

How to Get a Nuclear Bomb (2006) - CaptainZapp
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2006/12/how-to-get-a-nuclear-bomb/5402/

======
jonmrodriguez
Nuclear is not as scary as bioterror.

I'm a college senior, and last spring I and two class teammates were able to
re-engineer virus Phi X 174 in only 10 weeks, starting from zero knowledge of
genetic engineering. Then we payed DNA 2.0 (a DNA synthesis contractor) to
build us the custom virus for only $2k.

Also: on the third day of class, the prof showed us the complete genome of
Ebola, and that based on DNA 2.0's price per length, it would only cost $20k
to make.

~~~
anateus
Not a great comfort, but companies like DNA 2.0, Invitrogen, etc. have pretty
intensive safety checking of what they're synthesizing. No sending off for
smallpox.

~~~
tomjen3
So all a terrorist would have to do is get a job there and smuggle an order
past the checklist?

------
tomjen3
>and the use of even a single fission device could pose an existential threat
to the West.

Hardly. There was some "let's drop a bomb and see what the effect roughly is"
emulator online that I used about a year ago -- and I was shocked how _tiny_
the effect of neuclear weapons was. A Chinese 15 Kiloton weapon dropped in the
middle of the city I was in wouldn't even result in elevated radiation were I
lived unless the wind was in the wrong direction.

The tiny suitcase bombs they are shitting themselves that the terroists might
get their hands on?

Yeah, those do so little damage that you would be better of with a large van
conventional explosives.

------
sylvinus
I strongly considered stopping reading at "Uranium is the heaviest element on
earth"...

~~~
pm90
It _is_ the heaviest _naturally occurring_ element
(source:[http://chemistry.about.com/od/elementfacts/f/heaviest-
elemen...](http://chemistry.about.com/od/elementfacts/f/heaviest-element.htm))

------
ck2
While they busy groping millions of people each year in security theater, the
next attack would likely come from one of the hundreds of thousands of
shipping containers that have zero security and plenty of storage and
mobility.

------
ifearthenight
"Hiroshima was destroyed in a flash by a bomb dropped from a propeller-driven
B-29 of the U.S. Army Air Force, on the warm morning of Monday, August 6,
1945."

Nice use of subtle patriotism here. Wouldn't it have been a little more
impartial to write it as below?

"Hiroshima was destroyed in a flash by the U.S. Army with a bomb which was
dropped from a propeller-driven B-29, on the warm morning of Monday, August 6,
1945."

~~~
user24
I don't agree that the difference between the two phrasings changes the
partiality of the sentence.

~~~
ifearthenight
In both sentences Hiroshima is the object. The subject in the original
sentence is the bomb but in my edited sentence the subject is the U.S. Army.

Talking of partiality (and the sentences use of passive voice)

"Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994) recommends the passive
voice when identifying the object (receiver) of the action is more important
than the subject (agent), and when the agent is unknown, unimportant, or not
worth mentioning"

~~~
_djo_
I think this is a really small nitpick which does not change the partiality of
the sentence. Both phrases attribute the ultimate responsibility to the US
Army Air Force (not 'US Army', which is incorrect) and it could be argued that
as it was the bomb itself which did the actual destroying it should be the
primary subject.

~~~
ifearthenight
Oops, right about the US Army Air Force mistake. My bad.

Also, agree it might be nitpicking but for me the dropping of the A-bombs and
associated killing of a crap load of civillians is one of last centuries most
conveniently forgotten topics. So treatment of the subject has a tendency to
get me riled up!

One last question though...Can inanimate objects really be responsible of
anything?

~~~
_djo_
I agree that the topic is worthy of discussion, it's just that I disagree that
the phrase you highlighted was more biased in favour of the US than your
suggested edit. In both it is clear that the USAAF dropped the bomb.

The answer to your question is yes, inanimate objects can be responsible for
outcomes. On a philosophical level, a rock that comes loose from a cliff face
and kills someone driving on the road below is responsible for his death even
though there was clearly no intention involved.

In terms of language, it's also common for an inanimate object to be the
subject even if it was not the responsible party, i.e. 'the car hit the boy',
'the plane crashed into the tower', 'the house was destroyed by a bomb', etc.
In none of those cases was the primary subject the entity which decided to
cause the action.

