Xref: utzoo sci.military:7727 sci.physics:16377 sci.chem:2938 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Falconer) Newsgroups: sci.military,sci.physics,sci.chem Subject: Hussein's Bomb? Keywords: nuclear weapons Iraq Saddam Hussein Message-ID: <1991Jan15.022014.24280@cbnews.att.com> Date: 15 Jan 91 02:20:14 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Followup-To: sci.military Organization: Cal Poly State Univ,CSC Dept,San Luis Obispo,CA 93407 Lines: 77 Approved: military@att.att.com From: rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Falconer) [mod.note: Crossposted from sci.military, followups to that group. - Bill ] It was reported by NBC News this evening that Iraqi television is claiming that Iraq is in possession of "A tremendously powerful new weapon which will amaze our enemies and fascinate our friends." [mod.note: While not wishing to diminish the possibility or further liken Hussein to Hitler, I'm struck by the coincidence. Readers of 50 Years Ago will note that Hitler made an almost identical statement during the peak of the Battle of Britain, and was lying. - Bill ] Sounds rather ominous. It reignited the running debate here over whether or not Saddam Hussein may actually have a pocket nuclear capability. Certainly he seems to be rather confident in the recent game of brinksmanship - is there something we do not know about? Questions which have arisen include the following: (a) Iraq is in possession, almost certainly, of the components and technology for gas-centrifuge separation of fissionables. Are they far enough along that they might have refined a sufficient stock for their own uses? Are there any alternative sources of supply? (b) It has come up in the past that the plastic explosive Semtex is a workable base for the primary explosive in an implosion-type plutonium fission bomb, which is what current speculation focuses on. Semtex is a fast burner and fires quite reliably. However, a slow burning component is also needed. I know that in the Manhattan project devices the slow compound was Baratol. Does anyone know if it's still in use, or what precisely it is that makes it slow? Is there a more modern substitute or can something like Semteex be chemically doctored to serve in this role? I believe the rationale for the presence of the slow burning pieces is to increase the index of refraction and more sharply focus the implosion wave on the fissionable sphere at the center. How this is done and the math behind it are shrouded in considerable mystery. (c) What about timers and detonators? I have heard it mentioned on the net that rapid-discharge capacitors of the type required in a firing mechanism are nowadays used in Xerox copiers - in short, a widely disseminated technology. Also, it would seem that detonators of the type used in the demolition of large urban skyscrapers, where the building is made to fall in on itself by very precisely controlled and timed blasts, would be well suited to a nuclear role. (d) Beryllium, as a neutron reflector, is probably a fairly integral part of anyone's bomb design. I believe there would be a sphere of it at the heart of the core, with the plutonium sphere surrounding that and a thin shell of Be between the outer surface of the Pu and the inner surface of the explosive lenses. But Be is apparently a bitch to work with. Is it feasible for a Second World country, albeit one with substantial outside assistance, to properly machine beryllium castings? (e) I certainly hope we don't find out the answers to all these questions on the fifteenth or soon thereafter. -- |||||| Russ Teasdale -- rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -- (Falconer) ||||||| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Gentlemen, if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure." - D. Quayle