"H-Bomb Secret" Now Online 502
DrDNA writes "In 1979, the US Government sued Howard Morland, Erwin Knoll and Sam Day at The Progressive Magazine for prior restraint over the planned publication of 'The H-Bomb Secret: How We Got It--Why We're Telling It,' citing national security. Six months later, a Federal appeals court vacated the restraining order on publication, and the article was published. There's an interview about the case with George Stanford, of Argonne National Lab, Illinois, a technical adviser for the Progressive Magazine. After all this time, the Progressive article is now online (4Mb pdf)."
Should have known.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Should have known.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Should have known.. (Score:5, Funny)
Tsk tsk (Score:5, Informative)
Captain: What happen?
Operator: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
Captain: What!
Operator: Main screen turn on.
I know it doesn't sound right, but that's how poorly translated it was.
Re:Tsk tsk (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tsk tsk (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tsk tsk (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as the mods are feeling good about this topic for now, I'll just add that the poor translation comes from the Genesis game "Zero Wing" in case someone out there didn't know.
Re:Should have known.. (Score:5, Funny)
I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nowadays we are into multi-culturalism, and besides, there are now many immigrants from India in various walks of life in American society, and then there was George Harrison and all of that, so the comfort level with Indian culture and Hindu religious icons is much better these days. But back then, Oppenheimer was already suspect for being somewhat left-of-center in his politics and for being somewhat of an egghead (to use swing-era slang), and being Jewish in America of that time already made a person suspect of not worshipping the same God, perhaps in the way being Muslim in America does today, and gosh, quoting some obscure Hindu scripture really put a person way in left field.
But the nagging, unanswered question I have is this: isn't "I am become death" ungrammatical or am I missing some fine point. I can understand "I am death" (present tense) or "I have become death" (past perfect? -- I am not up on grammer), but I always thought "I am become death" was the result of some mistranslation on the order of "all your base."
Re:I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. (Score:5, Informative)
It's just an archaic, poetic way of saying things. The Bible is a good example: "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children" (Psalms 69:8, which later goes: "My time is not yet come", another antiquated phrasing).
Re:I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a few French verbs that conjugate this way in the past tense (the Passe Compose tense to be precise). The rest are closer to our Perfect tense.
I'm just taking a guess on the French thing, but there was a good deal of French influence on English at one point.
Just in time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just in time (Score:5, Interesting)
You got it all wrong (Score:4, Funny)
We do not need this calamity confounding our precious givernement custodians of truth and prosperity. This is a windfall for the terrorists and a sad day for true Americans everywhere.
Re:You got it all wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Holy freakin' crap, I knew the day would come!
Precious Government Custodians v. un-Americans (Score:3, Insightful)
Claiming this article is an aid to terrorists is silly. Does anyone really think the rest of the world lives in grass huts and only the US has physicists and engineers? All this bomb-making information i
Re:Just in time (Score:3)
FYI (Score:5, Funny)
Be Prepared Americans, Something May Happen Today!
Re:FYI (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why we are probably never going to be at anything other than orange or yellow alert. Because if we ever go to some "reduced" alert level and there is an attack then whoever is in charge of the alert system will get in trouble for not vaguely warning us.
Re:FYI (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are a policeman, an "Orange" alert means that you now have a nearly unlimited amount of easy overtime (paid for by Uncle Sam) available to you. These overtime hours are used to provide security for monuments, bridges, reservoirs, etc, and provide a great opportunity to grab some Z's and get away from the wife.
The alert system was put in place when idiots in the mainstream press began screaming about how the government refused to warn anyone about the 9/11 attacks. It's a great example of how stupid questions (or problems) lead to stupid answers (or solutions).
Re:FYI (Score:3, Interesting)
While I do not necessarily disagree with your view of politicians, there are other uses. It may confuse/distract/prevent some actions from happening. It may create some voice traffic and give them some information. It may not. But it does serve more that just cover ass for politicians, or at least it _can_.
Re:FYI (Score:5, Funny)
Don't make fun of the alerts system! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't make fun of the alerts system! (Score:4, Interesting)
What I don't find fair (to the public) is the indignant way Mr. Ridge handles the press. His responses serve to propagandise and/or scare the public, IMO. To wit:
OK. Back to our regularly scheduled topic....
Glad I'm safe here in Oz... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:FYI (Score:5, Funny)
I have confidence our Patriot missiles will knock out all eight reindeer.
If Santa takes a commercial flight, he better arrive WAY early, to check that bag of toys.
Hmmm, Santa has a beard, headgear, a funny suit, lives in an out of the way place, he IS a loner
Osama been Santa? <G> (ducks, runs)
Online? (Score:5, Funny)
Not for long.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me.. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's one thing to crush the server, but the least we can do is look at some ads while we do it.
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you post a 4 meg file on your site, you gotta be ready to get it slapped around a bit.
The magazine should break it up, place it on several ad covered pages, and enjoy the slashdot traffic.
Data files are different... it's harder to manipulate those.
PDF is just a big ass text file... there is very little reason to keep it in that format.
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it just me.. (Score:2)
------
Your search - cache:7xNf54c9_fwJ:www.progressive.org/pdf/1179.p
Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.
- Try fewer keywords.
Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.
*Awesome* editorial in this article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*Awesome* editorial in this article (Score:4, Funny)
Too late.
Re:*Awesome* editorial in this article (Score:4, Informative)
Davak
Re:*Awesome* editorial in this article (Score:3, Interesting)
Even reading the Bill of Rights, or The Constitution can be unamerican if you are subversive, which is why Upton Sinclair and Roger Baldwin were arrested for doing so.
That was a long time ago but in these modern times people are arrested for protesting outside of a
Re:*Awesome* editorial in this article (Score:4, Insightful)
John, is that you, posting as Anonymous Coward?
We've missed you in Missouri ever since that dead guy beat you, but we've so proud during this Christmas season for all you've done to let those liberals know that America is a Christian nation [au.org]!
And thanks for making us safer by
- imprisoning American citizen terrorists indefinitely without trial or even without access to lawyers [bbc.co.uk],
- and for sending that Canadian Muslim (All Muslims are terrorists!) to be tortured by Syria. [guardian.co.uk]
As good Christians, we especially feel safer now that- Tommy Chong's in the federal pen for selling glass pipes over the internet [guardian.co.uk],
- and now that you've made it difficult for the terminally ill to get pot despite it being legal under California state law [green-aid.com],
- and are making sure those terminally ill people can't die with dignity in Oregon [americanhumanist.org]
John, I want you to know that the name John Ashcroft will be remembered for years in association with liberty in America!After all you've done to dismantle that pesky Fourth Amendment with the Patriot Act [villagevoice.com], it's especially heartening to learn that you don't know what the First Amendment is!
Keep up the great work John, and know that I'll be voting for George Bush in 2004 to make sure you spend four more years as our Reichsminis-- I mean, Attorney General!
Head in the Sand (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, this is bull. But I found this quote from the article puts it best:
GS: It should by now be clear to everyone that in the past we
relied far too much on secrecy. We arrogantly assumed that we
were the only ones who could develop nuclear weapons, and that
therefore we could retain our monopoly. That kept us from
pursuing international arrangements that might have held the
nuclear arms race under some sort of control.
I don't wanna dive into a political rant here, but I think the balance of power, combat, and international discussion is vital to keeping the world safe from the threat of nuclear war.
Head in the Silicon (Score:5, Funny)
It should by now be clear to everyone that in the past we relied far too much on secrecy. We arrogantly assumed that we were the only ones who could develop computer operating systems and software, and that therefore we could retain our monopoly. That kept us from pursuing international arrangements that might have held the upsurge on linux under some sort of control.
Re:Head in the Sand (Score:2)
Of course, this is bull. But I found this quote from the article puts it best:
You know I can understand this point for other things such as supercomputing or various technologies which have some purpose other than full-scale annihilation but I just don't know why people need this information.
Who gains what from publishing this?? I'm willing to be educa
Re:Head in the Sand (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think mp3 are easily traded, 30 sheets of text/information has been traded and sold a million times over.
To hide behind this information prevents countries from forming the deals and treaties that really protect us.
Re:Head in the Sand (Score:5, Informative)
First, censorship is bad. Period. It is something where you can very easily and without any sort of a stretch apply the 'slippery slope' principle. As soon as you censor anything, you're well on the way to censoring everything. Unlike, say, automatic assault rifles with clips that hold over ten rounds, 'bad' speech is impossible to objectively define.
Second, the secrecy around the techniques for constructing nuclear weapons makes a lot of things secret as a byproduct, because of the incredible paranoia and perceived fear by the censors. To keep people from guessing the most secret techniques needed to construct a nuclear bomb, by extension you need to keep secret even the materials and quantities required for construction. From there, you have to make secrets out of a lot of what's involved in mining, refining, processing, and manufacturing. From there, it's very easy to do things like making accident statistics or radiation exposure documentation for the town where the reactor is secret.
It is also very easy to declare independently-created works as secrets, even though they were not derived from any government program. Imagine doing some heavy research in your local library, constructing a few tests, saying the wrong things to the wrong people, and shortly the FBI shows up and carts off all of your work. This has happened. In the article, they give the example of a member of the House who wrote a letter to the Department of Energy, asking some rather pressing questions about changes in their nuclear program. In their response, they said that not only were the responses secret, the very questions themselves were of a sensitive nature and were now classified. This very highest elected official was therefore not legally allowed to distribute these questions that only came from his own mind!
In the end, it comes down to something very simple. Freedom of speech is nearly an absolute, and it is also the most important freedom we have. Giving it up is foolish no matter what the reason.
Re:Head in the Sand (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Automatics with 10 Round Clips (Score:3, Insightful)
Please read my post again. I did not, and will not, say anything about the constitutionality or correctness of gun control. I merely stated that "automatic assault rifles with clips that hold over ten rounds" is a completely objective criterion. Give the same gun to two completely different people with comple
Re:Automatics with 10 Round Clips (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Assualt Rifles" vs "Assualt Weapons" (Score:3, Informative)
An assault rifle must conform to these guidelines, else it is not an assault rifle.
1. Must fire in fully automatic mode.
2. Must fire low calibre rounds (.223 for example, as opposed to the
3. Must be small enough to be carried and fired by one person of average size.
That means that your civilian AR-15 clones (such as the Bushmaster
Re:All of you absolutists.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am against censorship. I am not against secrecy.
Secrecy is saying, "I do not wish to publish my personal information."
Censorship is the government telling you, "Publishing your personal information is illegal, and we will put you in jail if you do so."
Secrecy is fine. If the government wants to keep secrets, that's fine, up until the point where it uses censorship to do so. Keeping secrets with encryption, lockboxes, barbed-wire fences, and armed guards is fine. Keeping secrets by forbidding publication of material gathered from public sources is not fine.
Until and unless you understand the difference between secrecy and censorship, and how it is possible to be completely against one while accepting of the other, there is no point in responding.
Re:Head in the Sand (Score:2)
Perhaps the nuclear arms race might have been avoided or blunted by allowing openness in nuclear technology.
I wonder if interpersonal violence might be avoided or blunted by allowing open access to personal weapons?
Does allowing anyone to have a (nuclear/personal) weapon work better than trying to deny everyone (nuclear/personal) weapons?
Should we support the right to keep and bear nuclear arms?
Re:Head in the Sand (Score:3, Offtopic)
Not only on moral grounds, but also on practical grounds, I believe this was the stupidest decision ever made in American politics: The data already collected in past test would have been sufficient to keep America's
A Good Read (Score:5, Interesting)
Seemed kinda slow... (Score:5, Informative)
Not so secret anymore (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not so secret anymore (Score:2, Funny)
damnit, some people just can't shut up. (Score:2, Interesting)
The Manhattan Project (Score:2)
Best use of dishwashing detergent and remote control cars that I have ever seen...
Anybody remember all the mutant clover?
http://www.uselessmoviequotes.com/umq_m005.htm
Re:damnit, some people just can't shut up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Telling ordinary people how a bomb is made presents negligible threat; it's impractical for them to make one themselves but does give insight into the most significant arms race of the last century. As for other nations and terrorist groups, they have spies to obtain such information for them, and it's still very difficult to obtain the relevant amounts of bomb-grade material.
Smart student can already do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly once you know this *IS* feasible, as a physicist then you can come up with a solution. that then the engineereer can work upon and come up with an effective device.
Secrety is worthless in nuclear weapon run. Only experience and engineering is somethign worth.
As the article author I wish US , France , Russia and China would have worked together on stoping nuclear proliferation thru treaty , because as we may now observe every country which have money to spend on engineering can get the bomb (Pakistan, India, N-K maybe and whoever else).
Re:Smart student can already do this. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:damnit, some people just can't shut up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:damnit, some people just can't shut up. (Score:3, Insightful)
The invention of the hydrogen bomb was done independently at least twice, both by extremely smart specialists, not your BS physics grad.
However, the basic design of the Teller-Ulam fusion bomb is now readily available, including many of the relevant equations. A less detailed source is here [nuclearweaponarchive.org].
Because the article is slashdotted, I can't j
Re:damnit, some people just can't shut up. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:damnit, some people just can't shut up. (Score:3, Funny)
destruction decreases. Eventually, anyone who
feels like splurging with their milk money
will be able to destroy the physical structure
of the universe. The solution is not to
deprive children of milk, but to put them all
in separate universes.
Re:damnit, some people just can't shut up. (Score:3, Funny)
Google Cache (Score:3, Informative)
This reminds me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting -- from the interview (Score:4, Interesting)
small fortune, even though it managed to get the Morland article
published without censor. Essentially, it was a case of limited
private funds versus a bottomless pot of Government gold
I'm not sure where I stand on the article and its attempted censorship, but I am somewhat amused that one of its authors said the above. Doesn't it sound *exactly* like a typical right-wing diatribe against the government? The article in question was in the well known *leftist* magazine "The Progressive".
Where we've gone from there (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where we've gone from there (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting Timing (Score:5, Interesting)
Alaska Bugs Sweat Gold Nuggets [alaska-freegold.com]
usually I dont feed the trolls ... (Score:5, Interesting)
After actually downloading the article and reading the forbidden pages it seems to me that there are many things that need to be made a little clear to those who will comment without ever reading an iota of the article itself.
First off, Osama Bin Laden does not celebrate christmas. Christmas is a christian holliday in which the Muslim community does not celebrate. This does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists just as it means not all catholics are repbuclicans. While Osama Bin Laden himself has been behind some of the worlds worst acts of terrorism, this should not reflect on all Muslims, and a bit of respect for other religions should be in place, but that would be a matter of decency and humanity.
Secondly the article itself states that this is in no means a "how-to". Reading this article will do nothing in comparison to going to school to learn about physics and chemistry. The article helps put in lamens terms what exactly is done with the creation of such devices. If you notice this article was supressed during the peak of the cold war. At a time when the US Government was playing shadow games by providing tidbits of information for mass consumption but never enough meat to chew on.
The government supressed this to make it seem that there was a large amount of complicated procedures and research being placed in their weapons of mass destruction and that they could load these weapons on the same rockets that sent men into space and ahniliate an entire Soviet city at will. Fair to say that creating an H-Bomb is in fact something that is not at all an easily accomplishment to undertake. While it may be possible to obtain the parts neccessary it still requires someone with a vast amount of knowledge to place all the ingredients together.
I don't think that Al Qaeda or any other terrorist faction will ever be able to design such weapons. I do however think that with the fall of the soviet union and other countries in massive recession that are in fact nuclear that they may be able to purchase said nuclear weapons of mass destruction. So did this article send us to code level orangish red? Nope, but something sure did.
I am not a sympathist by any means for terrorists or freedom fighters who surpass diplomatic measures to accomplish their goals by bringing death and destruction in its place. These people have lost a sense of equality and humanity and are in fact extremely horrible evil people. Should science be supressed because of fears, should we stop manufacturing cars because they are accessories to crimes (bank robberies, car bombs, etc.) NO.
Scientific innovations can be used for good or can be used for bad, it is a matter of the beholder of the information as to what will happen with it. This article meerly suggests that there is a procedure and massive science behind weapons of mass destruction, which is apparent that they are not meant to be used for good, yet will be used for killing and destruction. Think of the good the reasearch itself could be done if only the knowledge was used for good, and not as a weapon to bring death and destruction.
I think this is a prime example of how science for the sake of death is not good, but without the nuclear program we wouldn't have nuclear power. Without a means to deliever said weapons of mass destruction, we wouldn't have a space program. How a redundant communication line for launching said weapons could be used to create the network which has become the worlds internet. There is obviously positive ramifications for the research and design of these technologies, but does that excuse the original intent of the death and destruction even if it was never used to date for such a thing?
Short of WWII with Japan there has never been a nuclear attack on anyone from anyone in the world. Yet we as americans with our democratic control are responsible for this destruction of property and life, and we did it through our research and science.
Will our children forgive us, or curse us?
Re:usually I dont feed the trolls ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us not forget that during WWII the targeting of cities and civilians was the norm, starting with Japan's bombing of Shanghi, and the German bombing of Rotterdam and London. Later in the war, with air superiority virtualy allied, huge waves of bombers pounded axis cities day and night. The Americans, with their superior Norden bombsites were able to do daylight bombing, while the British had to resort to nightime city bombing. Attack the workers while they work, and attack them while they sleep. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was only different in that one bomber commited all the destruction, as opposed to hundreds of bombers. Indeed, the two bombings using atomic weapons killed less than some of the other bombings of the war, such as the firebombings of Dresden, Hamburgh and Tokyo.
I always get a bit irritated by people who demand that the U.S. appologise for using atomic weapons, because they don't know their history. The invasion of Okinawa cost 48,000 American casualties, and close to 200,000 Japanese casualties (Including civilians). And that was just the begining. The human cost of an invasion of Japan was estimated to be over a million lives. While the loss of 100,000 lives in the two bombed cities was bad, it would have been much much worse for the Japanese had the United States NOT used the bomb.
Re:usually I dont feed the trolls ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The human cost of an invasion of Japan was estimated to be over a million lives. While the loss of 100,000 lives in the two bombed cities was bad, it would have been much much worse for the Japanese had the United States NOT used the bomb.
And therein lies the issue. An invasion of Japan would have cost lives on both sides, many more than were lost by using two atomic bombs. Noone in the longterm learnt from it, noone had to deal with the many dead that would have resulted from an invasion. The lessons that were presented by the 100,000 dead were easily forgotten, precisely because the deaths were all on one side, and were easily dealt. Two bombers dropping two bombs killed 100,000, and it was all too easy.
The victory over Germany was earnt, precisely because we had to fight them all the way to Hitlers doorstep. Now please do not get me wrong, I understand that a great many people died in the pacific front fighting for our freedoms, and I sincerly thank all the surviviors and the fallen, but the victory over Japan was far too easy to learn any long term lessons from. We now have the bomb, killing a large population is now easy. We tend to forget the people involved, and go after anti ballistic missile systems, so we can throw our bombs at them while they cant throw theirs at ours. We try and regain the same advantage that we had when we dropped the bombs on Japan, lack of the ability to retaliate, so there is no kick back on using these weapons.
Attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, threatening North Korea, Iran and god knows who else is easy to us western nations because there is little kickback. The US people got to know a bit about civilian casualties when the WTC was hit, and they didnt like it one bit. 3000 people died that day, and the voice of America that day was one of retaliation. And they got it.
Why do the people who back these wars think Germany, France and other nations were against hte invasion of iraq? Because they have felt the ramifications of war first hand, and fairly recently. They have knowledge that the US, the UK and others are sorely lacking, that of oppression and internal strife. They know that it is better to resolve difficulties through diplomatic channels, however long it takes, rather than in battle. Hitler would never have come about if Germany had been better treated after World War 1. World War 1 would never have taken place if the European royalty had sat down and talked about the assassination of a minor political figure, rather than square off against one another.
I applaud the current stance taken by Libya. They held secret talks with potential enemies, talks that had to be secret so there was no pressure to deliver. They discussed their problems, and settled on a solution. Some could say they did this because of Iraq, but if this was the case, then Iraq has had a net negative effect on the world. Its a case of the play ground bully making an example of one of his victims. They didnt pay up, you could be next.
Re:usually I dont feed the trolls ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The bombs did force an unconditional surrender, but more importantly, it stopped Stalin dead in his tracks, who we had recognized as a grave threat who was now moving aggressively toward Japan. The worst-case scenario here was that Stalin, weakened but holding far more control of Europe and Asia than he could have hoped, could move for a year-round port city on the Pacific. He was clearly willing to commit his citizens to the last man - his ability to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers, including women to their deaths scared the hell out of the other ally leaders. Stalin could move against Japan from the north and take territory from Japan that would be extremely valuable to Russia against a US enemy (Russia entered the war against Japan on Aug 8 by easily invading Manchuria). Stalin realized that the US was the only other power to escape WWII with any resources, and that the two would be in conflict.
Stalins best scenario was to move against Japan after a successful US invasion - both US and Japanese forces would be weak and the US would not be prepared for an invasion from the north. Russia could more easily bring forces to the location than the US, and Russia could win most or all of the island. Stalin realized that the US would buckle under the scale of the Russian army, particularly since the US public would oppose defending real estate given that the real enemy (Japan) was defeated.
The US position was difficult. We couldn't afford to invade given that scenario - Japan could be lost to Russia regardless of whether we defeated Japan or not. Quite possibly the bombs were viewed as the solution to both problems - first, we could quickly end the war with Japan without giving Russia time to become entrenched, and avoiding any further invasions. Second, we send a message to Stalin that we can defeat his armies without committing US soldiers, and that we can bring resources to bear much more quickly than he can (how long does it take to hopscotch a B-29 across the Pacific vs. mobilizing hundreds of thousands of troops). Stalin knew nothing about the bombs until they were dropped but FDR certainly made it clear to him throughout the war that US resources were as limitless as the US wished them to be, so he had to assume the worst. Stalin made it clear to FDR that the number and commitment of his troops were as limitless as he wished them to be, so we had to assume the worst as well.
It's not pleasant to think that the bombs were used against the Japanese as a demonstration to the Russians, but that's quite likely to have been the case. The only possible upside to this is that Japan had a much brighter future not being an iron curtain nation.
Re:usually I dont feed the trolls ... (Score:3, Informative)
I suggest you read "The Last Great Victory" by Stanley Weintraub. It gives a very good and balanced account of the last days of WW II.
A few points:
Stalin knew about the atomic bomb from his spies within Los Alamos. Truman also told him about the bomb at Potsdam before they were dropped.
Stalin was asked by the US and Br
Re:usually I dont feed the trolls ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:usually I dont feed the trolls ... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's another choice, you know: they might thank us.
Nothing I didn't learn in Highschool Physics.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I saw better diagrams in highschool textbooks from that era. Go to a use book store. The theory has been out there, but the precision parts and the highly toxic and radioactive components are just a trifle hard to come by.
I know that you alarmists believe that the local militia is going to hurry over to Ace Hardware and get all the supplies tonight to be the first one on the block to have their own H-Bomb. Can't let those Pinkoes and Furriners beat them to it.
Censored again (Score:2, Funny)
What to publish... (Score:3, Interesting)
The secret has been available for ages (Score:4, Informative)
Much more interesting (Score:3, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/2
which references www.portchicago.org
The howtos of thermonuclear are all out there in userland; this _old news_ Progressive article doesn't help much. The above links are _FAR_ more useful, IYAM(AIAAP). (If You Ask Me, And I Am A Physicist.)
Torrent... (Score:5, Informative)
Mass Media Easier to Sensor (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank God those days are behind us. The 21st century is a much more enlightened time.
Sadly, consolidation of the media and reduced competition will make them more likely to roll over on things like this in the future.
Happening all the time (Score:4, Insightful)
Double Standards? (Score:3, Interesting)
When it comes to national security, what makes people think secrecy makes the nation any more secure?
Re:Double Standards? (Score:4, Informative)
In WWII we slightly improved our Fleet submarines to dive 150 deeper than prewar and kept that change secret. Many a sailor owes his life to the fact that Japanese never set their depth charges deeper than the publically known pre-war depth. (And many a ton of Japanese shipping was sunk by those sailors.)
During the Cold War the broadcast frequency to our SSBN's was kept busy 24/7, if there was not enough official traffic, then messages were repeated, or other filler material was broadcast. As a result, our SSBN OPTEMPO could not be derived from the volume of traffic. (Traffic volume is an important indicator in COMINT, increased traffic almost always means Something Is Up.)
These are two of many examples. Security by obscurity (real security, not the bogus examples you provide) is a valuable part of a security toolbox, the error most amateurs make is to depend on it standalone. (Another example is a burgular who cannot dodge a camera he does not know about, nor can an interloper devise a counter to a measure he does not know exists.)
So? The Government already knew... (Score:4, Informative)
The government looked in to how hard it would be for people to cull together a working nuclear weapon design from available information years ago.
"Interestingly enough, the United States government conducted a controlled experiment called the Nth Country Experiment to see how much effort was actually required to develop a viable fission weapon design starting from nothing. In this experiment, which ended on 10 April 1967, three newly graduated physics students were given the task of developing a detailed weapon design using only public domain information. The project reached a successful conclusion, that is, they did develop a viable design (detailed in the classified report UCRL-50248) after expending only three man-years of effort over two and a half calendar years. In the years since, much more information has entered the public domain so that the level of effort required has obviously dropped further."
From The Nuclear Weapon Archive: a Guide to Nuclear Weapons [membrane.com]
That was back in 1967, a bit more than thirty-six years ago. It probably takes a lot less digging nowadays.
"The H-Bomb Secret" (Score:4, Informative)
There are ongoing rumors that a way exists to build a fusion bomb without a fission trigger. Efforts were made to develop such a weapon, the "pure fusion" bomb, in the 1950s. The "neutron bomb" was an outgrowth of that effort, although it is not a pure fusion weapon. There's a whole conspiracy theory on this, revolving around Sam Cohen, who developed the neutron bomb, and "red mercury".
The "red mercury" thing is probably disinformation, but given the amount of work LLNL has put into pulsed fusion, there may be a way to do this by now.
Re:"The H-Bomb Secret" (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really. We still don't know for sure if that detonation in the South Indian Ocean on September 22, 1979 was a South African nuclear test, an Israeli nuclear test, or what. Whatever it was, somebody got away with it.
An Omen of things to come... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this sound vaguely familiar to anyone from a more recent case? Perhaps I'll jog your memory. In the DeCSS case, it was argued that Code is not protected because it has functional value. In effect it is technical rather than political or other speech. In this case, it doesn't seem to be the government making the assertion, rather an organization. But that would be misleading. The DMCA represents a restraint on speech just as broad as the Energy Act used against this article. The identity of the party pushing for the censorship is irrelevant. It's the laws with over broad, sweeping generalizations on what we can, and cannot say, as well as the idea that there is protected and unprotected speech that are truly dangerous. Surely some forms of speech are distasteful in the extreme, and prompt a gut reaction that they should not be allowed. But once you establish a form of speech that is officially "not OK", The worst of your obstructions as a censor are over.
What part of of this is confusing?
"That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It's straight forward, black and white. Our nations third grade students can easily understand it. But once you add even ONE exception, however well meaning it might be, the floodgates have opened, and the end result is the muddle we have today. Sufficiently muddled, the citizenry are too afraid to use the rights they might have, for fear of a costly lawsuit, and then they basically don't have those rights. Then we require people like The Progressive, 2600, Penthouse and Lary Flint, and anyone else willing to put their livelihoods and privacy on the line for our freedom.
The base point is this. As soon as something I can personally say out loud becomes Illegal, the whole of my freedom of speech is gone. As soon as something I could sit down and write with my own pen becomes illegal, my freedom of press is gone. Be it technical specifications, computer code, poetry, a political indictment, a story about rape, or a shopping list, If one of those things is illegal, eventually fear will make them all impossible. And once our freedom of speech is gone, Our ability to claim to live in a free society will be a farce.
My favorite quote (Score:3, Funny)
Lemme tell ya, I would have omitted that source.
Censoring Bomb Info on the Internet (Score:3, Interesting)
- When you talk about the First Amendment and the Internet and bombs, people like DiFi say "Oh, no, the First Amendment doesn't protect dangerous information, it's about things like pornography."
- When you talk about the 1st, the Internet, and pornography, they say "Oh, no, it's not about that, it's about protecting non-obscene speech".
- When you talk about tobacco advertising, they say "Oh, no, it's not about commercial speech, it's about protecting *political* speech."
- But when you talk about campaign finance reform, they say "Oh, no, elections are *way* too important to let anybody actually fund the political speech they believe in, why that would let *money* corrupt politics."
And all that was just with liberals in charge - wonder what Ashcroft will come up with next.Some facts about atomic weapons (Score:4, Informative)
- There was a betting pool at the Manhattan Project over whether or not the Earth's atmosphere would be consumed in a planet-wide fireball during the first atomic test explosion (Trinity).
- The second explosion of an atomic device was over the mainly civilian target of Hiroshima, Japan, later that year. President Truman, upon hearing of the successful explosion, said it was "the greatest day in history." 70,000 people died instantly, 200,000 died in total. At Nagasaki, 3 days later, 40,000 people died instantly, 140,000 died in total. Contrary to the initial reports by the U.S. Government that the attacks had shortened the war considerably, it has come to light that Japan's Emporer had agreed to contional surrender before these attacks. The only condition was that he remain Emporer and so the Japanese state remain intact. However, with the awesome destuctive will and power of the U.S. demonstrated, we emerged from the attacks as the sole nuclear power in the world, and largely determined the shape of the post WWII world, in which we later came to be the sole great power.
- As mentioned in the linked PDF, the second h-bomb test (Bravo) went awry, with a yield of twice what was thought possible, 15 megatons. The plume was 62 miles wide, 40 miles high. The exclusion zone after the test was 850 miles wide, or about 1% of the Earth's surface. The fallout cloud reached a distance that would, in comparison, cover the entire U.S. North-Eastern Seaboard.
- Testing was expanded to high atmospheric explosions, where h-bombs were exploded in the ionosphere. They variously disrupted, destroyed and created new layers in the Van Allen Belts, the natural magnetic layers that shield the Earth from solar and cosmic radiation. Those belts have been changed ever since.
- The U.S. nuclear power monopoly ended with a series of Russian tests that yielded the largest explosion yet, at 50 megatons. The shockwave rounded the Earth 3 times. The Russian program had discovered a 3rd stage fusion mechanism, which could have led directly to 100-150 megaton weapons, and virtually unlimited theoretical maximums.
- The U.S. underground testing in Nevada has exploded nearly 1000 devices, turning a large region there into a pockmarked surface, much like the face of the moon.
- At last count, there are 12 countries (U.S., Russia, U.K., France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa, Israel, Iraq, Iran) who are known to have, or reasonably suspected of having had, active nuclear weapons programs, 7 of which have demonstrated capability (the first 7 of those). This does not include the probable fragmentation of the Soviet stockpile after the collapse of the U.S.S.R, smaller NGOs, or describe the liklihood of nuclear arms being sold. There were reports, just before the recent reversal of M.E. policy by the Bush Administration (i.e. to no invade Syria and Iran) that Russia and China had deployed nuclear missiles along the northern borders of those countries, likely pointed at Israel, the strongest nuclear power in the M.E..
- The combined (known) stockpiles of the U.S. and Russia (including former states) is estimated to be around ~3 Gigatons accross ~10k warheads each. At a total of about 6 Gigatons of explosive force, we're plenty close to the 75-100GT energy of the (K-T event) asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, thank you very much.
- The U.S. has resumed manufacturing the nuclear trigger devices. Maintenance and testing is now almost fully virtualized, being done mainly in simulation, using the U.S.'s most powerful computers provided by IBM.
- Ironically (or perhaps obviously), Japan, the only victim of nuclear warfare, is using what is now the most powerful supercomputer in the world for a completely different purpose: to simulate the natural processes of the Earth.
Re:ahhh (Score:2)
Some principles are worth living and fighten, some are even worth dying for.
Re:ahhh (Score:5, Insightful)
It's certainly better than destroying freedom in the name of national security.
Re:Immediate Doom Of The Earth Predicted (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a minute, wasn't the world supposed to end through nuclear warfare? Or because of the Y2K bug? Or perhaps because we got suffocated with CO2?
Every 5 minutes someone "discovers" that the world is going to end because of something science came up with. This is getting really old now. Could all those pessimists finaly realise this planet is going to be here for quite some time. What else would God play with
Re:Terrorist Threat (Score:4, Funny)
I know how you feel, this whole "freedom of speech" thing is just wrong! I firmly believe that the government has our best interests at heart, and would only conceil information that could be used by evil people (probably terrorists). I feel so much safer knowing that upstanding people like George Bush are in office.
Re:Just in time (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, it's much more easy and likely that Osama would simply bribe/steal one from some Russian, Chineese, indian, or Pakistani army general down on his luck without proper staff to "account" for an already made nuke!!! When the Cold war was just Us and Russia, it was easy to track nukes.. now that Russia has broken up, there are a frightening number "gone missing" from all the army bases Russia couldn't economically hold.
Re:Practical H-Bomb Construction Details (Score:3)
You do need to appreciate that the 1st atomic bombs were built in the 1940's and that the first H-Bomb was envisioned and for the most part also built in the 1940's.
After learning that a bomb _could_ be built it only took the Russians a couple years to actually build them (both nuclear and thermonuclear).
I personally would not have considered the USA or Russia to have been particularly advanced in the 1940's.