Is Free Access to Nuclear Physics Information Ethical?

[John37309]

Access to Nuclear physics info

I would like to start a general chat about access to nuclear physics information. But not a scientific discussion. The discussion should be a theological discussion about the general implications of every single person on the planet having access to nuclear physics information and peoples ability to build small or medium sized nuclear weapons. Or so called "Dirty bombs".

Today, the information on how to construct small or medium sized nuclear weapons is very easily accessible on the internet. The information to understand and construct nuclear devices is so accessible, its publicly available on Wikipedia and on a host of other websites. Basically anyone, or any group of people with the motive to construct such a device could learn how to do it in a few weeks of light reading on the internet. Or in books for that matter!

The biggest obstacle to someone building a nuclear device is access to heavy elements like uranium or plutonium. But in reality, anyone with the motive and the money, could mine the heavy elements themselves, and enrich it. Now it would be difficult to hide what you were doing if you were mining heavy elements, but its not impossible either. No one person could do it alone. But any group that has reasonable funds could do it.

These are the questions i ask;

1. Is mankind doing the right thing providing free access to this type of information through the internet and books?

2. Any nation or government on earth, if they choose too, could build nuclear weapons. Is this the right thing to do?

3. The threat of terrorist "nuclear dirty bombs" is hiding in the background. Is it inevitable that we will see these used at some stage?

4. Does this easy access to nuclear physics information mean that "World War III" is inevitable? That really, its just a matter of time?

5. Is mankind's own destruction inevitable because of our curiosity about science? And mankind's favourite pastime, War?

------

Whatever happens, the damage is done at this stage anyway. Thousands of people in every country in the world have books and info that teaches nuclear physics. So no matter what, there is no going back at this stage. If our own destruction is inevitable, then that's the way its got to be.

What do you think?

John.

 

[russ_watters]

A. A "dirty bomb" isn't a nuclear bomb, it's a conventional bomb that also disperses nuclear material. It isn't at all difficult to build, as it doesn't require any knowledge of nuclear physics.

1. Irrelevant question: you can't hide science for very long, so there is no issue of "doing the right thing".
2. It isn't right or wrong. I don't see how just having a bomb is an issue of morality.
3. Possible, yes. Inevitable, no.
4. No.
5. No. And...my favorite pastime isn't war. I won't speak for you, though.

Not sure this should really be in physics...not sure where to put it yet.

 

[AlephZero]

I would like to start a general chat about access to nuclear physics information. But not a scientific discussion. The discussion should be a theological discussion about the general implications of every single person on the planet having access to nuclear physics information and peoples ability to build small or medium sized nuclear weapons.

I don't understand what this has to do with "theology". History shows that no theologian ever changed the laws of physics by burning books, or even by burning people.

 

[I like Serena]

I find especially point 4 rather interesting:

4. Does this easy access to nuclear physics information mean that "World War III" is inevitable? That really, its just a matter of time?

I have been asking myself this same question.
Why wouldn't history repeat itself?
World War II is not so long ago.
Is there any real reason to think that the causes of World War II are not still applicable to the human race in general?

It seem unlikely that within Europe such a war would erupt again, but then, the world has become a smaller place.
Why wouldn't history repeat itself, just with different players?

Perhaps with terrorists, instead of with nations...

 

[russ_watters]

I have been asking myself this same question.
Why wouldn't history repeat itself?
World War II is not so long ago.

Not so long compared to what? WWII ended 66 years ago. The time between WWI and WWII was only 21 years before that. So we're more than 3x the length of time between the first two and don't seem to be moving in a direction toward world war.

Is there any real reason to think that the causes of World War II are not still applicable to the human race in general?

It seem unlikely that within Europe such a war would erupt again...

So: yes.

...but then, the world has become a smaller place.

It was already pretty small during WWII.

Why wouldn't history repeat itself, just with different players?

I don't think it would.

Perhaps with terrorists, instead of with nations...

We already have a "war on terror". I don't think there is any way for terrorists to make the fight big enough to call it a "world war". There just aren't enough and they aren't well enough armed.

 

[I like Serena]

Not so long compared to what? WWII ended 66 years ago. The time between WWI and WWII was only 21 years before that. So we're more than 3x the length of time between the first two and don't seem to be moving in a direction toward world war.

I've understood that WWII was a direct follow-up on WWI, basically inevitable.

And anyway, I don't think you can extrapolate like that.
If you want to extrapolate, look at it like this.
Over history, there have always been wars.
And they got bigger and bigger...!

And no, I'm not aware either that we're heading toward a world war.
But then, neither did anyone expect WWI & II.

It was already pretty small during WWII.

As I've understood it, in hindsight WWII was inevitable.
The powers that be were constantly shifting, seeking the upper hand.
In the end it only needed a trigger to erupt.

Why wouldn't history repeat itself, just with different players?

I don't think it would.

Any support for that?

We already have a "war on terror". I don't think there is any way for terrorists to make the fight big enough to call it a "world war". There just aren't enough and they aren't well enough armed.

Ever hear of guerilla wars?
Those are ugly, as we've already seen with the current terrorists.

And yes, they are as yet not well enough armed.
They could take out only tens of thousands of people at a time (with minimal means btw).

Now if they could get their hands on an atomic (or a 'dirty') bomb...

Isn't that just a matter of time before that happens?

 

[Newai]

What is this "matter of time" thing? Can I play, too? How about...

Isn't it only a matter of time before another Hitler comes around and actually wins a world war?

Isn't it only a matter of time before the terrorists win and... well, I have no idea where that one goes.

Isn't it only a matter of time before we have another civil war?

Isn't it only a matter of time before another U.S. president is assassinated?

I could go on.

 

[Astronuc]

I find especially point 4 rather interesting:

I have been asking myself this same question.
Why wouldn't history repeat itself?
World War II is not so long ago.
Is there any real reason to think that the causes of World War II are not still applicable to the human race in general?

It seem unlikely that within Europe such a war would erupt again, but then, the world has become a smaller place.
Why wouldn't history repeat itself, just with different players?

Perhaps with terrorists, instead of with nations...

The boundary conditions have changed. Communication across the globe is much faster than WWII and certainly WWI.

I believe that with the communication, the masses seem to be understanding that we are all not that different, and furthermore and more importantly, there is a certain standard of living that one can realize with a stable economic system, which is undermined when one expends the limited resources on war. There is no economic advantage in war. Rather, engaging in a prolonged war is a detriment to the national standard of living.


As for the OP's questions, Russ is correct. The nuclear physics is not particuarly relevant. The technology behind such weapons is the issue, and it does not involve nuclear physics.

 

[I like Serena]

The boundary conditions have changed. Communication across the globe is much faster than WWII and certainly WWI.

I believe that with the communication, the masses seem to be understanding that we are all not that different, and furthermore and more importantly, there is a certain standard of living that one can realize with a stable economic system, which is undermined when one expends the limited resources on war. There is no economic advantage in war. Rather, engaging in a prolonged war is a detriment to the national standard of living.

Germany wouldn't have started the wars if they had known it would be prolonged.
They expected a quick and decisive win.
And beyond the standard of living there was a dissatisfaction among the people.

As for the OP's questions, Russ is correct. The nuclear physics is not particuarly relevant. The technology behind such weapons is the issue, and it does not involve nuclear physics.

How does the technology behind such weapons not involve nuclear physics?
Doesn't it become easier to build such weapons if nuclear physics is further developed?

 

[Proton Soup]

How does the technology behind such weapons not involve nuclear physics?
Doesn't it become easier to build such weapons if nuclear physics is further developed?

a dirty bomb is just a dispersant. the nuclear materials simply hitch a ride. in fact, you wouldn't even have to use an explosive to cause the problem. so it becomes a technology that is driven by mechanics and chemistry.

 

[John37309]

Most people seem blissfully happy with the way things are, especially if they live in a peaceful country. What could ever go wrong?

Well history has a habit of repeating itself. History always has repeated itself and always will. Funny thing is, even with all the modern technology and education systems we have today, we still don't learn the lesson. People will always disagree, family's will always disagree, groups of people with different belief's will always disagree, and governments will always disagree. And the solution is always to fight. Think about it, even on this forum, people will fight their point in a scientific debate and sometimes even get banned as a result.

We never really learn because by the time people get old enough to really understand tolerance of others and how to resolve conflict, then we die from old age. Once again the clock resets, our children take over, and repeat the process again.

I think humanities own self destruction is almost inevitable. It will happen either through nuclear, chemical or biological warfare. And we won't see it coming. If any of us survive, maybe second time around we will learn the lesson. America never learned the lesson after we saw what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All the countries of the world, instead of making a global peace treaty, we all armed ourselves further. We never learn.

Please do take the time to search Google images for the words "hiroshima and nagasaki"; http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en&tab=wi

John.

 

[68658]

Nihilism never got anyone anywhere, though sadly history does repeat its self, and human beings are hypocrits, even the ones who point out others mistakes, are themselves flawed. Making information free and open is the key, somebody wants to build a bomb let them, cause somebody else will if the first person doesnt. And if the information is supressed then larger groups (countries) will end up doing the distruction; and the only thing keeping everybody safe then is MAD. Ignorance isn't bliss, and just becaues sixty years ago the world was "larger" doest mean that instant communication makes each other aware of our similarities. Fear is the reason man fights, wars are faught for fear of looking like a coward (the same wiht personal fights) or looseing what one has gained (or what a nation has gained). Their for suppress fear and enlighten by spreading knowledge (even the knowledge to build a nuke), and history will go down differently than before, maybe for better maybe for worse.

 

[I like Serena]

a dirty bomb is just a dispersant. the nuclear materials simply hitch a ride. in fact, you wouldn't even have to use an explosive to cause the problem. so it becomes a technology that is driven by mechanics and chemistry.

Should have seen that one coming. :)

Still, how do you get the radioactive material?
Wouldn't it become easier to produce suitable radioactive material with an increased understanding of nuclear physics?

 

[68658]

makeing radio active material is very simple just not intirely cheap, just don't get caught up on uranium or plutonium

 

[I like Serena]

makeing radio active material is very simple just not intirely cheap, just don't get caught up on uranium or plutonium

If it is that easy, why have suicide bombings as yet not been 'dirty'?

 

[68658]

Because, I am assumeing, there just not that intelligent. Its like asking why they haven't built a magnetic pulse 'bomb'. But yes its easy, take deuterium gas and expose it to a neutron source, then you get tritium after the deuterium captures the free neutron. Now you have a radio active hydrogen istope with a half life of 12 years. Now what can one do with a radio active gas?

 

[russ_watters]

If it is that easy, why have suicide bombings as yet not been 'dirty'?

It's not easy to get the material you need. I think the prevailing scenario is that they would steal it.

 

[fluidistic]

It's not easy to get the material you need. I think the prevailing scenario is that they would steal it.

I saw an interesting documentary about an uranium mine in Congo and how the Government of Congo let some people extract the mineral from the closed mine. People that leave the mine must pay a lot to the Government (soldiers are over the place and they don't let pass almost anyone but poor guys that will extract uranium without any health protection). Now the question is to whom do they sell the uranium? I do not really know. The documentary mentioned Iran but I'd rather not start a discussion with unprovable facts. :)
Now if some terrorist have access to these rocks, they might have the first material to work with. I know they'd have to enrich it and I've no idea how they can do it without big devices though. This might be the problem for terrorists to get powerful nuclear weapons?

 

[daveb]

Mining your own uranium is not an effective way to get radioactive material. It takes a lot of ore to produce any significant quantity of uranium that could be used for a bomb. Plus, the monetary costs and technological expertise to refine the ore safely and covertly are more than enough to prevent terrorists from going this route. Instead they would have to steal (or be sold) the refined materials. However, the technological expertise to actually make a working device are also (probably) beyond the scope of terrorists. Think about how difficult it was for North Korea to make a bomb that actually worked.

The same goes for dirty bombs. Making your own is both expensive and difficult to technologically make happen. In order to make an effective dirty bomb that can kill a lot of people over a large area, you need an enormous activity, on the order of kilocuries or more. These sources will require a great deal of shielding, and (at least in the US) are tracked through the NSTS http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/nsts.html" (egand I hate using Wikipedia as a source, even if it is accurate).

 

[Haldhad]

I saw an interesting documentary about an uranium mine in Congo and how the Government of Congo let some people extract the mineral from the closed mine. People that leave the mine must pay a lot to the Government (soldiers are over the place and they don't let pass almost anyone but poor guys that will extract uranium without any health protection). Now the question is to whom do they sell the uranium? I do not really know. The documentary mentioned Iran but I'd rather not start a discussion with unprovable facts. :)
Now if some terrorist have access to these rocks, they might have the first material to work with. I know they'd have to enrich it and I've no idea how they can do it without big devices though. This might be the problem for terrorists to get powerful nuclear weapons?

I doubt it's Iran it has its own Uranium mines and obtains uranium from Pakistan. There's nothing in any international law or treaty that prohibits uranium from being bought by anyone anyway, nor its enrichment for that matter. Iran buys yellowcake (a uranium intermediate in ore processing) from Russia perfectly legally for example.

 

[Evo]

Nihilism never got anyone anywhere, though sadly history does repeat its self, and human beings are hypocrits, even the ones who point out others mistakes, are themselves flawed. Making information free and open is the key, somebody wants to build a bomb let them, cause somebody else will if the first person doesnt. And if the information is supressed then larger groups (countries) will end up doing the distruction; and the only thing keeping everybody safe then is MAD. Ignorance isn't bliss, and just becaues sixty years ago the world was "larger" doest mean that instant communication makes each other aware of our similarities. Fear is the reason man fights, wars are faught for fear of looking like a coward (the same wiht personal fights) or looseing what one has gained (or what a nation has gained). Their for suppress fear and enlighten by spreading knowledge (even the knowledge to build a nuke), and history will go down differently than before, maybe for better maybe for worse.

So, you think everyone should have the right to build their own bomb, incase another person builds a bomb, and having bombs controlled at the government level is more dangerous?

If owning a bomb is criminal, only criminals will own bombs?

 

[68658]

To your first question, to SOME extant yes (evo)... Because the information used in bomb building whether it be nuke or dirty can also be applied for other purposses (though feasible examples of this are far out there at the moment). Such examples though might be the orion project, why have the government have the ability to shoot rockets into space with nukes; or useing depleted uranium as tank busting tips on rockets (the right to bear arms, albeit uranium tipped arms) why should the military just have the capability to kill tanks rather quickly.

And to your second question, no. The government owning bombs isn't more dangerous its actualy about equal to private corpaerations haveing the capability. Becuase if the people building said nuke fully understood the consequences of deploying there weapon than the wouldn't do, i.e. nuclear winter, radiation plumes, MAD, tripping off atomic missle deffense systems, etc.

 

[Evo]

To your first question, to SOME extant yes (evo)... Because the information used in bomb building whether it be nuke or dirty can also be applied for other purposses (though feasible examples of this are far out there at the moment). Such examples though might be the orion project, why have the government have the ability to shoot rockets into space with nukes; or useing depleted uranium as tank busting tips on rockets (the right to bear arms, albeit uranium tipped arms) why should the military just have the capability to kill tanks rather quickly.

And to your second question, no. The government owning bombs isn't more dangerous its actualy about equal to private corpaerations haveing the capability. Becuase if the people building said nuke fully understood the consequences of deploying there weapon than the wouldn't do, i.e. nuclear winter, radiation plumes, MAD, tripping off atomic missle deffense systems, etc.

Ok, I was just confirming what you were thinking. This is a science forum. Speculation of this kind is not acceptable. In the future, you need to support any statements with approved mainstream sources.

 

[68658]

Sources, speculation, scientific, might you mean theological? There arent sources (of any great importance) for any of my or any others (mostly) view points bassed on the sheer fact that the predominant question at hand is the ehtics of haveing access to knowledge (though the knowledge at hand is nuclear). Supporting my argument with mainstream sources all but defeats the purpose of any statement made on the behalf of how easy or how hard it is to make nukes or dirty bombs, becaues its my opinion, not intirely fact. Besides this i don't think any nuclear weapons have been created by any private ventures, so yes my point is inherently flawed, or yet untested or proven, a meer hypothesis on my part (which i think is probably true).

But for proof of concept reason makeing a dirty bomb is sadly, very easy, and oh to effective.

 

[I like Serena]

Because, I am assumeing, there just not that intelligent. Its like asking why they haven't built a magnetic pulse 'bomb'. But yes its easy, take deuterium gas and expose it to a neutron source, then you get tritium after the deuterium captures the free neutron. Now you have a radio active hydrogen istope with a half life of 12 years. Now what can one do with a radio active gas?

68658, you said it was easy to make radioactive material.
But how do you get a neutron source?
And how do you get deuterium gas?

 

[68658]

Deuterium gas (this is for the USA) is legal to obtain (without a license), medical suplliers, welding suplliers etc. sell it for medical purposes (which I am ssumeing means its more pure), from medical suppliers i think i saw something like $990 for 100 liters ofline. Now for a neutron source a high powered fusor (about $4000 to build) with a grid voltage of 1.5 MW will produce an ample source of neutrons. A fusor is D+D fusion reactor (low neutron output, compared to other means though) and as already stated it runs off dueterium. SO all one has do now is put two and two together, neuron source + deuterium = tritium. As is build a fusor, pump a separate line of deuterium around the reaction chamber so it absorbs most of the neutrons, then pump this mixture of deuterium and tritium gas (both D and T BECAUSE THE NEUTRON SOURCE SHOULDNT BE HIGH ENOUGH TO CONVERT ALL THE D TO T) through a Girdler Sulphide processing system to get the tritium out and recycle the deterium. NOW disclaimer I am not condoneing doing this its dangerous stupid and harming yourself or other through what you achieve is up to you not to do, not me.

P.S. Tritium isn't a strong radioactive source its barely able to penetrate the skin when in the air, it dangerous when ingested through breathing and eating and other such methods.