, every man does his duty, destroys the enemy, and gets a medal, when we win.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zapatos]

Is the President a psychopath? Or is this discussion too silly for words.

Neither one I would say.

[Dekan]

I think it is silly, for obvious reasons.

 

 

[zapatos]

Not obvious to me. Maybe we are looking at different aspects of the discussion. I find a discussion of whether or not a type of potentially dangerous information should be regulated on the internet, to be interesting. It also seems to be reasonable to compare it to regulation of hardware that could be potentially dangerous, such as guns, or bomb making materials.

 

Can you elaborate on why you think it is silly?

[swansont]

I think it is interesting that so many of the posters here that object to 'regulating' bomb making information, are very much interested in regulating guns.

 

What is the fundamental difference?

 

Both can be used for fun or sport. Both can be used for death and destruction.

 

One is information, the other is a physical object. One has a sole purpose of killing. The other has other uses. (after all, cars can be used for death and destruction, but that's not their primary purpose, and, ironically, are regulated more stringently than guns)

 

Beyond that, I don't think you can fully answer the question until the question about how you write the statute is answered. Do you e.g. limit the discussion of the underlying chemistry? Then what about all the legitimate uses of chemistry?

[zapatos]

One is information, the other is a physical object.

I'll concede the point, but why does information get a free ride? Certainly information can be quite dangerous in the wrong hands.

One has a sole purpose of killing. The other has other uses.

Which one is which?

Beyond that, I don't think you can fully answer the question until the question about how you write the statute is answered. Do you e.g. limit the discussion of the underlying chemistry? Then what about all the legitimate uses of chemistry?

I agree with not being able to fully answer the question until details of the statute are answered. But again, how is that any different than what you do when regulating guns? Do you limit the discussion of guns to firepower? Or single shot versus semi- or automatic?

Then what about all the legitimate uses of guns?

 

I still don't see a big difference between regulating guns versus regulating bomb making information.

[Iggy]

and we really need to get a handle on this "how to start a fire" information. Apparently, millions of people have been killed by fires, and nobody is doing anything to stop the spread of information. Arsonists have everything they need. I was in a convenience store just the other day and they were selling lighters willy-nilly. Don't they know how many lives have been lost?

 

Insane what people are allowed to do these days.

[swansont]

Which one is which?

The main purpose of guns is to shoot things, even for civilian use. Explosives are primarily used industrially.

I agree with not being able to fully answer the question until details of the statute are answered. But again, how is that any different than what you do when regulating guns? Do you limit the discussion of guns to firepower? Or single shot versus semi- or automatic?

Then what about all the legitimate uses of guns?

Isn't that the main discussion of this aspect of gun control? Limiting firepower?

I still don't see a big difference between regulating guns versus regulating bomb making information.

We're still without specific wording. I suspect this will be similar to pornography rules, where specific statutes are found to infringe on protected speech.

[zapatos]

The main purpose of guns is to shoot things, even for civilian use.

I was responding to your comment that "One has a sole purpose of killing". Neither one has a 'sole purpose of killing'.

Isn't that the main discussion of this aspect of gun control? Limiting firepower?

Yes. My point was that you can find some way to reasonably regulate bomb making instructions just as a way was found to regulate guns.

[John Cuthber]

Guys, can we get back to the bombs please?

(There's a phrase I never thought I would post)

 

It seems that the consensus is that it's more practical to prevent the distribution of uranium than the distribution of information.

That's not too big a shock. The fundamental difference is that I can give you information, but still keep it for myself, so it's much harder to track. You can't audit information.

 

It is much too late to lock down the information on bombs anyway: plenty of people know about them legitimately and it's unreasonable to hope that they will not discuss that information with others.

But, even if you could, as has been pointed out, some materials which are actually used for other things are explosive- Acetylene is a notable example. And it isn't possible to handle those materials safely without a basic understanding of the fact that they can explode.

It doesn't take much imagination to realise that the property of "being explosive" could be used to make a bomb.

 

A first attempt at a bomb might well work quite well, even if you had no background information.

A bit of experimentation would get a pretty good bomb quite quickly if someone chose to.

 

The other issue is that of the difference between blowing up nitrogen triiodide for kicks and giggles vs blowing up people.

If you can't tell what the difference is there, you shouldn't be allowed out on your own anyway.

 

Sport shooting and just "playing with guns" is ( in my opinion, ill advised but ) in the "kicks+ giggles" category.

The question is one of intent.

If you plan to harm someone or their property then it's a crime.

If not , then it (probably) isn't

(OK it is criminal if you do it so often as to be a nuisance to your neighbours).

 

These same issues apply to knives or even rocks.

The idea that the web made a difference seems very odd,

[swansont]

I was responding to your comment that "One has a sole purpose of killing". Neither one has a 'sole purpose of killing'.

 

The purpose of a gun is to shoot living things.

 

Yes. My point was that you can find some way to reasonably regulate bomb making instructions just as a way was found to regulate guns.

 

But we have (famously) refused to regulate guns in any meaningful way, here in the US.

[Iggy]

I was responding to your comment that "One has a sole purpose of killing". Neither one has a 'sole purpose of killing'.

 

Yeah, that would make for some bloody Olympic shooting events.

[zapatos]

The purpose of a gun is to shoot living things.

What about my dad's starter pistol? Or a flare gun. Or a target rifle? My shotgun I use on clay birds?

Did the manufacturer intend those guns to shoot living things?

Even if that was the manufacturers intent, I don't see how his intent can be transferred to me. The purpose of my guns is to shoot targets.

 

Does this 'purpose' also apply to bombs? Is the purpose of a nuclear bomb to blow up, or to deter the bad guys?

 

Your assertion seems subjective to me.

[overtone]

 

Saying you shouldn't regulate bomb making information because so many
know how to do it anyway is not really different than saying we
shouldn't regulate guns because so many have them anyway.

Seems a reasonable argument, among others. You state it as if it were not.

Objecting to regulating bomb making information because it is hard to draw the
line, is not really different than trying to draw the line on magazine
capacities or what constitutes an assault style weapon

The issue is a couple of orders of magnitude more complex, for starters - counting the rounds in a magazine is quite simple. How does one measure and classify information?