Follow-up on the Big Boom theory
A comment:
I think the DHS is actually looking for "dirty bombs", but the question is valid.
Yes, in theory, a nuclear device can be made small enough to fit in a reasonable carry-on bag.
Here are the frightening details from the reassuringly-named National Terror Alert.
My initial thought was that the plutonium necessary for this kind of bomb would be prohibitively heavy -- it's one of the heaviest substances on earth, which is part of what makes it so boom-y if you remember that heavy=mass-y and mass is one of the key parts of this little beauty. But, no, according to the National Terror Alert, it would only take about 25 pounds of the stuff to make it a really bad day for a lot of people.
That being said, I think a major hurdle to overcome would be the whole conversion-of-the-big-boom-into-jet-propulsion thing. I'll try to address that later.
Note: You may also want to check out the Apostrophe Protection Society to learn the difference between "your" and "you're".
I question you're response to Joan in regard to atomic fuel. It seems the department of Homeland Security is watching for suitcases that might contain "smart bombs". are these not portable and stable enough to be hand carried to airports,etc.? Is a bomb any more safe than fuel for transportation?
I think the DHS is actually looking for "dirty bombs", but the question is valid.
Yes, in theory, a nuclear device can be made small enough to fit in a reasonable carry-on bag.
Here are the frightening details from the reassuringly-named National Terror Alert.
My initial thought was that the plutonium necessary for this kind of bomb would be prohibitively heavy -- it's one of the heaviest substances on earth, which is part of what makes it so boom-y if you remember that heavy=mass-y and mass is one of the key parts of this little beauty. But, no, according to the National Terror Alert, it would only take about 25 pounds of the stuff to make it a really bad day for a lot of people.
That being said, I think a major hurdle to overcome would be the whole conversion-of-the-big-boom-into-jet-propulsion thing. I'll try to address that later.
Note: You may also want to check out the Apostrophe Protection Society to learn the difference between "your" and "you're".
posted by Tom at 4:35 AM
2 comments
