Re: Czechoslovak nuclear weapons? Re: Warszaw Pact War Plans (Re: The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...)

[Matt Wiser]

(szia1975) wrote:
>"D. Patterson" > wrote in
>message >...
>> "jahodova zmrzlina" > wrote
>in message
>> om...
>> > > >snippage<<
>> > .......
>> >
>> > >
>> > > In the first massive nuclear strike by
>the troops of the
>> > > Missile Forces of the Czechoslovak Front,
>the front aviation
>> > > and long-range aviation added to the front
>must destroy the
>> > > main group of troops of the first operations
>echelon of the
>> > > 7th US Army, its means of nuclear attack,
>and the centers of
>> > > command and control of the aviation.
>> > >
>> > > <Snip>> >
>> > Yeah right, Nikita would give Tonda Novotny
>& his boys 131 nuclear
>> > fireckackers to play with.
>> >
>> > This "plan" is so obvious bull**** - i wonder
>whether 131 or more
>> > bottles of rum were used during its drafting
>?
>>
>> More likely it was vodka.
>>
>> No, Nikita was not giving Novotny and company
>any nuclear warheads to play
>> with. Nonetheless, the nuclear warheads were
>a reality, but always under
>> Soviet control. Nikita and company planned
>to use Czechoslovak troops
>> trained and equipped with Soviet supplied
>nuclear-capable surface-to-surface
>> missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft armed
>with Soviet nuclear warheads
>> under exclusive Soviet command and control.
>>
>> The armed forces of Czechoslovakia were equipped
>with nuclear-capable
>> surface-to-surface missiles and nuclear capable
>aircraft, and selected units
>> were trained to use nuclear weapons in combat.
>However, the Soviets retained
>> of all nuclear warheads in peacetime, and
>the Soviet forces were to assume
>> all command and control of "Warsaw Pact Joint
>Nuclear Forces" in wartime. In
>> other words, selected units of Czechoslovakia's
>armed forces were equipped
>> and trained to employ nuclear weapons, but
>they could operate only with
>> Soviet supplied nuclear warheads under Soviet
>command and control during
>> wartime. As usual, all such Warsaw Pact Joint
>Nuclear Force activities and
>> nuclear weapons simulations were watched closely
>during peacetime by the
>> typical Soviet officers serving with the Czechoslovak
>forces and other
>> Warsaw Pact forces. Eventually, Soviet nuclear
>warheads were stored in
>> special depots at Bela pod Bezdezem, Bilina,
>and Misov. Much later, the
>> Soviets hid SS-23 missiles in Czechoslovakia
>to evade nuclear weapons
>> control inspections in violation of the arms
>control treaties which required
>> their destruction.
>
>didn't Flight International run an article a
>few years ago (2000 ?
>sometime ?) about the Poles and their nuclear
>capable Sukhois ? As I
>recall, there was also so mention in passing
>of the Pole's own nuclear
>ambitions.
I have that Air International issue: it points out that the Polish scientist
who was in charge of their nascent nuclear program met with an "unfortunate
auto accident" sometime in 1978. Seems the KGB got to him before the program
could bear any (radiocactive) fruit....And the question probably was: "Who
would the Poles aim the weapons at, NATO, or the Soviet Union?"

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Alan Minyard]

On 12 Jan 2004 09:01:28 -0800, (Alexander Malinowski) wrote:

>Gregory Baker > wrote in message >...
>> marcus wrote:
>>
>>
>> > >
>> > > didn't Flight International run an article a few years ago (2000 ?
>> > > sometime ?) about the Poles and their nuclear capable Sukhois ? As I
>> > > recall, there was also so mention in passing of the Pole's own nuclear
>> > > ambitions.
>> >
>> > Israel has 400 nuclear weapons, why cannot Poles also have some ?
>> > They, after all, are heroically dying in Bush's service to liberate
>> > Iraqis from their oil, so they cannot be a rogue or terrorist state!
>>
>> The Poles can build them... I think the reason they don't is because
>> Poland signed a non-proliferation treaty. I am proud to have Poland as
>> a friendly country. March on, Dombrowski!
>
>
>Recently there were a news, that in 70-ties Poland's leader Edward
>Gierek spent a lot of money for researches of the micro thermonuclear
>bomb. On the way, Poles have invented blue laser and tried to use it
>to blast deuter+lithium mixture, obviously without success. Not sure
>if it were serious info. Possesing microthermonuclear bomb would give
>Poland immediate independence from Soviet Union.

You obviously have no idea how a nuclear device works

Al Minyard

[Mike]

Your French friends have many ones Mr.Minyard.
Launched from planes,SSBNs,carriers....
Tactical ones,strategical powerful ones...
And if they are as idiot as you always say,if what they do is
always ****,like you tell us post after post,
why couldn't the poles have their ones?
Do you consider they are even more stupid and weak than the French?
(No,you don't,of course.They helped Bush...)


;-ppppp



"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On 12 Jan 2004 09:01:28 -0800, (Alexander Malinowski)
wrote:
>
> >Gregory Baker > wrote in message
>...
> >> marcus wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > didn't Flight International run an article a few years ago (2000 ?
> >> > > sometime ?) about the Poles and their nuclear capable Sukhois ? As
I
> >> > > recall, there was also so mention in passing of the Pole's own
nuclear
> >> > > ambitions.
> >> >
> >> > Israel has 400 nuclear weapons, why cannot Poles also have some ?
> >> > They, after all, are heroically dying in Bush's service to liberate
> >> > Iraqis from their oil, so they cannot be a rogue or terrorist state!
> >>
> >> The Poles can build them... I think the reason they don't is because
> >> Poland signed a non-proliferation treaty. I am proud to have Poland as
> >> a friendly country. March on, Dombrowski!
> >
> >
> >Recently there were a news, that in 70-ties Poland's leader Edward
> >Gierek spent a lot of money for researches of the micro thermonuclear
> >bomb. On the way, Poles have invented blue laser and tried to use it
> >to blast deuter+lithium mixture, obviously without success. Not sure
> >if it were serious info. Possesing microthermonuclear bomb would give
> >Poland immediate independence from Soviet Union.
>
> You obviously have no idea how a nuclear device works
>
> Al Minyard
>
>

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" > wrote:

>Your French friends have many ones Mr.Minyard.
>Launched from planes,SSBNs,carriers....
>Tactical ones,strategical powerful ones...
>And if they are as idiot as you always say,if what they do is
>always ****,like you tell us post after post,
>why couldn't the poles have their ones?
>Do you consider they are even more stupid and weak than the French?
>(No,you don't,of course.They helped Bush...)
>
>
>;-ppppp
>
>
What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not exist.
No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has them.
The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.
>
Al Minyard

[B2431]

>From: Alan Minyard
>Date: 1/15/2004 12:34 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>>Your French friends have many ones Mr.Minyard.
>>Launched from planes,SSBNs,carriers....
>>Tactical ones,strategical powerful ones...
>>And if they are as idiot as you always say,if what they do is
>>always ****,like you tell us post after post,
>>why couldn't the poles have their ones?
>>Do you consider they are even more stupid and weak than the French?
>>(No,you don't,of course.They helped Bush...)
>>
>>
>>;-ppppp
>>
>>
>What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not exist.
>No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has them.
>The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.
>>
>Al Minyard
>
The U.S. Army's Green Light program and the U.S. Air Forces Davey Crockett come
pretty close.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" > wrote:
>

> What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not exist.
> No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has
them.
> The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.

However the 'micro fission device' is very real. The USA produced the
Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) that would fit in a large
duffle bag and 80-100 lbs and the soviets had a similar device

Clips of teams exercising with SADM can be seen at

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/

Alexander Lebed, ex Soviet General reported that a
significant number of Soviet nuclear demolition charges
were unaccounted for IRC.

Keith

[Kevin Brooks]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" > wrote:
> >
>
> > What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not exist.
> > No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has
> them.
> > The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.
>
> However the 'micro fission device' is very real. The USA produced the
> Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) that would fit in a large
> duffle bag and 80-100 lbs and the soviets had a similar device
>
> Clips of teams exercising with SADM can be seen at

Having actually seen a SADM (minus a real core, of course), I can tell you
it is not a "suitcase" device, unless you haul around one hell of a
suitcase. It is closer in size to a garbage can (like the large kitchen
variety). It pressed the ability of being a manportable device (the guy
lugging it on his back could not carry much else in the way of mission
equipment). As the Nuclear Weapons Archive describes it: "It was a cylinder
40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed only
27 kg). Although the Mk-54 SADM has itself been called a "suitcase bomb" it
is more like a "steamer trunk" bomb, especially considering its weight."

>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/
>
> Alexander Lebed, ex Soviet General reported that a
> significant number of Soviet nuclear demolition charges
> were unaccounted for IRC.

Lebed's rants have been amply discounted. "Gen. Lebed has told a variety of
stories; first, that 100 were perhaps missing. Later, he said that perhaps
none were missing. Later, he seemed to be confused about the difference
between atomic demolition munitions and artillery shells. And now he claims
that perhaps, even if they're missing, they don't pose a threat."
(www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/ jan-june98/nukes_3-19.html ) The "Sixty
Minutes" TV report that broke his story was later revealed to have been
produced by a lady who, with her husband, had a book being published about
the alleged threat of small nukes and who was involved in the production of
a movie with a similar plotline. The Nuclear Weapons Archive has an
interesting treatment of the Lebed claims that casts further doubt as to the
specific veracity of his claims. Lastly, if they *had* developed weapons
that small, and if they *were* unaccounted for, we'd likely have seen their
use somewhere in the world by now, or at least heard more substantive
information since then.

Brooks
>
> Keith
>
>

[Mike]

It was just a joke,mister...

For the rest,you are right
(SOS,why did I i just say???!!!)

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> >Your French friends have many ones Mr.Minyard.
> >Launched from planes,SSBNs,carriers....
> >Tactical ones,strategical powerful ones...
> >And if they are as idiot as you always say,if what they do is
> >always ****,like you tell us post after post,
> >why couldn't the poles have their ones?
> >Do you consider they are even more stupid and weak than the French?
> >(No,you don't,of course.They helped Bush...)
> >
> >
> >;-ppppp
> >
> >
> What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not exist.
> No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has
them.
> The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.
> >
> Al Minyard

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> Having actually seen a SADM (minus a real core, of course), I can tell you
> it is not a "suitcase" device, unless you haul around one hell of a
> suitcase. It is closer in size to a garbage can (like the large kitchen
> variety). It pressed the ability of being a manportable device (the guy
> lugging it on his back could not carry much else in the way of mission
> equipment). As the Nuclear Weapons Archive describes it: "It was a cylinder
> 40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed only
> 27 kg). Although the Mk-54 SADM has itself been called a "suitcase bomb" it
> is more like a "steamer trunk" bomb, especially considering its weight."

But there is a rather scary little piece about suitcase nukes at the
Nuclear Weapons Archive, which says about suitcase nukes:

"We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a
bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase
plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make
a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium
reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary
high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the
true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is
probably closer to 15 than 11)."

<http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html>

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > Having actually seen a SADM (minus a real core, of course), I can tell
you
> > it is not a "suitcase" device, unless you haul around one hell of a
> > suitcase. It is closer in size to a garbage can (like the large kitchen
> > variety). It pressed the ability of being a manportable device (the guy
> > lugging it on his back could not carry much else in the way of mission
> > equipment). As the Nuclear Weapons Archive describes it: "It was a
cylinder
> > 40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed
only
> > 27 kg). Although the Mk-54 SADM has itself been called a "suitcase bomb"
it
> > is more like a "steamer trunk" bomb, especially considering its weight."
>
> But there is a rather scary little piece about suitcase nukes at the
> Nuclear Weapons Archive, which says about suitcase nukes:
>
> "We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a
> bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase
> plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make
> a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium
> reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary
> high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the
> true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is
> probably closer to 15 than 11)."
>
> <http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html>

He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only being
somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms of
HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation); in that same
article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest practical sherical
device ever fielded, and then also describes the linear implosion devices
(which are narrower, but also longer) used in arty rounds. None of the
fielded weapons ever got below around 100 pounds or so.

Brooks

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Mullen]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>In article >,
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Having actually seen a SADM (minus a real core, of course), I can tell
>
> you
>
>>>it is not a "suitcase" device, unless you haul around one hell of a
>>>suitcase. It is closer in size to a garbage can (like the large kitchen
>>>variety). It pressed the ability of being a manportable device (the guy
>>>lugging it on his back could not carry much else in the way of mission
>>>equipment). As the Nuclear Weapons Archive describes it: "It was a
>
> cylinder
>
>>>40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed
>
> only
>
>>>27 kg). Although the Mk-54 SADM has itself been called a "suitcase bomb"
>
> it
>
>>>is more like a "steamer trunk" bomb, especially considering its weight."
>>
>>But there is a rather scary little piece about suitcase nukes at the
>>Nuclear Weapons Archive, which says about suitcase nukes:
>>
>>"We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a
>>bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase
>>plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make
>>a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium
>>reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary
>>high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the
>>true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is
>>probably closer to 15 than 11)."
>>
>><http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html>
>
>
> He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only being
> somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms of
> HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation); in that same
> article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest practical sherical
> device ever fielded, and then also describes the linear implosion devices
> (which are narrower, but also longer) used in arty rounds. None of the
> fielded weapons ever got below around 100 pounds or so.

That isn't how I understood it.

'This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead.
This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum
mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages)'

John

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...

> > But there is a rather scary little piece about suitcase nukes at the
> > Nuclear Weapons Archive, which says about suitcase nukes:
> >
> > "We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a
> > bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase
> > plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make
> > a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium
> > reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary
> > high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the
> > true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is
> > probably closer to 15 than 11)."
> >
> > <http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html>
>
> He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only being
> somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms of
> HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation);

Not particularly. The high explosives would add up to a couple of
kilograms, for sure, but the beryllium won't need to be thick (and
therefore would not add much to the weight), the triggering system would
be negligible in weight (a handful of detonators, a timing system, and
some batteries). At most, you're looking at *maybe* 15 kilograms for
the whole device. My personal toolkit weighs more than that, full up.

Note that you're not going to build something this small on a shoestring
budget or from public documents, either. Very small nukes take very
large mathematics.

> in that same article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest
> practical sherical device ever fielded, and then also describes the
> linear implosion devices (which are narrower, but also longer) used
> in arty rounds. None of the fielded weapons ever got below around 100
> pounds or so.

The artillery shells and Davy Crockett were all *projectiles*, and had a
lot of extra weight in casings and shockproofing. A lightweight nuke
would need none of that, and would be *much* lighter and smaller. The
SADM had a lot of failsafe and ruggedization extras in the mix, and was
a very different sort of device (and had a variable yield to boot).

The warhead for the 155mm artillery round was much smaller in diameter,
and somewhat longer, in a steel casing, and still fell below 100 pounds.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> >>In article >,
> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Having actually seen a SADM (minus a real core, of course), I can tell
> >
> > you
> >
> >>>it is not a "suitcase" device, unless you haul around one hell of a
> >>>suitcase. It is closer in size to a garbage can (like the large kitchen
> >>>variety). It pressed the ability of being a manportable device (the guy
> >>>lugging it on his back could not carry much else in the way of mission
> >>>equipment). As the Nuclear Weapons Archive describes it: "It was a
> >
> > cylinder
> >
> >>>40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed
> >
> > only
> >
> >>>27 kg). Although the Mk-54 SADM has itself been called a "suitcase
bomb"
> >
> > it
> >
> >>>is more like a "steamer trunk" bomb, especially considering its
weight."
> >>
> >>But there is a rather scary little piece about suitcase nukes at the
> >>Nuclear Weapons Archive, which says about suitcase nukes:
> >>
> >>"We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a
> >>bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase
> >>plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make
> >>a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium
> >>reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary
> >>high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the
> >>true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is
> >>probably closer to 15 than 11)."
> >>
> >><http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html>
> >
> >
> > He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only
being
> > somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4
kilograms of
> > HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation); in that same
> > article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest practical sherical
> > device ever fielded, and then also describes the linear implosion
devices
> > (which are narrower, but also longer) used in arty rounds. None of the
> > fielded weapons ever got below around 100 pounds or so.
>
> That isn't how I understood it.

Here was his description of the SADM:
"The W-54 nuclear package is certainly light enough by itself to be used in
a "suitcase bomb" but the closest equivalent to such a device that US has
ever deployed was a man-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic
Demolition Munition). This used a version of the W-54, but the whole package
was much larger and heavier. It was a cylinder 40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed
68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed only 27 kg). Although the Mk-54
SADM has itself been called a "suitcase bomb" it is more like a "steamer
trunk" bomb, especially considering its weight."


>
> 'This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead.
> This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum
> mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages)'

That is already over 50 pounds with no protective covering for the internals
(I doubt you'd want to have all of those initiators, wires, etc., not to
mention the HE layer itself, exposed). Sorry, but the evidence for a
"suitcase bomb" just is not very convincing at this point.

Brooks

>
> John
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
>
> > > But there is a rather scary little piece about suitcase nukes at the
> > > Nuclear Weapons Archive, which says about suitcase nukes:
> > >
> > > "We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a
> > > bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase
> > > plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to
make
> > > a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium
> > > reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary
> > > high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so
the
> > > true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is
> > > probably closer to 15 than 11)."
> > >
> > > <http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html>
> >
> > He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only
being
> > somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4
kilograms of
> > HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation);
>
> Not particularly. The high explosives would add up to a couple of
> kilograms, for sure, but the beryllium won't need to be thick (and
> therefore would not add much to the weight), the triggering system would
> be negligible in weight (a handful of detonators, a timing system, and
> some batteries). At most, you're looking at *maybe* 15 kilograms for
> the whole device. My personal toolkit weighs more than that, full up.

You gotta wonder, if this is the case, why a smaller weapon was never
developed or deployed by the US; W-54 was the smallest of the sherical
implosion devices, and in its SADM form it weighed in at over 100 pounds all
up and (allegedly) between 50 and 70 pounds for the internals alone. We
never fielded linear implosion warheads that weighed any less (based upon
the 155mm rounds).

>
> Note that you're not going to build something this small on a shoestring
> budget or from public documents, either. Very small nukes take very
> large mathematics.
>
> > in that same article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest
> > practical sherical device ever fielded, and then also describes the
> > linear implosion devices (which are narrower, but also longer) used
> > in arty rounds. None of the fielded weapons ever got below around 100
> > pounds or so.
>
> The artillery shells and Davy Crockett were all *projectiles*, and had a
> lot of extra weight in casings and shockproofing. A lightweight nuke
> would need none of that,

I disagree. Unless you want your initiators and HE shell to be exposed to
all manner of damage, an outer casing is going to be trequired around the
physics package. A dent in the HE covering can be the difference between a
significant detonation and a fizzle. The US military was extremely
interested in developing (a) the smallest possible deployable warhead for
use by ADM and SOF elements, and (b) found that SADM, with a full-up weight
of over 100 pounds, was the best they could do.

and would be *much* lighter and smaller. The
> SADM had a lot of failsafe and ruggedization extras in the mix, and was
> a very different sort of device (and had a variable yield to boot).

Have you ever seen what the PAL on the SADAM consisted of? And I doubt the
variable yield function added much to the weight, if anything. Yes, it was
"ruggedized"--but if you want your small nuke to be reliable at all, it
better be able to withstand being transported.

>
> The warhead for the 155mm artillery round was much smaller in diameter,
> and somewhat longer, in a steel casing, and still fell below 100 pounds.

The same source indicates the minimum weight for the W-48 155mm projectile
was 118 pounds--the upper limit was 128 pounds. I have no idea what the
specs, or material used, for the casing was, nor do I have any idea what if
any restrictions there were on propellent charges for it. We can surmise
that it likely had a rather thin shell because getting the physics package
small enough to fit into the tube was challenge enough.

Brooks

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>

[B2431]

>Plans (Re: The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War
>
>
>He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only being
>somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms of
>HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation); in that same
>article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest practical sherical
>device ever fielded, and then also describes the linear implosion devices
>(which are narrower, but also longer) used in arty rounds. None of the
>fielded weapons ever got below around 100 pounds or so.
>
>Brooks
>
Linear implosion? How would that work?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >Plans (Re: The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War
> >
> >
> >He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only
being
> >somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms
of
> >HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation); in that same
> >article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest practical sherical
> >device ever fielded, and then also describes the linear implosion devices
> >(which are narrower, but also longer) used in arty rounds. None of the
> >fielded weapons ever got below around 100 pounds or so.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> Linear implosion? How would that work?

Instead of compressing a sphere, imagine a football shaped pit surrounded by
explosive material, with detonation initiated at each end--the detonation
wavefront progresses inward from each end (the wavefront is actually
"shaped" by inserting plates of a somewhat lesser diameter than that of the
HE charge into the HE in front of the initiators so that the wavefront
propogates radially first to get around the plate, then inwards from the
explosive outside the plate perimeter) and compresses the "football" into a
sphere. This allows you to design a weapon with a smaller diameter (but a
greater length) than if it used normal spherical implosion. The other
method of reducing diameter is use of a gun-type device, but IIRC Pu does
not work in gun designs. The Nuclear Weapons Archive has a better
description if you are interested (
http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html ).

Brooks

>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...

> > 'This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead.
> > This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum
> > mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages)'
>
> That is already over 50 pounds with no protective covering for the internals
> (I doubt you'd want to have all of those initiators, wires, etc., not to
> mention the HE layer itself, exposed). Sorry, but the evidence for a
> "suitcase bomb" just is not very convincing at this point.

The weight for the Davy Crockett was "ready to fire," inside its casing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > 'This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett
warhead.
> > > This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum
> > > mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages)'
> >
> > That is already over 50 pounds with no protective covering for the
internals
> > (I doubt you'd want to have all of those initiators, wires, etc., not to
> > mention the HE layer itself, exposed). Sorry, but the evidence for a
> > "suitcase bomb" just is not very convincing at this point.
>
> The weight for the Davy Crockett was "ready to fire," inside its casing.

No, that all-up weight was apparently greater than 100 pounds (NWA says 150
pounds; see: http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html ). The
weight of the W-54 "only" is listed as 59 pounds.

Brooks

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Alan Minyard]

On 15 Jan 2004 18:40:34 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: Alan Minyard
>>Date: 1/15/2004 12:34 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" > wrote:
>>
>>>Your French friends have many ones Mr.Minyard.
>>>Launched from planes,SSBNs,carriers....
>>>Tactical ones,strategical powerful ones...
>>>And if they are as idiot as you always say,if what they do is
>>>always ****,like you tell us post after post,
>>>why couldn't the poles have their ones?
>>>Do you consider they are even more stupid and weak than the French?
>>>(No,you don't,of course.They helped Bush...)
>>>
>>>
>>>;-ppppp
>>>
>>>
>>What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not exist.
>>No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has them.
>>The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.
>>>
>>Al Minyard
>>
>The U.S. Army's Green Light program and the U.S. Air Forces Davey Crockett come
>pretty close.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

True, but they were very low yield, and would be way too heavy to qualify.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:16:38 -0000, "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" > wrote:
>>
>
>> What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not exist.
>> No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has
>them.
>> The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.
>
>However the 'micro fission device' is very real. The USA produced the
>Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) that would fit in a large
>duffle bag and 80-100 lbs and the soviets had a similar device
>
>Clips of teams exercising with SADM can be seen at
>
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/
>
>Alexander Lebed, ex Soviet General reported that a
>significant number of Soviet nuclear demolition charges
>were unaccounted for IRC.
>
>Keith
>
But not a "suitcase" bomb. 100lbs is about the minimum.

Al Minyard

[Kevin Brooks]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Jan 2004 18:40:34 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
> >>From: Alan Minyard
> >>Date: 1/15/2004 12:34 PM Central Standard Time
> >>Message-id: >
> >>
> >>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Your French friends have many ones Mr.Minyard.
> >>>Launched from planes,SSBNs,carriers....
> >>>Tactical ones,strategical powerful ones...
> >>>And if they are as idiot as you always say,if what they do is
> >>>always ****,like you tell us post after post,
> >>>why couldn't the poles have their ones?
> >>>Do you consider they are even more stupid and weak than the French?
> >>>(No,you don't,of course.They helped Bush...)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>;-ppppp
> >>>
> >>>
> >>What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not exist.
> >>No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has
them.
> >>The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.
> >>>
> >>Al Minyard
> >>
> >The U.S. Army's Green Light program and the U.S. Air Forces Davey
Crockett come
> >pretty close.

I have no idea what "Green Light" was, but I suppose it was a SADM or
similar--which was not a "suitcase bomb". And the USAF NEVER fielded Davey
Crockett--that was a US Army system (sort of a recoiless rifle with a
spigot) which used the same physics package as the SADM (W-54).

Brooks

> >
> >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> True, but they were very low yield, and would be way too heavy to qualify.
>
> Al Minyard

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 1/16/2004 11:13 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On 15 Jan 2004 18:40:34 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>>
>> >>From: Alan Minyard
>> >>Date: 1/15/2004 12:34 PM Central Standard Time
>> >>Message-id: >
>> >>
>> >>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Your French friends have many ones Mr.Minyard.
>> >>>Launched from planes,SSBNs,carriers....
>> >>>Tactical ones,strategical powerful ones...
>> >>>And if they are as idiot as you always say,if what they do is
>> >>>always ****,like you tell us post after post,
>> >>>why couldn't the poles have their ones?
>> >>>Do you consider they are even more stupid and weak than the French?
>> >>>(No,you don't,of course.They helped Bush...)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>;-ppppp
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not exist.
>> >>No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has
>them.
>> >>The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.
>> >>>
>> >>Al Minyard
>> >>
>> >The U.S. Army's Green Light program and the U.S. Air Forces Davey
>Crockett come
>> >pretty close.
>
>I have no idea what "Green Light" was, but I suppose it was a SADM or
>similar--which was not a "suitcase bomb". And the USAF NEVER fielded Davey
>Crockett--that was a US Army system (sort of a recoiless rifle with a
>spigot) which used the same physics package as the SADM (W-54).
>
>Brooks
>
>> >
>> >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> True, but they were very low yield, and would be way too heavy to qualify.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>

I don't recall suggesting Davey Crocket was a USAF program.

As for Green Light it was a man portable device. They would be emplaced by a
crew of two, timer set and left behind while the crew retired to a safe
distance. Other than that I don't know much more about it.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 1/16/2004 11:13 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 15 Jan 2004 18:40:34 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>From: Alan Minyard
> >> >>Date: 1/15/2004 12:34 PM Central Standard Time
> >> >>Message-id: >
> >> >>
> >> >>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Your French friends have many ones Mr.Minyard.
> >> >>>Launched from planes,SSBNs,carriers....
> >> >>>Tactical ones,strategical powerful ones...
> >> >>>And if they are as idiot as you always say,if what they do is
> >> >>>always ****,like you tell us post after post,
> >> >>>why couldn't the poles have their ones?
> >> >>>Do you consider they are even more stupid and weak than the French?
> >> >>>(No,you don't,of course.They helped Bush...)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>;-ppppp
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not
exist.
> >> >>No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has
> >them.
> >> >>The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.
> >> >>>
> >> >>Al Minyard
> >> >>
> >> >The U.S. Army's Green Light program and the U.S. Air Forces Davey
> >Crockett come
> >> >pretty close.
> >
> >I have no idea what "Green Light" was, but I suppose it was a SADM or
> >similar--which was not a "suitcase bomb". And the USAF NEVER fielded
Davey
> >Crockett--that was a US Army system (sort of a recoiless rifle with a
> >spigot) which used the same physics package as the SADM (W-54).
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >> >
> >> >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >>
> >> True, but they were very low yield, and would be way too heavy to
qualify.
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
>
> I don't recall suggesting Davey Crocket was a USAF program.

I thought that the (from above) "...and the U.S. Air Forces Davey Crockett
come pretty close." was part of your post?

>
> As for Green Light it was a man portable device. They would be emplaced by
a
> crew of two, timer set and left behind while the crew retired to a safe
> distance. Other than that I don't know much more about it.

Sounds like the pre-SADM SADM, so to speak. But that weapon (T-4/W-9) was
even heavier than SADM. The W-54 was the smallest man emplaced weapon we
fielded in its SADM configuration.

Brooks

>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> ...

> > The weight for the Davy Crockett was "ready to fire," inside its casing.
>
> No, that all-up weight was apparently greater than 100 pounds (NWA says 150
> pounds; see: http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html ). The
> weight of the W-54 "only" is listed as 59 pounds.

You're including the weight of a small rocket booster in that, big
enough to fire the sucker several miles...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 1/16/2004 2:56 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>> >Date: 1/16/2004 11:13 AM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On 15 Jan 2004 18:40:34 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>From: Alan Minyard
>> >> >>Date: 1/15/2004 12:34 PM Central Standard Time
>> >> >>Message-id: >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Your French friends have many ones Mr.Minyard.
>> >> >>>Launched from planes,SSBNs,carriers....
>> >> >>>Tactical ones,strategical powerful ones...
>> >> >>>And if they are as idiot as you always say,if what they do is
>> >> >>>always ****,like you tell us post after post,
>> >> >>>why couldn't the poles have their ones?
>> >> >>>Do you consider they are even more stupid and weak than the French?
>> >> >>>(No,you don't,of course.They helped Bush...)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>;-ppppp
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not
>exist.
>> >> >>No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has
>> >them.
>> >> >>The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>Al Minyard
>> >> >>
>> >> >The U.S. Army's Green Light program and the U.S. Air Forces Davey
>> >Crockett come
>> >> >pretty close.
>> >
>> >I have no idea what "Green Light" was, but I suppose it was a SADM or
>> >similar--which was not a "suitcase bomb". And the USAF NEVER fielded
>Davey
>> >Crockett--that was a US Army system (sort of a recoiless rifle with a
>> >spigot) which used the same physics package as the SADM (W-54).
>> >
>> >Brooks
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>> >>
>> >> True, but they were very low yield, and would be way too heavy to
>qualify.
>> >>
>> >> Al Minyard
>> >
>>
>> I don't recall suggesting Davey Crocket was a USAF program.
>
>I thought that the (from above) "...and the U.S. Air Forces Davey Crockett
>come pretty close." was part of your post?
>
>>
>> As for Green Light it was a man portable device. They would be emplaced by
>a
>> crew of two, timer set and left behind while the crew retired to a safe
>> distance. Other than that I don't know much more about it.
>
>Sounds like the pre-SADM SADM, so to speak. But that weapon (T-4/W-9) was
>even heavier than SADM. The W-54 was the smallest man emplaced weapon we
>fielded in its SADM configuration.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
Oops, I never meant to say Davey Crocket was a USAF project.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > The weight for the Davy Crockett was "ready to fire," inside its
casing.
> >
> > No, that all-up weight was apparently greater than 100 pounds (NWA says
150
> > pounds; see: http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html ).
The
> > weight of the W-54 "only" is listed as 59 pounds.
>
> You're including the weight of a small rocket booster in that, big
> enough to fire the sucker several miles...

No, actually I screwed up and read Davey Crockett as "SADM"; that all up
weight I gave was for the latter. BTW, the casing for Davey Crockett was
likely not all that big a deal, as it was a pretty low velocity weapon (I
would not discount it even being made of aluminum to keep the weight down).
Davey Crockett warhead weight is given as 50-55 pounds total in the NWA.
Given the "W-54 only" weight also provided by the same site for the SADM,
I'd have to guess that the Davey Crockett casing was a pretty light
structure.

Brooks

>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.