"Red Mercury" = compact fusion device?

[karmakaze]

Sorry for the length of this post, but this article (combined with the references linked below) make me very nervous. Any folks out there with information on this Red Mercury development care to comment or criticize this information (andease my peace of mind?

=================================

"The Balance of Terror and the Red Mercury Nightmare"
by J. R. Nyquist [text deleted-see my post below]

Karmakaze says, here's more information:
http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/19...7/mj97lee.html

http://yarchive.net/explosives/redmercury.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...cury&hl=en</a>

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/368/3616.html

http://www.prop1.org/2000/ban225f.htm

http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1.../msg00643.html

[Tranquilis]

"Red Mercury" is a standard chupacabras... In short, it's bullsh$t.

Dr. Smith, Crypt Newsletter"

. "Red mercury," another alleged product of Soviet weapons scientists is of some interest when considering testimony on electromagnetic pulse weapons. As another alleged instrument of terror, red mercury started showing up in big newspapers around 1991 - 92. Most of the stories, like every bit of information surrounding the "substance," were never specific about what red mercury was, except that it was red (Duh!), and a mixture of mercury (Duh! Duh!) and other materials, maybe tellurium, maybe this, maybe that, maybe marshmallows. You get the idea.

From the BAS page you linked to, above:

A common scam in the early 1990s involved "red mercury," a mysterious substance touted as an essential ingredient in stealth technology, missile-guidance systems, and nuclear weapons manufacturing. The asking price for red mercury ranged from $100,000 to $300,000 per kilogram. Sometimes the material would be irradiated or shipped in containers with radioactive symbols, perhaps to convince potential buyers of its strategic value. But samples seized by police contained only mercury oxide, mercuric iodide, or mercury mixed with red dye-hardly materials of interest to weapons-makers.

Emphasis mine

Stories about "red mercury" are invariably full of vague conjecture, unsubstantiated claims, "undisclosed" locations, and mysterious ingredients. Extraodinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the only proofs to date have catagorically disproven "Red Mercury".

[Fish Cheer]

Excuse me, but I stopped reading the OP when I saw "WorldNetDaily".

Forget it. Blind chicken, kernel of corn.. ok.

But WND is WAY out.

[karmakaze]

Yeah, I got a bit skeptical upon reading further on WND (seeing Pat Buchanon headlined was definitely a warning sign) but I did some additional research (see the other links) which gave me a little more reassurance that this wasn't right-wing ravings.

Are "s-megaton" micro-nukes feasible? How small (in terms of both physical size of bomb and smallest fission detonation) can you build an atomic (fission) bomb? I read somewhere a marble sized chunk of einsteinium was sufficient? Thanks for the followup!

[Fish Cheer]

Originally posted by karmakaze
I read somewhere a marble sized chunk of einsteinium was sufficient?

Hmm, I'm no physicist by any means.

But a recipe requiring just "a marble size chunk of einsteinium" could just as well call for a real unicorn and a honest politician.

Scientiest are happy if the can create a MICROGRAM of this stuff, if I remember correctly.

Feel free to bash me if I'm wrong, anyone.

[Fish Cheer]

Originally posted by fishcheer15
Hmm, I'm no physicist by any means.

But a recipe requiring just "a marble size chunk of einsteinium" could just as well call for a real unicorn and a honest politician.

Scientiest are happy if the can create a MICROGRAM of this stuff, if I remember correctly.

Feel free to bash me if I'm wrong, anyone.

Wow, no need to point out the plethora of typos, I guess.

Take my advice: Don't drink and post.

But I uphold my point.

[kanicbird]

Having a fusion (or fission) bomb is only 1/2 the equation - you still need a means to deliver it. Iraq has no ICBM's as far as I know and doesn't have the tech to build them yet (f#&%en Clinton giving missle tech to China - that's antoher story but it really gets me). Their only chance it to smuggle it in or launch it at Isreal.

[Enola Straight]

The compound red mercury is supposed to be an explosive of
such high energy that one can replace the fissile trigger (the A-
bomb) with this compound.

No chemical reaction can come close to the energy of a nuclear
chain reaction.

Red Mercury is bogus, man.

[DocCathode]

I was concerned about this myself. My own research focuses more on the interaction of the meta-conscious mind with the quantum foam. So I called a friend, an ex-Void Engineer, who's far more knowledgable of such things.

It could be done. It won't be.

Extensive damage to property and economy-Syndicate voted no

Destructive to the ecosystem and the specimens therein-Progenitors voted no

Population fears must be kept high, but may lead to Awakenings if taken above safety limits. New World Order voted no

The resultant electromagnetic pulses would destroy large amounts of computers and storage media. Iteration X voted no.


Weapon is too unwieldy for field use. Deployment would pose great risk to troops. Void Engineers voted no

I proposed a treaty.
Myself and the other Etherists, along with the our great friends the Virtual Adepts entered into a pact with the Conventions. We will not make or use Red Mercury. We will allow no other Scientist to make or use it.

There will be no Red Mercury. So rest easy(preferably aligned with Earth's magnetic field-and with 9 volts of current running through your epidermis)

[Duck Duck Goose]

Originally posted by fishcheer15
Hmm, I'm no physicist by any means.

But a recipe requiring just "a marble size chunk of einsteinium" could just as well call for a real unicorn and a honest politician.

Scientiest are happy if the can create a MICROGRAM of this stuff, if I remember correctly.

Feel free to bash me if I'm wrong, anyone.

No bashing in sight.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/e/einstein.asp

It was not until 1961 that a weighable quantity (about 0.01 microgram) of the element was separated; it was used to prepare the element mendelevium . Weighable quantities of einsteinium have since been prepared by neutron bombardment of plutonium.

http://www.fz-rossendorf.de/FWR/FWRK_HECH.html

Much chemical knowledge has been gathered for the actinides up to californium. To a certain degree, this is true also for einsteinium. All these elements can be produced in weighable amounts in neutron capture reactions at special designed nuclear fission reactors, even einsteinium is available in microgram quantities per year.

http://www.mii.org/periodic/Es.htm

Named after Albert Einstein, einsteinium is a highly radioactive metal. It was discovered in the radioactive fallout of a 1952 atomic bomb test. It has never been found naturally and less than a gram is produced each year.

Woo-hoo! Order your microgram of einsteinium today! Act now! Supplies are limited!

Also, there's this:

Einsteinium is too rare to have any commercial or industrial application.

Including, presumably, using it to build Red Mercury bombs...

Also, there's this:

The most stable isotope of einsteinium has a half-life of 1.3 years.

Better use that Red Mercury bomb quick, then...

Fun stuff.

[bibliophage]

karmakaze, I have deleted from your post a very long quotation from Mr. Nyquist's work. Copying and pasting of more than a paragraph or two of copyrighted material is too much. Those interested can read the work in full at http://www.financialsense.com/stormw.../2002/0326.htm

bibliophage
moderator GQ

[karmakaze]

Thanks for the link, bib! I understand the need to keep the posts short and only reluctantly posted an abbreviated excerpt when I could not find the actual source link for the article.

I'm still interested in knowing how small "suitcase" nukes can get, and is there a minimum atomic detonation?

Thanks again!

[Urban Ranger]

There are only so many ways to store energy in chemical compounds and they are all well known.

Red Mercury doesn't cut it.

[Tranquilis]

The smallest nuclear weapons I know of are the Mk-54/W-54 series, which in the case of the Davey Crockett missile, can have yields as low as 10 tons (not a typo!). The Mk-54 weighs in at just over 50 pounds, and would fit into a medium-sized gym bag.

Nuclear artillery shells, while somewhat heavier (starting around 120 pounds), would be more powerful, and slightly more slender: 100 - 500 tons yield, 6 - 8" x ~40", roughly speaking.

I wouldn't be too worried about any of these, though, as all the Mk-54/W-54 warheads have been decomissioned, and the artillery shells (those few that weren't decomissioned) are under stringent guard and require a lot of sophisticated work if you wish to use them as anything other than artillery shells.

SADMs (Special Atomic Demolition Munitions), however, might be a bit of a worry, although these have been mostly decommed as well. Ranging from a little more than a hundred pounds to a quarter ton, with yields sometimes in the kiloton range, they are roughly the size of a footlocker. The US decommed all theirs, and I believe the Russians have, as well.

Building a small nuke is quite hard, requiring sophisticated machining, precise electronics, and highly speciallized knowledge in addition to the fuel. Even with the full resources of the US, any number of tests of (supposedly well-designed) nukes squibbed when actually tested.

Relax. Your chances of being scared to death by a credulous & hysterical media is far higher than your chances of being nuked by a terrorist.