Osama's Nuclear Plans Half-Baked By Farhad Manjoo 2:00 a.m. Nov. 20, 2001 PST

In 1979, a smart-aleck writer at the science humor publication the Journal of Irreproducible Results drew up a simple recipe for world destruction.

This fellow's obviously facetious piece -- called Let's Make a Thermonuclear Device! in the Journal's "Weekend Scientist" series -- purported to detail the ten steps involved in making an atom bomb, from obtaining "weapons grade Plutonium at your local supplier" to "hiding the completed device from your neighbors and children."

To anyone's knowledge, these plans do not accurately specify how to make a nuclear weapon. But British reporters searching through an abandoned "al-Qaida safe house" in Kabul, Afghanistan, last week apparently found the document, and reported that they'd stumbled upon the terrorists' nuclear intentions.

In the Nov. 15 article in the Times of London, journalist Anthony Loyd writes that next to "physics and chemistry manuals devoted to molecular matter," he discovered this document, much of which had him confused:

"The vernacular quickly spun out of my comprehension," he wrote. But some of it even Loyd could comprehend: "There were phrases through the mass of chemical symbols and physics jargon that anyone could understand, including notes on how the detonation of TNT compresses plutonium into a critical mass producing a nuclear chain reaction and eventually a thermonuclear reaction."

This bit about TNT compression and "critical mass" is an unmistakable reference to the following passage in the Journal piece, which is widely published on the Internet under the title How To Build an Atom Bomb:

"The device basically works when the detonated TNT compresses the Plutonium into a critical mass. The critical mass then produces a nuclear chain reaction similar to the domino chain reaction (discussed in this column, "Dominos on the March," March 1968). The chain reaction then promptly produces a big thermonuclear reaction. And there you have it, a 10-megaton explosion!"

The similarity of the two passages was first caught by the weird news site The Daily Rotten, which featured image captures of the document taken from a TV report filed by BBC correspondent John Simpson.

That the Taliban, al-Qaida or the enterprising Brit reporters could have mistaken this Internet antic for a true nuke recipe surprised Marc Abrahams, a former editor of the now-defunct Journal, who edits a successor publication called The Annals of Improbable Research (sponsor of the Ig Nobel awards).

"Pretty much every line of it is a joke," Abrahams said. "Either there's one guy in the Taliban who had a sense of humor, or everyone was downloading everything on the Net that had the word 'thermonuclear' in it."

Abrahams is right; even if you know nothing about science, you'd have to be a few electrons short of an atom to think the piece was serious. For example, here's step two in the process:

"Please remember that Plutonium, especially pure, refined Plutonium, is somewhat dangerous. Wash your hands with soap and warm water after handling the material, and don't allow your children or pets to play in it or eat it. Any leftover Plutonium dust is excellent as an insect repellant. You may wish to keep the substance in a lead box if you can find one in your local junk yard, but an old coffee can will do nicely."

And here's the last step: "Now you are the proud owner of a working thermonuclear device! It is a great ice-breaker at parties, and in a pinch, can be used for national defense."

John Simpson, the BBC reporter, is already being skewered in London over a blunder he committed earlier last week. In a report from the newly Taliban-free Kabul, Simpson bizarrely suggested that the BBC -- and not the Northern Alliance or the United States -- should take credit for the victory.

"It was only BBC people who liberated this city. I can't tell you what a joy it was. I felt very proud of an organization that could push forward ahead of the rest," he said.

Another reporter, interviewed by Reuters, said of Simpson's statement: "One can think of all sorts of comparisons between John Simpson and a B-52 bomber, but it's clear which did the most damage in pushing back the Taliban."

Simpson subsequently apologized for his statement, saying he felt "very, very, very embarrassed" over it, according to reports in the British press.

The BBC and the Times could not be reached for comment to see how their reporters might have been fooled by the Journal piece, and whether they were similarly embarrassed.

Ooops

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

Answers

...an old coffee can will do nicely.

LOL

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

If you guys would read the forum more often, you would know I posted this nuke spoof days ago! Nyah, nyah!

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2001

But, did it have a catchy title?

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

When you think of OG, do you think "catchy"? Of course not. No, it wasn't bloody catchy. I'll catchy youey one of these days, my lad! LOL!

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

Oops.. sorry OG, probably posted it one of those times I was offline for a few days...

Did some one else already post out the story on how Bush used to blow up frogs when he was a kid by shoving firecrackers down their throats then using them as handgrenades?

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001

If someone did, it didn't have a catchy title, Carl.

Go ahead and post it with a catchy title.

Gotta run!

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2001