From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:01:02 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <jy+pv3#.tomk@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
> You're wrong. Making a fission bomb isn't easy. Making a fusion bomb
> is many times harder. Or you can believe newspaper stories about how
> some undergraduate assembled an a-bomb in his kitchen using $13 worth
> of commonly available hardware store components.

I'm sure there are some on this newsgroup who know far more than I do on
the subject, but they probably can't say anything. What I recall from the
various unclassified sources I've read is:

   1) Building a fission U-235 bomb is supposed to be fairly easy. U-235
      produces enough loose neutrons that you don't really need a trigger
      to get things going - you just need a critical mass (produced in
      1945 by firing a plug of U-235 through a ring of U-235 at the
      end of a howitzer piece). However, producing U-235 is the well known
      pain in the nether regions.

   2) Building an implosion fission bomb of Pu-239 is supposedly a lot
      harder. You need to produce the critical Pu-239 and at the same time
      have a source of loose neutrons. Unclassified reports indicate that 
      this trigger is produced by using an alpha source on beryllium foil.
      Imploding the Pu-239 (increasing the density to produce criticality)
      is certainly an exacting process, which involves a lot of knowledge
      of explosives and ability to simulate shock waves through various
      chemicals in 3D. Or the resources to experiment repetitively on
      metals of density similar to Pu-239 while x-raying the results.

      Getting enough loose neutrons at the same time is supposedly less
      than trivial.

   3) Producing a fusion bomb requires solving the above problems PLUS
      figuring out how to contain a mass of fusible (?) isotopes at
      megakelvins long enough to generate more energy than you put into
      it. Said isotopes may be 2D, 3T, 6Li, 7Li or others, depending on
      who you believe. A design which handles this correctly is unlikely
      to be produced ab-initio. A certain amount of trial and error is
      apt to be necessary.

      If the "secret" is reportedly out, you can believe as much of it
      as you want. The DOE has been known to occasionally supply some
      disinformation - and I find it interesting that these revelations
      come at the very time we're worried that Iran may be looking into
      such research. (Trust me; you don't need to have the revolutionary
      guards do their own design, just do it this way . . .)

      Information on the above falls into three categories:
        1) You take it on faith. (e.g., this article)
        2) You've tried it. (I don't know you, I never met you, and I
           didn't know you were a communist, white supremacist and
           also a pedophile).
        3) You've worked with enough related subjects that you don't need
           to try it. In which case your security clearance prevents you
           from talking.

By the way, if you decide to try it, and happen to buy some of your equipment
from overseas, remember to get your Federal Firearms License and import permit
for items on the U.S. Munitions Import List - Category XVI, Nuclear Weapons
Design and Test Equipment. (I'm not kidding; see U.S.C. title 27, part 47,
subpart C, section 21. Or ask the Department of State for 22 CFR 121.1).

Oh, and let me know first. I want to be scarce when the BATF, DOE, SS, FBI,
and CIA all decide to start asking questions.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.