Is there an actual law that says a private citizen cannot own a nuke?


PDA






jlbraun
May 3, 2007, 01:38 PM
I don't think there is. I simply think that if the sole legal owner (the US .gov) sold it to you, there would be technically no law broken provided you paid the tax.

I can imagine the Form 4:


Type of firearm: Destructive Device
Model: W88 Mk1, manufactured 1990
Caliber, gauge, or size: 475kT nominal
Length: 69.5in OAL (excluding delivery system and payload shroud)
Stamp denomination: $200

I can see the NFA department mailroom clerk now... "Uh, boss?" :what:

(Note to the NSA: I have no intention to acquire or use a nuclear weapon. I do not own one. I do not have space in the safe anyway)

If you enjoyed reading about "Is there an actual law that says a private citizen cannot own a nuke?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Correia
May 3, 2007, 01:45 PM
I seem to recall that there is a Utah state law that forbids you to detonate a nuke here, but nothing against possessing one.

Whaling is also illegal here too. :p

budney
May 3, 2007, 01:45 PM
There are Supreme Court rulings effectively asserting that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant a right to keep and bear nukes.

This topic comes up regularly on the Austrian Economics Forum (http://www.austrianforum.com/index.php?), which is populated with libertarians and anarcho-capitalists (I'm a mod there). The overall answer is that in a completely free society, using a nuke would be a crime, but having one would not.

However, there are other ways to discourage your neighbor from buying a nuke than criminal proceedings. For starters, his home-owner's insurance company would drop him like a hot rock. Everyone on the street will shun him. Business owners in town will refuse to do business with him--which includes utilities, roads, groceries and doctors. In the end he'll either get rid of it or move somewhere else.

Nothing would stop him from homesteading an area large enough to build his own nuclear testing ground, but in that case who cares if he likes to make big kabooms in his own yard? Of course he'd be responsible to keep fallout, etc., off the neighbors' land.

--Len.

whitetiger7654
May 3, 2007, 01:52 PM
"using a nuke would be a crime, but having one would not."

Um. If you are using a nuke on someone I think criminal charges would be the last thing on your mind.

Avenger29
May 3, 2007, 02:14 PM
The ultimate one-shot stopper:evil:

buzz_knox
May 3, 2007, 02:19 PM
The possession of special nuclear materials is HEAVILY regulated by the US gov't. Beyond that, the explosive element and mechanism that initiates the reaction is regulated as a destructive device.

So, there are a combination of laws that prohibit nuclear weapons ownership.

General Geoff
May 3, 2007, 02:24 PM
Nothing would stop him from homesteading an area large enough to build his own nuclear testing ground, but in that case who cares if he likes to make big kabooms in his own yard? Of course he'd be responsible to keep fallout, etc., off the neighbors' land.

I think if a private citizen ever detonated a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere, he'd have lots more problems than local law enforcement.

That said, anyone who actually wanted to own a nuclear weapon would be doing themselves a favour by not telling anyone about it.

Besides, it's not like nukes are maintenance-free. Unless you're a nuclear engineer and can keep it adjusted/maintained, the nuke would become a large paper weight within 10 years' time (and more than likely within 3).

budney
May 3, 2007, 02:27 PM
Um. If you are using a nuke on someone I think criminal charges would be the last thing on your mind.

Well, yeah--but that's equally true today. The point is that ownership of nukes is not in and of itself criminal on the one hand, and it's perfectly possible for a free society to deter ownership of nukes on the other hand.

The problem with letting the government regulate nukes is that they don't seem to hesitate in granting themselves a waiver. If anyone shouldn't have nukes, it's the government. :neener:


Besides, it's not like nukes are maintenance-free. Unless you're a nuclear engineer and can keep it adjusted/maintained, the nuke would become a large paper weight within 10 years' time (and more than likely within 3).

Exactly. The biggest deterrent to getting nukes, beside their uselessness for any practical purpose, is their tremendous cost.

--Len.

Roadwild17
May 3, 2007, 02:36 PM
I would love to just have the shell of one of the fat man bombs :neener: .

DogBonz
May 3, 2007, 02:37 PM
You could sneek it in under the radar as a "class A firework"... You know, for your 4th of july BBQ.:p

TheFederalistWeasel
May 3, 2007, 02:40 PM
Sure go right ahead and acquire one, you think that your local SWAT Teams raids can get out of hand. Let us know how the Delta Force raid goes... :D

TheFederalistWeasel
May 3, 2007, 02:42 PM
Imagine the howling from the Glock crowd when you experienced your first AD. :evil:

30 cal slob
May 3, 2007, 03:00 PM
think i'd put a phase plasma rifle (in the 40 watt range) at the top of my shopping list before i'd ask for a nuke.

Geronimo45
May 3, 2007, 03:01 PM
Let us know how the Delta Force raid goes...
C'mon, now. They don't send Delta when somebody's already got a nuke built. They send Chuck Norris.

hso
May 3, 2007, 03:03 PM
You can legally have everything but the strategic special nuclear material. Think of it as not being allowed to have the powder in the bullets.

That's covered under the Atomic Energy Act.

Smurfslayer
May 3, 2007, 03:06 PM
which says that you cannot manufacture a device which initiates more than one nuclear blast with only one continuous push of the button.:neener:

PPGMD
May 3, 2007, 03:07 PM
Pft, I got one that is grandfathered in. :what:

http://www.lazyeights.net/Avion/a-bomb.gif
:neener: :evil:

Outlaws
May 3, 2007, 04:41 PM
Would an A-Bomb or H-Bomb be better for a zombie horde?

Daniel T
May 3, 2007, 04:46 PM
I didn't check for specifics, but the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty might have something to say about it. :)

seeker_two
May 3, 2007, 04:47 PM
I would love to just have the shell of one of the fat man bombs :neener:

Me too. I'd build a derreck-type tower in the front yard and suspend it from a cable with a large sign on the base saying "No Tresspassing---I REALLY MEAN IT!!!"


:D

TallPine
May 3, 2007, 04:50 PM
Let's suppose that you already own a nuclear weapon.

And let's suppose that you are a crazy nut (but I repeat myself ;) )

Just who is going to get close enough to take it away from you ??? :uhoh:

Thain
May 3, 2007, 05:46 PM
But remember, it has to be 45 megatons and made of steel... not one of those wussy 9 megaton polymer ones!

Lashlarue
May 3, 2007, 06:01 PM
THe ones I worked on[1959] were in the 50/60 kiloton range, weighed less than 50lbs although they required 500 lbs of tnt to initiate the nuclear reaction.Security was almost non existant at that time, I was an e-3 and had a key to the weapons lockers at both the on base and off base sites.This was in Osan Korea and I was n the 310th Tactical Missile Squadron, part of the 58th Tactical Missile Group

Essex County
May 3, 2007, 06:04 PM
As an old munitions Troop, I can tell you there are no H bombs. However Thermonucular Devices abound. Essex

scurtis_34471
May 3, 2007, 07:04 PM
And I thought the zombie threads were ridiculous...

The Unknown User
May 3, 2007, 07:20 PM
lol at the "DO NOT PRESS"

rofl

Cosmoline
May 3, 2007, 07:22 PM
There are Supreme Court rulings effectively asserting that the 2nd Amendment doesn't grant a right to keep and bear nukes.

Which ones? I'm not aware of any such discussion.

There are federal laws giving the Dept. of Energy jurisdiction over the regulation of who can have nuclear energy devices. You can ask them, but my bet is they will say "no." :D Owning or even trying to build a nuclear bomb is a serious federal crime, obviously.

A far more interest issue comes up with the scattering of little research facilities that have had their own nuclear power plants for decades. I remember some discussion about how security would need to be beefed up around these after 9/11, but don't know what came of it.

Heck yeah--here's the reactor at ultra-left-wing Reed College in Portland

The Reed College Reactor Facility was established in 1968 and is the only reactor operated primarily by undergraduates. Oh, THAT makes me feel warm and fuzzy!

http://reactor.reed.edu/

Autolite
May 3, 2007, 07:39 PM
I personally don't have a problem with a private individual owning a nuke. It's like they always say; "It's better to have a thermonuclear device and not need it than to not have a thermonuclear device and need one". I can see CCW being a problem though...

Librarian
May 3, 2007, 07:40 PM
Is there an actual law that says a private citizen cannot own a nuke?
I don't think there is. I simply think that if the sole legal owner (the US .gov) sold it to you, there would be technically no law broken provided you paid the tax.Yes.

42 USC 2122: TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 23 > Division A > SUBCHAPTER VIII > § 2122

§ 2122. Prohibitions governing atomic weapons

(a) It shall be unlawful, except as provided in section 2121 of this title, for any person, inside or outside of the United States, to knowingly participate in the development of, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use, any atomic weapon. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to modify the provisions of section 2051 (a) or 2131 of this title. And don't think they're kidding:TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 23 > Division A > SUBCHAPTER XVII > § 2272

§ 2272. Violation of specific sections

(a) Whoever willfully violates, attempts to violate, or conspires to violate, any provision of sections [1] 2077 or 2131 of this title, or whoever unlawfully interferes, attempts to interfere, or conspires to interfere with any recapture or entry under section 2138 of this title, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, except that whoever commits such an offense with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to any foreign nation shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for life, or by imprisonment for any term of years or a fine of not more than $20,000 or both.
(b) Any person who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, section 2122 of this title shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment not less than 25 years or to imprisonment for life. Any person who, in the course of a violation of section 2122 of this title, uses, attempts or conspires to use, or possesses and threatens to use, any atomic weapon shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or imprisoned for life. If the death of another results from a person’s violation of section 2122 of this title, the person shall be fined not more than $2,000,000 and punished by imprisonment for life.

jt1
May 3, 2007, 07:40 PM
I can't belive I really read this this whole thread...I'll be back later.

P.S. What is the excemption in sec 2121? ....It shall be unlawful, except as provided in section 2121 of this title.....

brickeyee
May 3, 2007, 07:41 PM
Among other things they are patented and you would be in violation.
No, you can"t see the patent. It, among others. are classified.

The explosives are both specialized and regulated (it takes more than one kind).

The possession of radioactive material is also tightly restricted.
Outside of various government actors, no one has the ability to purify the stuff (Uranium) or extract it (Plutonium from a reactor).

My suggestion would be to get a life.

vtoddball
May 3, 2007, 07:42 PM
I can think of at least two laws that discourage it.

Murphy's Law
Darwin's Law.

:D

Does Blade Tech make a lead holster? A really freakin' big one? :rolleyes:

Kentucky
May 3, 2007, 07:43 PM
Can you say knockdown power? :eek: Some know-it-alls on here claim there is no such thing as "stopping power" but in this case...

The Unknown User
May 3, 2007, 07:46 PM
I bet jibraun gets a visit by some people in a black Crown Victoria. XD

Librarian
May 3, 2007, 07:47 PM
P.S. What is the excemption in sec 2121?Licensing of production facilities and supply to DOD, mostly.

JaxNovice
May 3, 2007, 08:15 PM
While there are no laws spefically outlawing the possesion of nulcear bombs, there are a host of EPA laws and regs (amongst a few other catagories) you would violate by possesing nuclear materiel.

Glockfan.45
May 3, 2007, 08:28 PM
Oh dear lord don't tell me were having the "civilians should be allowed to own nuclear weapons" discussion again :uhoh: . FWIW there is no law regulating civilians possesing uranium. They use to sell it as a topical acne treatment back in the 50's :eek: . Oh and before anybody calls me out, no I don't think civilians should posses nukes. I mean for god sakes there really is no responsible use for them at all.

SomeKid
May 3, 2007, 08:33 PM
Can I get one in tactical mall ninja black?

The Amigo
May 3, 2007, 08:37 PM
You can own a nuke as long as its holstered and in a glove box.:D

JaxNovice
May 3, 2007, 08:39 PM
While it may have been an ingredient in 1950's topical cream, possesing enough enriched plutonium to create a nuclear bomb would certainly violate a whole bunch or laws. Unless you are Montgomery Burns and then its a different story.

Lonestar49
May 3, 2007, 08:46 PM
Quote:
Is there an actual law that says a private citizen cannot own a nuke?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think there is. I simply think that if the sole legal owner (the US .gov) sold it to you, there would be technically no law broken provided you paid the tax.
---------------
...

Absolutely right :rolleyes: but there are laws that pertain to buying, use of, TNT, Nitroglycerin, C-4 plastic explosives, certain amounts of Fertilizers, etc., and needing, and getting, a permit to use any or all, at any locations (as if that is gonna stop someone) and, for storing, in any quantity, and the use of, storing, etc., of X-amount that can, and will, cause an explosion of greater than X-factor Z is against the law. And you must have a licence, along with proof of passing State and Federal exams for the "privilege and right" to exercise this use of such controlled force/s.

But, to own and possess an Atomic Bomb.. you're good to go I would think.. :cool:


LS :neener:


DATE: Hollywood. Not only does the Farmer have the right to build and launch himself into orbit in his own rocket ship, but he also owns and possess an atomic bomb for self protection against those that would try and steel it.

Starts a 9pm, popcorn extra..

BRASSM
May 3, 2007, 08:46 PM
The Government does have notices out, requesting that we grass on anyone we know who has in their possesion various materials. Fissionable materials being among them. It may not be a law, but Uncle Sam can do whatever he wants,The fastest way to leave this earth would be to attempt to smuggle a nuclear device into this country. As screwed up as the government is, the military isn't. There will in no probability be a no-knock raid, they will probably not negotiate with you. You will be terminated by the largest, most efficient weapon available. Even though plutonium is only an alpha emiter I'm sure there are detectors on place. The last time I priced plutonium it was $5,000/oz. And I think you needed more then a note from home to get it. Although I'm sure there is some Soviet stuff for sale.

jt1
May 3, 2007, 09:12 PM
The last time I priced plutonium it was $5,000/oz.

Care to elaborate on this?

Nightcrawler
May 3, 2007, 09:20 PM
For starters, his home-owner's insurance company would drop him like a hot rock. Everyone on the street will shun him. Business owners in town will refuse to do business with him--which includes utilities, roads, groceries and doctors. In the end he'll either get rid of it or move somewhere else.


LOL

Imagine someone like the Earth Liberation Front, or Al Qaeda, with nuclear weapons. I don't think the potential shunning of their neighbors is going to discourage them.

If the type of person that would commit a mass shooting, or that would fire bomb a factory, or that would fly airplanes into buildings, had ready access to atomic weapons, our civilization would collapse in short order.

hacksaw
May 3, 2007, 09:21 PM
Would and Armor Kote finish cut down on maintenance......Bet that phone call would freak out Deb at the S.A. custom shop!:what:

TallPine
May 3, 2007, 09:25 PM
The fastest way to leave this earth would be to attempt to smuggle a nuclear device into this country.
2 words: "Mexican border" :uhoh:

budney
May 3, 2007, 09:32 PM
Cosmoline:


Which ones?

It's inferential, but US v Miller reads in part:


In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

This is generally understood to set a standard that weapons protected by the Second Amendment are "military equipment" suitable for "the common defense." This would seem to include any arms that can and might reasonably be carried by a soldier, but to exclude heavy artillery, missiles, and nuclear explosives.


--Len.

budney
May 3, 2007, 09:40 PM
Imagine someone like the Earth Liberation Front, or Al Qaeda, with nuclear weapons. I don't think the potential shunning of their neighbors is going to discourage them.

When you say "imagine them with a nuke," you're WAY jumping the gun. How exactly did they get it? Answer: they basically can't. It's a sophisticated piece of technology--any raving nut-job in a turban can't make one in his basement. And it's hideously expensive, because it's so sophisticated. And the folks who make centrifuges, or mine uranium, or fabricate machinery to the necessary tolerances, will be strangely reluctant to sell to just any hairy, smelly guy with a knife between his teeth who screams, "Give me your catalog NOW, infidel dog!"

Although I mentioned home-owner's insurance, it actually stands proxy for the insurances procured by the uranium mines, centrifuge makers, and others in the chain of production, and includes liability insurance. The incentive for those producers to be bloody careful about their clientele, besides simple self-preservation, is that they don't want to lose gigabux in a lawsuit after one of their products is detonated in the middle of NYC. (Unlike the government, you can sue them and have a hope in h--l of winning.)

In short, without government regulation, there would be private regulation--which would be a lot like the government kind, except that it would be cheaper, more efficient, and more effective.

And as a fringe benefit, R&D wouldn't be illegal, and neither would consumer marketing of the resulting products. By now we'd probably already have affordable, safe nuclear power cells in every home. No more overhead cables, and electricity would cost about a penny a gigawatt-hour. No more fossil fuels for heat, CO2 emissions below the levels of 1918--basically, Al Gore's wet dream.

We now return you to your rolling brownouts already in progress. :evil:

--Len.



Note: If a nuke ever DOES go off inside the US in the next 20 years, you can be certain that it was provided by Russian or Ukrainian government officials. Remind me why government control of nukes makes you feel so safe again?

AJ Dual
May 3, 2007, 09:47 PM
So who here has read their Vernor Vinge? :D

Lonestar49
May 3, 2007, 09:48 PM
Quote:
When you say "imagine them with a nuke," you're WAY jumping the gun. How exactly did they get it? Answer: they basically can't. It's a sophisticated piece of technology--any raving nut-job in a turban can't make one in his basement. And it's hideously expensive, because it's so sophisticated. And the folks who make centrifuges, or mine uranium, or fabricate machinery to the necessary tolerances, will be strangely reluctant to sell to just any hairy, smelly guy with a knife between his teeth who screams, "Give me your catalog NOW, infidel dog!"
-----------------

But with the rich Arab (Saudi Arabia) Oil Kings, paying them ALOT of money to stay out of their backyard, it is just a matter of time when they WILL be able to buy some.

Then after it's over in Iraq, between Syria, Iran, and others, taking that country over, and getting the oil, then it's gonna be like the French Revolution in Saudi Arabia's back yard, as their "here, stay out of our backyard money" is gonna turn and bite them in the A s!!!

As they eat their own kind, has been, will always be, until the one Religious Cult has a full house.

I'm a betting man, come-on!


LS

RNB65
May 3, 2007, 09:49 PM
I remember reading a magazine article years ago about a grad student who wrote a Master's thesis describing in great detail exactly how to build a nuke. Within the paper was a great deal of classified information which he obtained by social engineering (contacting the companies that really build nukes and pretending to be someone he wasn't). His academic advisor turned the paper over to the FBI. It was then classified by the Fed Gov and the student was ordered never to reveal the contents to anyone under threat of federal prosecution. He was awarded his Master's degree even though the Master's review board never had a chance to evaluate his paper.

I don't recall what magazine it was in but it was presented as a true story.

mec
May 3, 2007, 09:52 PM
Pre 68 GCA, us teenagers used to play around with a lot of bombs. That pretty much covered the dinamite and the stuff we cobbled up from feed store chemistry. Looked it up to see what laws we were violating in the State of Texas. The applicable statute was Transporting Explosives on a Public Road. There was also a section forbiding private ownership of neuclear weapons or fisionable material. I suppose it's still there somewhere in the penal code.

budney
May 3, 2007, 09:53 PM
But with the rich Arab (Saudi Arabia) Oil Kings, paying them ALOT of money to stay out of their backyard, it is just a matter of time when the WILL be able to buy some.

Um, they can do that TODAY. You appear to be terrified of a potential risk without realizing that the risk is already actual.

--Len.

Lonestar49
May 3, 2007, 09:56 PM
Quote:
The fastest way to leave this earth would be to attempt to smuggle a nuclear device into this country.

2 words: "Mexican border" :uhoh:
-------------------

In one word.. Canada

But, one way or another, from the top down, or the bottom up, it will come.


LS

budney
May 3, 2007, 10:00 PM
I remember reading a magazine article years ago about a grad student who wrote a Master's thesis describing in great detail exactly how to build a nuke.

I can't provide a citation, but my understanding is that this much is true. However, it didn't involve classified information and isn't particularly frightening. Anyone who really paid attention in physics class knows everything he needs to to build a Hiroshima-sized bomb, and the necessary engineering is feasible. Most post-WWII progress has been in getting higher yields with less fissile material.

Thermonuclear devices are trickier, but any decent physicist knows how they work.

The only thing holding back non-nuclear countries is the requisite engineering know-how. That and the fact that they're aiming high: they don't want a Hiroshima-sized bomb. They want something with a much higher yield, but small enough for the nose-cone of a missile. If they didn't mind using a freight-train or B52 as the delivery vehicle, then the only problem would be getting their hands on enough uranium. And that's perfectly doable. Third-world countries sell the stuff.

--Len.

Cacique500
May 3, 2007, 10:02 PM
I guess I'll have to check with my local Fire Marshall and my home owners association guidelines to see if there are any special storage requirements...:D

RNB65
May 3, 2007, 10:15 PM
I can't provide a citation, but my understanding is that this much is true. However, it didn't involve classified information and isn't particularly frightening.

If I recall correctly, the article said that the classified info was related to the exact energy requirements and mechanics needed to trigger a nuclear chain reaction. It also seems like there was also some classified info in regards to the exact nature of the nuclear fission material. He got the classified info by a combination of social engineering and superb deductive reasoning from studying non-classified data he obtained from various sources.

That's all I remember. It was 20 years or so ago when I read that article. But I do distinctly recall that the paper contained nuclear secrets that are classified by the Feds. His advisor recognized that the paper contained classified info when he read it and called the FBI.

Of course, the magazine writer may have stretched the truth just a wee bit to make the story more interesting. :)

mec
May 3, 2007, 10:21 PM
There was a quote a few years ago:
" As far as anybody knows, every country that has tried to build a nuclear bomb has succeeded on the first attempt."

Seems like North Korea made that one obsolete last year.

FCFC
May 3, 2007, 10:52 PM
Pft, I got one that is grandfathered in.

http://www.lazyeights.net/Avion/a-bomb.gif

You looking to trade? I got a Marlin 94, some nice Smith revos and G23.

I can maybe throw in some cash too.

The Unknown User
May 3, 2007, 11:00 PM
"DO NOT PRESS"

rofl :(

alucard0822
May 3, 2007, 11:28 PM
You'll get my nuke when you pry it out of my mutated glowing hands:neener:

They use to make a recoiless nuclear rifle with a range of three miles, problem was it had a fallout radius of four, seems good for elk, you have to make sure you use enough gun for those big critters:evil:



http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=57483&stc=1&d=1178249137

mec
May 3, 2007, 11:42 PM
the comic books used to have ads that went " Be the first kind on your block to get this:
1. Daisy Eagle air rifle;
2. 200 piece Army set;
3. Suite of armor, etc.

So, MAD magazine had one for an atomic bomb kit that started out " Be the Last Kid on Your Block!"

CajunBass
May 3, 2007, 11:50 PM
the comic books used to have ads that went " Be the first kind on your block to get this:
1. Daisy Eagle air rifle;
2. 200 piece Army set;
3. Suite of armor, etc.

So, MAD magazine had one for an atomic bomb kit that started out " Be the Last Kid on Your Block!"

I remember Red Skelton, (shows you how old I am) doing a skit advertising "Blasto-The Atomic Hand Grenade!" I don't remember all the lines, but one of them was "Be the first kid on your block to start a nuclear war among your little friends." :what: :D

Gifted
May 4, 2007, 12:16 AM
I could do a Hiroshima gun-type off the Walmart shelf. Problem is, I need a few truckloads of the stuff to get what I need. Some of it can probably be done other ways, but the info is out there.

These people talking about how hard it is? Give me a BMW, and I'm sure I can find someone in Russia willing to sell. Transportation is another issue, but that has been solved many times before with other items and materials.

The biggest problem is, most weapons have a limited lifespan without replenishment of certain elements that have shorter half-lives. They'd last long enough for a terror attack, but storing them for a while wouldn't work.

Mal H
May 4, 2007, 12:21 AM
You can legally have everything but the strategic special nuclear material.... and the "timing switches", and the plastic, and the ...

jt1
May 4, 2007, 01:12 AM
I bet "homeland security" is reading this right now and, wait there is someone at my door, be right back........

stinky
May 4, 2007, 01:12 AM
http://www.glurt.org/radioactive.html

MachIVshooter
May 4, 2007, 01:51 AM
http://www.glurt.org/radioactive.html

:what:

Forget the possible criminal charges; who the hell would voluntarily expose themselves to such incredible health hazards:confused:

Nightcrawler
May 4, 2007, 02:45 AM
When you say "imagine them with a nuke," you're WAY jumping the gun. How exactly did they get it? Answer: they basically can't.

Who said they have to build it?

They can get it the same way the Israelis did: buy it. Under the pure libertarian scenario, anyone with enough money would be able to purchase nuclear weapons on the open market. Perhaps responsible capitalists in the west would be careful about whom they sold what, but there are plenty of irresponsible capitalists world-wide that don't give a damn about the consequences of what they buy/sell. You need only look at the active trade in human slaves to realize that.

If there was no effort to control nuclear weapons in the world, and anyone who wanted one and had the scratch could purchase one, sooner or later people would start using them.

You'll have to forgive me if I don't consider this scenario an improvement over what we've got going on now.

Now, there are plenty of uses for nuclear technology that should be, and are, explored by private ventures. Not all fissionable material is useful for making weapons, nor is all nuclear technology directly applicable to vaporizing cities. Certain precautions have to be taken, obviously, but I for one would like to see more nuclear technology, not less. It's not the "big dumb government" that's holding that back so much as it's the very powerful, very well-funded green movement and their mouthpieces in Congress.

coylh
May 4, 2007, 03:17 AM
As long as the nuke doesn't have a barrel shroud, I'm ok with it.

GhostlyKarliion
May 4, 2007, 05:23 AM
Forget the possible criminal charges; who the hell would voluntarily expose themselves to such incredible health hazards

Well, apparently David Hahn...


heh, anyway. Owning a nuclear weapon is highly against the law (previously posted) however as has also been posted I think that if you have a clear and present need for one, then you probably do not care about the law very much, hehe.

budney
May 4, 2007, 06:35 AM
Under the pure libertarian scenario, anyone with enough money would be able to purchase nuclear weapons on the open market. Perhaps responsible capitalists in the west would be careful about whom they sold what, but there are plenty of irresponsible capitalists world-wide that don't give a damn about the consequences of what they buy/sell.

That's essentially the same argument used against small arms: "Sure, some people can own a gun responsibly, but others will start a bloodbath in the streets because you looked at them funny..."

On this forum you'll find plenty of examples of gun store owners refusing to sell, often because "something doesn't feel right." If you really think about it, you'll realize that it's improbable in the extreme that anyone would sell a nuke to a madman. For starters, he'd have good reason to fear that the madman would then kill the seller, and no capitalist is so greedy that he values money over his own life.

But the "insurance" argument is more powerful than you realize. It took a while for the implications to sink in for me. Anyone who might sell a nuke to a nutball is himself a nutball, and he'll have a tough time getting into the "nuclear gunshop" business. Nobody will insure him. Reputable manufacturers won't deal with him. And so on. The "insurance" argument applies at every step of the manufacturing process.


If there was no effort to control nuclear weapons in the world...

My point is that there would be an effort: the planet is populated by six billion creatures, none of which want to be nuked personally. Of course there'd be an effort. The "insurance" argument is just a hint what that effort would look like--to fully describe it would take a book, and nobody knows the exact form it would take anyway.

The point is that government shouldn't have nukes either. When government regulates nukes, they allow themselves to have all they want--that's sorta the point of being a government. And we're supposed to take it on faith that they can be trusted with them? 100,000 dead Japanese say otherwise...


It's not the "big dumb government" that's holding that back so much as it's the very powerful, very well-funded green movement and their mouthpieces in Congress.

I think you just said, "It's not the government, it's the government." :D

It's not the lobbyists' fault: lobbyists would be powerless whiners if there weren't a government to lobby. Take away that frightful power over others' lives, and the lobbyists will have to share a sidewalk with the street preachers.

--Len.

Glockfan.45
May 4, 2007, 07:22 AM
That's essentially the same argument used against small arms: "Sure, some people can own a gun responsibly, but others will start a bloodbath in the streets because you looked at them funny..."


The problem with that argument is that there are responsible uses for firearms in private hands. Can you name me one responsible use for nuclear weapons in private hands?

On this forum you'll find plenty of examples of gun store owners refusing to sell, often because "something doesn't feel right." If you really think about it, you'll realize that it's improbable in the extreme that anyone would sell a nuke to a madman.

There was a gun store owner in Virgina that sold a pistol to a mad man. He couldnt tell what he was dealing with. However only 32 people died as a result (I don't count the shooters sucide in the number since he does not deserve the title of "human" IMO) With a nuke that number can go into the millions.

Your insurance argument doens't fly either. If I were a lunatic set out to kill millions I doubt I would care if my insurance dropped me.

The point is that government shouldn't have nukes either. When government regulates nukes, they allow themselves to have all they want--that's sorta the point of being a government. And we're supposed to take it on faith that they can be trusted with them? 100,000 dead Japanese say otherwise...



Ever hear of the START treaties? That is the Government acting to not "allow themselves all the nukes they want". Also regarding the 100,00 dead Japanese well thats what happens in a war people die. We were looking at more death than that by trying to invade mainland Japan itself. We had to force them into surrender or risk losing countless allied troups in a ground invasion.

qajaq59
May 4, 2007, 07:42 AM
If there isn't, there soon will be after this silly thread. ha ha ha :banghead:

LoadedDrum
May 4, 2007, 07:46 AM
In addition to its Nazi gun laws, Oak Park Illinois actually has an anti-nuke law.

Glockman17366
May 4, 2007, 07:57 AM
This is the kind of discussion that plays into the anti's hands.

It's pretty obvious if an individual cannot have a nuke, they can't have an "assault" rifle...there you go.

So, where is the point of limitation on the 2nd Amendment?

Well, this has always been my argument:
Any weapon the government (state or federal) is allowed to use, possess, keep or maintain within the borders of the United States or any territories shall be available for ownership by the people (meaning individual citizens) under the Second Amendment.

Therefore, we could have anything the government could have and they would be limited to what they can have.
The intent is the citizenry is to have parity with the government to ensure their rights and freedoms.

Glockfan.45
May 4, 2007, 08:44 AM
It's pretty obvious if an individual cannot have a nuke, they can't have an "assault" rifle...there you go.



:scrutiny: Are your really comparing an "assault rifle" to a nuclear weapon? If you can't see the dividing line between the two then there is no point in debate.

So, where is the point of limitation on the 2nd Amendment?


For me it stops at weapons of mass destruction.

Therefore, we could have anything the government could have and they would be limited to what they can have.
The intent is the citizenry is to have parity with the government to ensure their rights and freedoms.

Are you really advocating civilian nuclear weapons? Did I wake up on the wrong planet today?

budney
May 4, 2007, 08:57 AM
Can you name me one responsible use for nuclear weapons in private hands?

Nope--and that's why nobody will manufacture or sell them. The market is funny that way: they don't produce things they can't sell. Though there might be uses we haven't thought of, of course. They might be just the ticket for mining asteroids. I don't know.


Your insurance argument doens't fly either. If I were a lunatic set out to kill millions I doubt I would care if my insurance dropped me.

BUT THE GUY SELLING TO YOU WOULD CARE. As I said, this consideration applies at every level of the production chain. The guy making the parts wants insurance, so he must be choosy who he sells to. The guy assembling the device wants insurance, so he has to be careful who he buys from and who he sells to. The trucking company that does the delivery wants insurance, so they don't accept packages marked "To Kabul--Careful! Nuclear!" And so on.


Ever hear of the START treaties? That is the Government acting to not "allow themselves all the nukes they want".

That's funny. I've heard rumors that the government does have nukes. Someone must have screwed up somewhere. Hint: government "policing itself" is... well... need I finish the sentence?

--Len.

budney
May 4, 2007, 08:59 AM
Are your really comparing an "assault rifle" to a nuclear weapon? If you can't see the dividing line between the two then there is no point in debate.

The dividing line is: all those 2A armed citizens, thinking that Jefferson armed them to resist tyranny, will get an unpleasant surprise when the President announces, "So called 'Free Wyoming' is in rebellion against the United States of America. I've been asked whether the 'nuclear option' is on the table. All I can say is, all options are on the table..."

I don't want ordinary citizens to have nukes--but I don't want the government to have them either. They sorta make the whole 2A thing moot, you know? Indeed, the 2A was designed to prevent the creation of standing armies... but who needs standing armies when you've got nukes?

--Len.

Glockman17366
May 4, 2007, 09:04 AM
"Are your really comparing an "assault rifle" to a nuclear weapon? If you can't see the dividing line between the two then there is no point in debate."

No, I'm not... But the anti's often argue those points. Common sense does not prevail when debating with the anti-rights folks.
BTW, I own an AR15, 2 AK47's and a few SKS rifles

""So, where is the point of limitation on the 2nd Amendment? "

For me it stops at weapons of mass destruction."

That's right...for you. And that's common sense. But where is that limitation written or documented? Common sense and the laws do not agree sometimes (most the time?).
Theoretically, one could own a nuke or any other WMD as there is nothing in the Second Amendment stating any limitation. That's where the laws come in. The problem is the balancing of a right vs. the needs of a society. With the anti-rights folks, "assault" rifles do not fall under the right to bear arms...nor do any other weapons to the "collective right" believers.

"Are you really advocating civilian nuclear weapons? Did I wake up on the wrong planet today?"

Of course not...read the post again. The intent is parity with the government within the borders of the United States. In other words, we cannot possess nukes...neither could governement use them within the borders of the US. We cannot possess tanks, or artillery guns, neither could the government within the borders of the US. Any weapon the goverment is allowed to possess within the borders of the US would be available to the individual citizens.
This would also severely limit or eliminate the "militarization" of law enforcement. To me, this militarization is a bad thing for freedom.

Did I clarify that enough?

BTW, Budney brings up a good point about a standing army. Does a free society want such a thing? But, that's a hot topic for another thread.

30 cal slob
May 4, 2007, 09:16 AM
will i have to leave my nuke in the car if my employer doesn't let me bring it into the office?

Correia
May 4, 2007, 10:40 AM
BUT THE GUY SELLING TO YOU WOULD CARE. As I said, this consideration applies at every level of the production chain. The guy making the parts wants insurance, so he must be choosy who he sells to. The guy assembling the device wants insurance, so he has to be careful who he buys from and who he sells to. The trucking company that does the delivery wants insurance, so they don't accept packages marked "To Kabul--Careful! Nuclear!" And so on.

BWA HA HA HA! :D :D

Oh man, that's a good one.

"Achmed! We must hurry and deliver this mighty weapon to Osama so that it can rain fire upon the infidel!"
"Wait... Allstate says that they'll cancel our insurance if we do so."
"NOOOOOOOOO!"

budney
May 4, 2007, 10:53 AM
Oh man, that's a good one.

Correia, now you're not even reading what you're answering. That's kind of annoying. I said, and I even yelled it in case you were hard of hearing, that THE GUY SELLING TO YOU WOULD CARE. That's the seller, not the buyer. Got that straight? Not the hairy Arab who wants a bomb, but the guy in the Armani suit selling it. So the parody you want is:

"Sell me a nuk-lee-ahr bomb, infidel dog!"
"No."
"What? I said sell it to me now! Allah curse you!"
"No."
"Your stomach will roast in hell! Sell it to me!"
"Um, that'd be no."

(hours later)

"Achmed tells me you won't sell him big bomb! Infidel dog!"
"Achmed tells you right. Go pound salt."
"You will sell it to us! It is instrument of divine vengeance!"
"Let me think about that one. OK, I thought about it. No."
"Allah curse you! You have not seen the last of Jamal Mustafa!"

(hours later, in a burka)

"Nice young man, will you kindly sell me nuclear device? Have woodchuck problem"
"Sorry ma'am, that'd be 'no'."
"They're very pesky. Eat all my carrots."
"Sorry to hear that ma'am."
"One little nuke? Nice young man?"
"No."
"Your stomach will roast in hell! Infidel dog!"

(etc.)

scout26
May 4, 2007, 10:55 AM
In addition to its Nazi gun laws, Oak Park Illinois actually has an anti-nuke law.


Many years ago (well before 9/11) I saw one of their "Oak Park is a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone" signs so I called the village clerks office and the conversation went something like this:
Me: What's the fine for possessing or transporting a nuclear weapon through Oak Park ???
Clerk: $500
Me: And what's the fine for denotating one within the village limits.
Clerk: {CLICK}

Correia
May 4, 2007, 11:01 AM
THE GUY SELLING TO YOU WOULD CARE.

Oh, no, I heard you. And I think you're naively underestimating the power of greed and corruption.

If Iran makes nukes, Israel is done as a nation within a matter of months, because they're not even going to sell them, they're going to GIVE THEM AWAY.

Kim Jong Ill? You mean to tell me that if a Saudi businessman with Jihadi tendancies came up to the Dear Leader, and offered to transfer one billion dollars into one of Kim's accounts, then he wouldn't sell one?

Hell, there are Russian, French, and Germans that will sell a nuke if the money was right. And since these are more than likely stolen anyway, then they ain't really worried about their insurance getting cancelled.

And you're the one that brought up the shipper getting his insurance revoked. (i.e. to Kabul) Not me.

The whole thing is frankly asinine.

Now we can get back to Libertarian Purityfest 2007.

budney
May 4, 2007, 11:07 AM
And I think you're naively underestimating the power of greed and corruption.

No, I'm not--that's why I want to disarm government. The flaw in government regulation of nukes is that the ones you can least trust are exactly the ones with their fingers on the button.


If Iran makes nukes... they're going to GIVE THEM AWAY.

Ridiculous. There's no way to do that without endangering themselves. They want nukes (IF they're actually working on nukes) as a bargaining chip. Which they need because they've already been threatened by the US "all options are on the table" administration with a nuclear holocaust.


And you're the one that brought up the shipper getting his insurance revoked. (i.e. to Kabul) Not me.

That's the shipper, not the buyer. What you keep overlooking is that getting a nuclear bomb designed, built, assembled and delivered is a mammoth undertaking--a literal miracle, impossible before the highly advanced markets of the 20th century. ANY disruption in that long, complex supply chain means: no nuke.

Private nuclear "regulation" operates by attacking the earlier stages of the supply chain, such as the uranium miners and the centrifuge makers--it does not wait until the Arabs have picked up nukes at Walmart and then try to figure out how to prevent them from being used. They won't even be available in Walmart, because even if Mr. Walton is fool enough to want to stock them, an angry public will promptly drive him out of business.

It's the idea that "freedom" means "nukes would be on sale at Walmart" that's asinine. It doesn't mean that at all. But your fear of that ridiculous possibility is enough to make you accept a very real and present nuclear threat: the man who says, "I'm the decider. And I say that every option is on the table..."

--Len.

Correia
May 4, 2007, 11:36 AM
Ridiculous. There's no way to do that without endangering themselves. They want nukes (IF they're actually working on nukes) as a bargaining chip. Which they need because they've already been threatened by the US "all options are on the table" administration with a nuclear holocaust.

Yeah, why should I believe the leadership of Iran when they flat out say that they want to bring about the end of the world? Why should I take them at their own word? Surely they just want them in order to "bargain". It must be because we're such big meanies to threaten them with nuclear destruction because they plan on killing an entire country of our allies. Silly us.

No, I'm not--that's why I want to disarm government.

Good luck with that. Perhaps if you wish hard enough, global nuclear disarmament will be delivered to you by a leprachaun riding on a magical unicorn.

What you keep overlooking is that getting a nuclear bomb designed, built, assembled and delivered is a mammoth undertaking--a literal miracle, impossible before the highly advanced markets of the 20th century. ANY disruption in that long, complex supply chain means: no nuke.

And I think you need to do a little more research about how easy it is to build a working nuclear weapon if you have the fissionable materials. This isn't the 1940s, where the machine tools with precise enough measurements were a rarity. My pocket calculator has more computing power than the Manhattan Project.

The amazing thing is that North Korea still managed to make theirs suck that bad.

So you honestly belive that in the absence of governments having nuclear weapons, the desire to use them would just evaporate?

budney
May 4, 2007, 11:56 AM
Yeah, why should I believe the leadership of Iran when they flat out say that they want to bring about the end of the world?

Except they haven't said that. It doesn't help your case to use untruths as facts.


Good luck with [disarming the government].

Well, it obviously isn't happening any time soon. But the interesting thing to me is that you are part of the reason. You might talk about Jeffersonian principles, resisting tyranny, the 2A, etc., but deep down you believe that they should have the power to impose their will on you and me "for our own safety."


And I think you need to do a little more research about how easy it is to build a working nuclear weapon if you have the fissionable materials.

If you check back in this thread, it was I who pointed out how easy it is to build a low-yield (AKA "Hiroshima-sized") nuclear bomb. Which is why the current governmental regulation of nukes is guaranteed to be no more effective than private regulation would be. You're contrasting imperfect private regulation with nonexistent perfect governmental regulation.

The primary reason there have been no ~15KT bombs built yet is that nobody has really wanted to badly enough. They're of severely limited usefulness. Even the mighty US arsenal is practically useless, except as a deterrent. But the fact remains that there are many steps to building even a primitive nuke, so there are many points at which intervention can be applied. Only an idiot would wait until Mustafa had his finger on the shiny red button before asking, "OK, what do we do now?"


So you honestly belive that in the absence of governments having nuclear weapons, the desire to use them would just evaporate?

I'm interested in ability, not desire. Right now, people exist with the ability to launch a nuclear strike. They're the ones we should be worried about. Yet they manage to get us in a lather about some turbaned yahoo. The man with his finger on the nuclear button actually had us more worried about Saddam Hussein than about him[1]. That's a good trick.

--Len.




[1] When the Iraqi invasion started, I was a rabid right-winger[2]. I fully believed that Saddam either had, or was about to have, nuclear weapons, and supported the invasion on that basis. When they later tried to claim that WMDs weren't the real reason for invading, that it was a humanitarian mission of liberation, etc., I was mighty disillusioned. Lying to your opponents is bad enough, but lying to your supporters?

[2] I know, I know--lefties always claim that. But I'm no lefty. The proof? For one thing, I support free markets. For another, I support arming citizens, including pilots, stewardesses and airline passengers. If that won't give a left-winger the vapors, nothing will. Heck, it gives some right-wingers the vapors. :evil:

dhoomonyou
May 4, 2007, 01:26 PM
paging jack bauer.

Werewolf
May 4, 2007, 03:19 PM
The problem with that argument is that there are responsible uses for firearms in private hands. Can you name me one responsible use for nuclear weapons in private hands?
Actually there have been quite a few suggested peaceful and responsible uses for NUKES over the years.

The one that comes to mind as I sit here is using them to build canals especially long and large canals.

The hardest part about making a canal is actually digging the big ditch. With nukes you just drop them in a hole about a 1000 feet deep, plug the hole and set it off. Voila - instant section of canal and no fallout.

At one time building a canal from the Gulf of Mexico all the way to the Pacific using nukes was being very seriously discussed - late 60's early 70's.

I read once that if nukes had been used to build the Panama canal the digging of the trench part would have taken about a week.

Some folks might argue that though that may be a peaceful use of nukes it isn't a responsible one. Personally I don't see a downside since supposedly there is no fallout.

TallPine
May 4, 2007, 03:24 PM
Can you name me one responsible use for nuclear weapons in private hands?

Um, digging a farm pond maybe...

Hold my beer and watch this! :D

buzz_knox
May 4, 2007, 03:33 PM
The Russians attempted to use nuclear weapons as excavating tools, including the Chagan test in 1965. The test created a lake by damming a river. The lake is still radioactive.

Glockfan.45
May 4, 2007, 05:20 PM
The hardest part about making a canal is actually digging the big ditch. With nukes you just drop them in a hole about a 1000 feet deep, plug the hole and set it off. Voila - instant section of canal and no fallout.



:what: Um no not at all. You might avoid fall out, but the ground and the water runnig over it would be radioactive for decades. Dumping nuclear waste into two large bodies of water (Pacific, Gulf of Mexico) doesn't sound like a good idea at all.

obxned
May 4, 2007, 05:36 PM
Since most of the good weapons-grade material has already been bought up by people with rags on their heads, your first problem is getting fissionable material in sufficient quantities. Good luck with that!

Werewolf
May 4, 2007, 05:49 PM
Um no not at all. You might avoid fall out, but the ground and the water runnig over it would be radioactive for decades.True - IF one uses a fission device. Fusion devices, on the other hand, mostly give off very short lived radiation and even the stuff resulting from the fission trigger has half lives way shorter than a normal fission device most of which measure in the days and the rest months. The amount of really long lived isotopes created by the fission trigger in a fusion device are so small as to be irrelevant.

I'm just guessing mind you but I imagine that the main reason nuclear bombs aren't used in an excavation role is the highly probable negative (and uninformed) reaction by the general public. Hell look at the hew and cry that occured over food irradiation - a totally safe process - that would have resulted in packaged food that would require no refrigeration and would stay fresh for years.

The very idea of radiation freaks out your every day Joe and Josephine six pack even though they have no clue what radiation is. All they know is it is bad which is baloney. Radiation used correctly is no more bad than a gun lying on a table. I wonder how many would be shocked if they knew they were getting 10 times the normal hourly dose of background radiation every time they get an X-Ray or fly on a plane?

Correia
May 4, 2007, 07:18 PM
But the interesting thing to me is that you are part of the reason.

-Larry Correia: Responsible for world nuclear proliferation since 1975.


You might talk about Jeffersonian principles, resisting tyranny, the 2A, etc., but deep down you believe that they should have the power to impose their will on you and me "for our own safety."

Oh yeah, you know me so very well. :rolleyes: I'll have to see if I can borrow Jeff White's Jackboots and Coronoch's puppy shooting gun...

How about his, you can talk about Jeffersonian principles (p.s. I'm not so sure that the founding fathers would neccesarily agree with you on this one) until you're blue in the face, as an anonymous poster on the intraweb, but tomorrow morning, no matter how hard you wish for your libertarian principles to triumph, it ain't gonna happen. Bad people will still want nukes. Regular people won't be allowed to have them. And governments will have big weapons that can flatten whole cities. And guess what? It ain't because of other anonymous people disagreeing with you on the internet.

Gifted
May 4, 2007, 07:25 PM
Early fusion weapons actually produced more fallout, since it wasn't actually the fusion that made up most of the yield. That yield was produced by fissioning of the 238 tamper around the fusion section by the neutron flux produced by the fusion.

I'm not sure about modern weapsons, but you're still going to have more than you want. There's a limit to how efficient a bomb can be and it's significantly less than 50%, which means that 50% of the plutonium/uranium/whatever they use these days is still there--it doesn't take much to hurt you either.

hso
May 4, 2007, 08:01 PM
Ok, this has broken up into three camps, none of which have anything to do with firarms.

1) Jokers - the foks that are getting the most out of the OP.

2) Political Enthusiasts - wayyyyy too serious for such a silly post

3) Geeks, like me - nuclear weapons uses, limitation, regulations, we could have fun with the details for days


But, the question's been answered (thanks Librarian) and the topic is not actually firearms related and some folks are taking themselves far too seriously so this one's closed

If you enjoyed reading about "Is there an actual law that says a private citizen cannot own a nuke?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!