
Fuel for nuclear bomb in hands of unknown Russian black marketeer, officials say - yurisagalov
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/12/18850/fuel-nuclear-bomb-hands-unknown-black-marketeer-russia-us-officials-say
======
madaxe_again
So, when the USSR disbanded, many ex-soviet states (i.e. Ukraine) were stuck
with a nuclear arsenal they couldn't maintain and didn't want.

In theory, Russia took the warheads back and looked after them.

In practice, there was an initial period of everything that wasn't bolted down
disappearing from silos, and the response was to fill them with concrete to
prevent any further access.

What then happened is gangs came in the dead of night with diggers and drills
and unearthed silos, and took who knows what.

My source is a lengthy chat with a chap at Pervomaisk, a Soviet missile silo
in Ukraine, who used to be the guy who'd press the button (there are two
buttons and two keys, but he explained that you could use the soviet flagpole
in there to press the other button). Now he gives tours to tourists. $1 for
Ukrainians. $5 for Russians. $10 for ex-USSR members. $20 for foreigners. $100
for Americans - or something like that. I laughed heartily at their pricing
structure, before straddling the Satan missile for the obligatory "riding the
bomb" photo.

This same phenomenon was mirrored elsewhere in the ex-USSR, and wasn't limited
to fissile material - Degelen mountain in Kaz, for one, where they not only
dug up left over Pu, but also thousands of tonnes of radioactive copper
(cabling used for remote monitoring, power, and detonation of subsurface
tests), which made its way into the global electronic supply chain, and was
only discovered after they installed x-ray detectors at Dover for scanning for
stowaways. My original source for that was a British truck driver who was paid
to keep hush and not talk about why he'd ended up with (mild, flu-like, had to
retire) radiation sickness - but it hit the press a few years later anyway.

~~~
jessriedel
> many ex-soviet states (i.e. Ukraine) were stuck with a nuclear arsenal they
> couldn't maintain and didn't want.

An important side point: Ukraine definitely wanted nuclear weapons, in
particular as a viable threat against being re-annexed by Russia. Ukraine gave
them up only after receiving a solemn promise by the US and UK that they would
protect Ukraine's territorial integrity.

"On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United
States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in
connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine)

~~~
IshKebab
Remind me never to sign a memorandum with Britain or America...

~~~
TeMPOraL
Ukraine itself didn't learn from what happened to Poland in 1939. We had
treaties that said we're to be aided by France and the UK...

~~~
bradleyjg
Which they did at enormous cost in lives and money. Ditto for Belgium in 1914.

If you had said Czechoslovakia in 1938 that would have been a much better
example.

~~~
mikeash
When did the UK and France aid Poland after the 1939 invasion?

The timeline is something like:

1939 - Poland gets conquered by Germany and the USSR.

1941 - The USSR-occupied part of Poland gets conquered by Germany.

1944-45 - German-occupied Poland gets conquered by the USSR.

1989 - Poland reasserts independence as the USSR slowly collapses from within.

As far as I'm aware, no significant British or American forces got anywhere
near Poland as part of any of this.

~~~
JupiterMoon
1939 we declared war. We had virtually no army at the time and virtually no
air force. Certainly nothing that could have defeated Hilter's forces.

~~~
mikeash
That would be a reason why they didn't help Poland, not something that made it
so that they did help Poland (as was claimed above).

I also don't believe that's true. At the time, the French had about 5 million
men, 4,200 tanks, 11,000 guns, and 3,000 airplanes. The Germans had about 4
million men, 3,500 tanks, 7,000 guns, and 4,000 airplanes. That's rough
parity, not even counting the UK's potential contribution. And the German army
was busy subduing Poland in the east, so there wouldn't have been a whole lot
available to defend against an attack from the west.

~~~
JupiterMoon
Your numbers are meaningless. The German weapons were modern. The French were
not and the UK's were virtually non-existent.

The UK had no reason to declare war in 1939 other than their promise to defend
Poland. We went into a global war that lasted 6 years, took half a million of
our lives, bankrupted us and caused us to lose a global empire (well that was
a good side effect). Bear in mind that this was ~20 years after a previous war
after which the general view in the UK was that we would never fight another.

~~~
mikeash
What's the point of declaring war on the basis of their promise to defend
Poland, if they never actually did anything to help Poland?

It's not nearly so simple as that. For example, the French had better tanks,
as well as more tank. There were plusses and minuses on both sides, but the
result is far from clear and certainly not an overwhelming advantage in either
direction. Combine this with the German army being busy in Poland for several
weeks, and the French and British had a great opportunity to start their part
of the conflict on their own terms. Some highly-placed Germans stated after
the war that they would have been totally screwed if the Allies had invaded
then.

The Battle of France revealed that the Germans were capable of completely
smashing the Allied forces. This was partly because the places where the
Germans had the advantage (aircraft, communications, doctrine) were key. But
it was also just that the leadership was so afraid of getting drawn into a
repeat of WWI that they let themselves be overrun. It's interesting to note
that _nobody_ expected the Germans to have that level of success, not even the
Germans. Even Hitler, who was the optimistic one, thought they'd lose a
million soldiers in that fight. I don't know if you're basing things off this
experience, but it can't be used to show that the Allies thought they couldn't
beat the Germans, nor probably even to show the Allies couldn't actually beat
the Germans if they had struck first.

~~~
JupiterMoon
The hope was that declaring war would be enough to cause Hitler to not
actually invade. The reality was that the UK (who are the ones we were talking
about) really didn't have much in the way of army or air force at that time.

As for the French tanks. In 1939-1941 tanks were fairly useless. The German
dive bombers were the dominant weapon system -- it was only when the allies
had decent air forces that the dive bombers became irrelevant.

------
acqq
In the article:

"The FBI has _privately discounted_ Moldovan claims that radioactive materials
seized in more recent smuggling incidents here were being _sought by the
Islamic State terrorist group._ "

Everything's safe, then?

Let's investigate: According to the Moldovan police presentation:

[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2449125-moldova-
law-...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2449125-moldova-law-
enforcement-slide-presentation.html)

The person interested in buying was of Arab-Islamic origin, Yosif Fiasal
Ibrahim, 1975, citizen of Republic of Sudan, Africa.

Also, Sky News:

[http://news.sky.com/story/1565320/the-colonel-dirty-bombs-
an...](http://news.sky.com/story/1565320/the-colonel-dirty-bombs-and-240m-of-
uranium)

"Investigators found contracts made out to a Sudanese doctor named Yosif
Faisal Ibrahim for attack helicopters and armoured personnel carriers.

There was a copy of Ibrahim's passport, and evidence that Chetrus was trying
to help him obtain a Moldovan visa. _Skype messages suggested he was
interested in uranium and the dirty bomb plans._

The deal was interrupted by the sting, but it looked like it was well
advanced. _A lawyer working with the criminal ring had even travelled to
Sudan,_ officials said."

There are extremists in Sudan endorsing IS, Reuters, 2014:

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/24/us-sudan-
islamic-s...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/24/us-sudan-islamic-
state-idUSKBN0FT2WP20140724#BFd6gzMwl5Xkkj6D.97)

Also:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan#Sharia_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan#Sharia_law)

"The legal system in Sudan is based on Islamic Sharia law." "Stoning remains a
judicial punishment in Sudan. Between 2009 and 2012, several women were
sentenced to death by stoning.[61][62][63]"

FBI's and the article's claim could still be _technically_ true (Ibrahim from
Islamic Sudan, not ISIS) but it helps us being better informed.

~~~
ajmurmann
Why is this being downvoted?

~~~
selimthegrim
because Sharia law is a non sequitur?

~~~
acqq
Because it surely can't mean that the environment can be stimulating for the
sympathisers, supporters or members of ISIS?

~~~
selimthegrim
You do know there's not one monolithic body of Sharia jurisprudence, right?
ISIS supporters hew to specific juristic readings and would abhor the Sharia
of many other sects...

~~~
acqq
ISIS members and supporters would certainly not be against stoning, as a small
example. Both stonings and beheadings are the things done by Mohammad, and
Sharia's principle is, in simplest, "do what Mohammad have done." I agree, not
everybody actually wants to do everything he did, but some do try.

There are countries, luckily, with Muslim majority which don't employ Sharia
officially. Even some of the countries that do today, didn't only a few
decades ago, like Pakistan:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by_country)

I also agree that we should not mix the logical relations: => and <=> aren't
the same. Of course we can't conclude that everybody who supports Sharia in
his country directly supports ISIS. But there was never a claim like that
here.

------
MengerSponge
I'm amazed that no one in this thread has mentioned Project Sapphire yet. It's
my favorite bit of 90's spycraft.

 _Project Sapphire Wikipedia Entry:_

Project Sapphire was a successful 1994 covert operation of the United States
government in cooperation with the Kazakhstan government to reduce the threat
of nuclear proliferation as part of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
A warehouse at the Ulba Metallurgical Plant outside Ust-Kamenogorsk housed
1,322 pounds (600 kg) of weapons grade enriched uranium to fuel Alfa class
submarines (90% U-235). Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the
fuel was poorly documented and secured, and in danger of being sold for use in
the construction of nuclear weapons.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/09...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002881.html)

[http://www.y12.doe.gov/news/report/project-sapphire-
today](http://www.y12.doe.gov/news/report/project-sapphire-today)

~~~
smacktoward
Thank you! I remembered reading this story in the _Post_ years ago, but
couldn't remember the name of the operation so my Google-fu was insufficient
to dig it up. Glad you shared it.

------
feld
> Photos of the arrests show a policeman in a ski mask holding a Kalashnikov
> while Chetrus knelt on a sidewalk in front of the bank. He would eventually
> be sentenced to five years in prison.

This guy is involved in the sale of enriched uranium and he gets FIVE YEARS?!

~~~
gh02t
Ten kilos of HEU may or may not be a concern, it's hard to say and I don't see
the actual enrichment in the article. "Highly enriched" means any enrichment
above 20% enrichment but below "weapons grade" (85%). It usually means
something close to 20%... 10 kg of 20% enriched is scary but is a small
fraction of what you need to make a bomb, so while it's scary it isn't
necessarily that some terrorist group almost bought a pit for a bomb. I expect
that has something to do with the apparently light sentence.

~~~
yoodenvranx
What about using this stuff for a dirty bomb?

~~~
gh02t
It's not very radioactive, I've held weapons grade uranium in my hand before
(well, it was in a metal container). It is chemically very toxic since it's a
heavy metal, very similar to something like arsenic.

------
DanielBMarkham
Just got through reading "The Dead Hand", which is the story of the end of the
Cold War. Highly recommended for those interested in how it all played out.

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002PXFYPQ/ref=dp-kindle-
re...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002PXFYPQ/ref=dp-kindle-
redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1)

It's frankly amazing that this hasn't happened much sooner. The amount of
biological, chemical, and nuclear material lying around the former Soviet
Union, basically guarded by people with starvation-level salaries and no
future, was beyond alarming.

In fact, as bad as this is, the chemical and biological material was much
worse. Some of that stuff could take out a city, then proceed to decimate an
entire nation. Extremely scary stuff.

~~~
mattkevan
Some friends spent time volunteering at a charity in Russia in the early/mid
90s. When they went out, the charity had just been given an entire army base.
Everything was left except the weapons – equipment, uniforms, personnel files,
the lot.

If that's what a charity managed to acquire through official means, it's quite
scary to think what others might have got their hands on.

And my friends got some very warm hats.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
It was -- and is -- an insane period of time to live through.

What concerns me is that during the last days of the old Soviet Union, they
knew the jig was up. They knew it was all falling apart.

So they started hiding stuff. Everywhere. Papers were destroyed. Chemical and
biological weapons were taken out and buried.

So there's one problem with "dangerous stuff we know about and we're worried
that it's not being protected well", then there's an entirely different (and
more dangerous) problem of "dangerous stuff we never acknowledged existed and
nobody has records for where it is any more."

~~~
throwaway2048
luckily almost all biological and chemical weapons are not stable, and quickly
degrade without sophisticated storage.

This is especially true of the most nasty stuff (nerve gas, viral agents,
etc), which can break down within days of lacking precisely controlled
refridgeration.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Thank you for reminding us of this. This was also in the book, and I forgot to
mention it. It's a little ray of hope.

Of course, between CRISPR and the fact that much of the knowledge about these
bio agents have been in people's heads for decades, there is still a
considerable amount of risk in this area.

------
hackuser
Also of interest is this table showing prior siezures (by law enforcement and
government security agencies, I assume) of nuclear material, including over a
dozen instances of highly enriched uranium (!)

[http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/12/18849/previous-
sei...](http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/12/18849/previous-seizures-
nuclear-material)

~~~
zombees
Holy shit. Where is all of this being sourced? Is this all "fall of the Soviet
Union" stuff where someone wandered into a silo and took apart a bomb?

~~~
dave_sullivan
Given this list:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons),
NK, Pakistan, India, Israel... To say nothing of the others... Every
individual in every step in the supply chain is beyond corruption? Or
blackmail? The door doesn't even need to be left open.

~~~
venomsnake
Israel is only "widely believed" to have nuclear weapons.

~~~
aburan28
No they definitely have nuclear weapons. Relating to this article is the fact
that Israel stole and smuggled 100kg+ of uranium from Pennsylvania
[http://thebulletin.org/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-
uranium-u...](http://thebulletin.org/did-israel-steal-bomb-grade-uranium-
united-states7056)

------
elipsey
It's kind of odd that uranium smugglers write each other sales reciepts and
label the samples. It seems like something you'd want to downplay in your
paperwork...

"The guard found a receipt, written in Cyrillic, for the purchase of “uranium
235,” and then, after pulling apart an air compressor in the trunk, found a
lead container inside with that label on it."

Everything about this whole thing seems kind of implausible, and poorly
substantiated by anonymous "intelligence sources." Kind of reminds me the
Valorie Plame incident.

Ahem.. I mean, we should all be very afriad, and obey the nearest authority
figure!

~~~
terminado

      trying to find a buyer for 39 kilograms of 
      highly-enriched uranium
    
      one kilogram of highly-enriched uranium for 
      roughly $36 million
    
      $330,000 as an initial payment
    
      a small glass ampoule ... containing a blackish 
      powder
    
      using genuine samples weighing a total of 5 
      grams as a lure
    
      dozens of such samples on its shelves
    
      meant to be the first of several shipments of 
      highly-enriched uranium totaling 10 kilograms
    

Doesn't sound like these are simple transactions. It's probably a bit of a
horse trade to pawn off million dollar packages to people interested in
murdering entire cities with nuclear fire.

Also, I'd imagine a "receipt" in this case is not merely a set of carbon slips
in salmon, canary and goldenrod. There are probably code words, used to mask
meaning and ensure authenticity.

But hey, you never know. Maybe it was just a coffee stained napkin with the
following written on it in ballpoint pen:

    
    
      Dear Sergei,
      I.O.U. $360M - re: 10kg U235 4 bomb

------
AUmrysh
If western intelligence knows about this and wants to get it off the black
market, why don't they just buy it themselves? Surely the criminals selling it
don't care where the money comes from.

~~~
lojack
> But no one in the West knows exactly who has this nuclear explosive
> material, and where they may be

Probably because of this.

I'm also quite certain that the criminals do care very much where the money
comes from. Most criminals I know understand this is the difference between a
pay day and a prison sentence.

~~~
tlrobinson
Surely the US has a few spies with deep enough cover to pass as arms dealers?
Or have I been watching too much TV?

------
meesles
I'm interested in how technically difficult building an actual nuclear weapon
would be if you got your hands on one of these samples. The idea that crazy
islamic extremists could one day get their hands on this uranium and cause
significant, extended damage is truly terrifying.

~~~
showerst
In the 60's the government enlisted two fresh physics PHDs to see if they
could design a plausible bomb, as a stand in a random country. In they end
they succeeded in creating a detailed plan, and it didn't even take them that
long.

There's much more public info out there now, and machining has improved
significantly in the past 50 years, so the main barrier to building a crude
bomb is material rather than the expertise or machining.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science)

~~~
api
You could probably 3d print a device now to a high degree of precision, after
modeling it in SolidWorks.

~~~
tlrobinson
I know 3D printing is fashionable these days, but is there a reason it would
be any better than boring old CNC milling that's been around for decades?

------
rrggrr
Unknown Russian black marketeer OR an unknown state's spy agency with a very
effective honeypot for targeting and eliminating terrorist organizations? If
the latter its a terrific self-funding operation taking some very bad people
off the street. If you're going to worry about nuclear detonation then concern
yourself with command and control of existing weaponized stockpiles.
Stewarship is a challenge for developed nations, its got to be a nightmare for
developing countries.

------
api
I don't mean to engage in conspiranoia here (and I highly doubt there's an
overt conspiratorial explanation), but right now I'm finding 'murmurs' like
this especially alarming.

When I look back at history, it seems like major economic turmoil is very
often followed by outbreaks of major warfare or at the very least significant
flirtations with major conflict. The Great Depression was followed by WWII,
the decline toward the end of the 60s by the hottest period of Vietnam, the
dot.com crash by 9/11 and Iraq, and the 2008 crash by the Ukraine crisis and
what seems to have been a near miss between the USA, Russia, and possibly
other powers. 2008 was also followed fairly shortly by the rise of ISIS and a
re-heating of Iraq and its general region.

We're hearing a lot about an impending emerging market debt crisis, and we
know China has gone to 'heroic' efforts to backstop its stock market and real
estate markets against the first stages of what appeared to be an unfolding
crash. It's entirely possible that another economic crisis is brewing in China
and other 'emerging' markets, and it could be a bad one. If that's the case at
some point it will exceed the ability of even China's autocracy to prevent it
with currency and market manipulations.

As I led off with above, I doubt that there's an overt _decision_ that
happens. I doubt anyone says 'well, the economy's down so we better have a
war!' Instead I suspect it's a bit like tectonic plates. When an economic
crash happens it exacerbates stresses that are already present in the system
and quite likely pushes some people and/or state actors over the edge. People
often behave more desperately and irrationally under economic stress; you can
see this in the willingness of former Soviet officials to actually distribute
such deadly material during the waning days of the USSR. Not being able to eat
is a powerful motivator.

Edit: not deleting this, but I hate to have posted it hours before hearing
about Paris.

------
onewaystreet
If this group has had enriched uranium for sale for the past sixteen years you
would think that they would have sold it to North Korea or Iran a long time
ago.

~~~
goodcanadian
I don't think North Korea or Iran have much need of a single bomb's worth of
enriched uranium. They have far more interest in producing their own.

~~~
MrZongle2
It might be of use for a couple of reasons. One, you can compare the purchased
material to that which you're trying to produce. Second, with the purchased
material you can assemble and _test-detonate_ a bomb, which not only causes
other countries' intelligence agencies to question the value of their sources
but gives you leverage in future negotiations.

