Reply #77: I was trying to keep my explantion simple.

[happyslug]

Generally both systems were used, my point to a Uranium Bomb is that a Plutonium bomb requires not only enough fissionable material to go "boom" but sufficient electrical system set off the TNT to get all of the Plutonium together all at one time. A Uranium bomb only requires a review of its fissonable material.

Further while Plutonium has a half life of 24,100 years, that only means in 24,100 years 1/2 of the Plutonium is gone. That does not mean it will take 24,100 years to drop the amount of Plutonium in a bomb to a level that it will NOT go Super-critical. The point where a bomb cease to be able to go supercritical do to the lost of fissonable material occurs at a point WHY before 24,100 years. The exact point is classified (as far as I know and I have no acess to classifed information). This point in more critical for a small nuclear device than for a larger device.

My Point was that the weapon probally can not work as a fissonable bomb (Or no one can be sure it will operate a a fissionable bomb). Given that restriction, it would be better for Al Queda to use it against the US Proper (For against a US Target whether the bomb works or not works is less important than it just blowing up i.e. if the bomb goes super-critical OK, if it does not that is still OK for Al Queda).

Thus my point is if Al Queda had these weapons after 9/11, they would have used them after 9/11 NOT hold them back to use them against US Forces. Against US Forces the bombs, toi be effective, MUST work as fissionable bombs. Just spreading Plutonium all over Iraq will NOT hurt America (remember I am looking at the use of such a weapon from Al Queda position NOT the US Position).