exactly right Ken .. as i said before to Tim May - propaganda is the key. Example - antrax theatre.
i must admit i'm warming up to Tim May's tall pipe means of attaining critical mass - much easier then playing with explosive and timing devices - my only question is do our experts see a problem with that means of delivery? regards joe On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Ken Brown wrote: > A propaganda weapon doesn't have to work, it just has to present a > threat of working to people who may or may not understand how it is > meant to work. It doesn't have to be a credible military weapon. A > kamikaze airliner isn't a credible *military* weapon against anyone who > can afford artillery. That didn't stop them though. > > The tall pipe that others mentioned would work well enough to scare > people - all you need to do is find a way of convincing others that > you've done it. One idea was to set one up in a tall block of flats. You > know the sort where there is a 6-inch gap between flights of stairs in > the stairwell, so if you stand at the top and look down you see right to > the basement. There are abandoned 19 or 20 story blocks in grotty > suburbs of London with stairwells like that, I bet the same is true of > most big cities. You only have to break in for a single day. You set a > number of lumps of U one above the other in such a way that when a > higher one falls onto one below it will take it with it - maybe just tie > them to the railings with thread, and put some old metal plates in the > way to stop them bouncing out of the stack. Use lumps of lead for > testing. > > The topmost one can be released by any simple mecahnism. You then assert > publically that when the top one is dropped they will all cascade down > and assemble a critical mass on the floor below. Hey presto, one big > propaganda coup, one mass panic and evacuation of big city. The building > will probably still be standing after it goes off, or fails to, but who > will want to be first in? > > Ken Brown > > > "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > > > > on Sat, Nov 17, 2001 at 12:24:31AM -0800, Tim May ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > On Friday, November 16, 2001, at 08:20 PM, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote: > > > > > > Anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device. So the only issue > > > > in building the device is the will to die for a cause. And the only > > > > thing I find unfortunate in all of this is that there are so many > > > > causes that people are willing to die for. And war will not make > > > > those reasons go away - it will only encourage them. > > > > > > It's really _not_ this easy. It took China and India a while before > > > they successfully tested an A-bomb (many years after they had the raw > > > materials from their reactor programs). It may have taken the South > > > Africans and Israelis a few years after getting materials, too. So, > > > why didn't they just hammer U-235 into stainless steel mixing bowls > > > and do it the way "anyone on this planet can build a nuclear device," > > > one wonders. > > > > This analysis neglects consideration of several points: > > > > - Nation-states (even authoritarian ones) will likely want to create > > both a sustained program, not merely crank out a few crude nukes, > > and preserve the talent involved. One-offs are almost always easier > > to complete than a production effort, but the lowered total cost is > > offset by a higher unit cost. The terrorist organization can > > accomplish its goals with crude tactics and marginally effective > > devices. Credible military threat isn't as simple. > > > > - Credible military weapons have minimum requirements of both efficacy > > -- efficient use of supercritical energy -- and predictability -- > > having the damned thing go off in the silo / bunker / hanger / > > munitions dump rather than the chosen target isn't particularly > > useful. > -- The dot.GOD Registry, Limited http://www.dot-god.com/