Al-Qaida Leader Says They Have Briefcase Nukes

[Dav1936531]

Truth or terrorist bluff?
Dave

SYDNEY, Australia (March 21) - Osama bin Laden's terror network claims to have
bought ready-made nuclear weapons on the black market in central Asia, the
biographer of al-Qaida's No. 2 leader was quoted as telling an Australian
television station.

In an interview scheduled to be televised on Monday, Pakistani journalist Hamid
Mir said Ayman al-Zawahri claimed that ''smart briefcase bombs'' were available
on the black market.

It was not clear when the interview between Mir and al-Zawahri took place.

U.S. intelligence agencies have long believed that al-Qaida attempted to
acquire a nuclear device on the black market, but say there is no evidence it
was successful.

In the interview with Australian Broadcasting Corp. television, parts of which
were released Sunday, Mir recalled telling al-Zawahri it was difficult to
believe that al-Qaida had nuclear weapons when the terror network didn't have
the equipment to maintain or use them.

''Dr Ayman al-Zawahri laughed and he said 'Mr. Mir, if you have $30 million, go
to the black market in central Asia, contact any disgruntled Soviet scientist,
and a lot of ... smart briefcase bombs are available,''' Mir said in the
interview.

''They have contacted us, we sent our people to Moscow, to Tashkent, to other
central Asian states and they negotiated, and we purchased some suitcase
bombs,'' Mir quoted al-Zawahri as saying.

Al-Qaida has never hidden its interest in acquiring nuclear weapons.

The U.S. federal indictment of bin Laden charges that as far back as 1992 he
''and others known and unknown, made efforts to obtain the components of
nuclear weapons.''

Bin Laden, in a November 2001 interview with a Pakistani journalist, boasted
having hidden such components ''as a deterrent.'' And in 1998, a Russian
nuclear weapons design expert was investigated for allegedly working with bin
Laden's Taliban allies.

It was revealed last month that Pakistan's top nuclear scientist had sold
sensitive equipment and nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea,
fueling fears the information could have also fallen into the hands of
terrorists.

Earlier, Mir told Australian media that al-Zawahri also claimed to have visited
Australia to recruit militants and collect funds.

''In those days, in early 1996, he was on a mission to organize his network all
over the world,'' Mir was quoted as saying. ''He told me he stopped for a while
in Darwin (in northern Australia), he was ... looking for help and collecting
funds.''

Australia's Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said the government could not rule
out the possibility that al-Zawahri visited Australia in the 1990s under a
different name.

''Under his own name or any known alias he hasn't traveled to Australia,''
Ruddock told reporters Saturday. ''That doesn't mean to say that he may not
have come under some other false documentation, or some other alias that's not
known to us.''

Mir describe al-Zawahri as ''the real brain behind Osama bin Laden.''

''He is the real strategist, Osama bin Laden is only a front man,'' Mir was
quoted as saying during the interview. ''I think he is more dangerous than bin
Laden.''

Al-Zawahri - an Egyptian surgeon - is believed to be hiding in the rugged
region around the Pakistan-Afghan border where U.S. and Pakistani troops are
conducting a major operation against Taliban and al-Qaida forces.

He is said to have played a leading role in orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks on the United States.

AP-NY-03-21-04 1608EST

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dav1936531" > wrote in message
...
> Truth or terrorist bluff?
> Dave
>
> SYDNEY, Australia (March 21) - Osama bin Laden's terror network claims to
have
> bought ready-made nuclear weapons on the black market in central Asia, the
> biographer of al-Qaida's No. 2 leader was quoted as telling an Australian
> television station.

If #2 had suitcase nukes he would have used one, instead of being killed
"attempting to escape".

[Dav1936531]

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
>
>If #2 had suitcase nukes he would have used one, instead of being killed
"attempting to escape".

Um, not if the nukes are not immediately available due to their having been
allotted to some other "mission"......

There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of Soviet suitcase
nukes having disappeared from their inventory.
Dave

[BUFDRVR]

>There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of Soviet suitcase
>nukes having disappeared from their inventory.

What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet nuclear
scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there were never
any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat Ledbed (is that his
name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely for scaring the crap out of
western nations.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Dav1936531]

>From: (BUFDRVR)
>

>>There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of Soviet suitcase
nukes having disappeared from their inventory.<<

>What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet nuclear
scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there were never
any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat Ledbed (is that his
name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely for scaring the crap out of
western nations.
>BUFDRVR

We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only fair to assume
that the Soviets had/have them too.

If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would be a good
way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any liability for negligent
management of their armaments should the new owners use one in a terror attack.

Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.
Dave

[Don Harstad]

"Dav1936531" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (BUFDRVR)
> >
>
> >>There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of Soviet
suitcase
> nukes having disappeared from their inventory.<<
>
> >What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet nuclear
> scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there were
never
> any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat Ledbed (is that his
> name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely for scaring the crap out of
> western nations.
> >BUFDRVR
>
> We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only fair to
assume
> that the Soviets had/have them too.
>
> If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would be a
good
> way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any liability for
negligent
> management of their armaments should the new owners use one in a terror
attack.
>
> Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.
> Dave

IIRC, they were termed Atomic Demolition Munitions. They were designed to
do things such as take out tunnels, and to demolish ports as they were
abandoned. The ADM's were not thermonuclear, which would be small comfort
to those close. The lightest one I ever read about was under 500 lbs, and I
think it may have been very close to 100. I seem to remember they could
also be submerged for up to 6 months on a timer. Those were ours. Theirs,
I never saw detailed at all. It's public information.

Don H.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Dav1936531" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (BUFDRVR)
> >
>
> >>There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of Soviet
suitcase
> nukes having disappeared from their inventory.<<
>
> >What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet nuclear
> scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there were
never
> any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat Ledbed (is that his
> name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely for scaring the crap out of
> western nations.
> >BUFDRVR
>
> We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only fair to
assume
> that the Soviets had/have them too.

Big suitcase. SADM, with its W-54 warhead, was not something you could drop
into your American Tourister and waltz into some hotel with it. Did the
Soviets have small ADM's? We don't really know--Lebed's claims have been
pretty much discredited, though, so if that is what you (or the originator
of this "news" story) are basing this on, it is not much.

>
> If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would be a
good
> way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any liability for
negligent
> management of their armaments should the new owners use one in a terror
attack.

If AQ had them for some time, they'd have used them by now. And would not
have been wasting their time trying to foment "dirty bomb" plots. AFAIK, the
smallest Soviet device would have been a 152mm warhead for artillery
use--but that would undoubtedly have been a gun-type or linear implosion
device, so it would be kind of long, not to mention heavy (more than 100
pounds IIRC based upon US 155mm warheads)--and of a rather small yield.
Color me (very) dubious on this whole "suitcase nukes are lying around
everywhere" hysteria that periodically arises (this ain't the first time).

Brooks

>
> Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.
> Dave

[Kevin Brooks]

"Don Harstad" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dav1936531" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: (BUFDRVR)
> > >
> >
> > >>There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of Soviet
> suitcase
> > nukes having disappeared from their inventory.<<
> >
> > >What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet
nuclear
> > scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there were
> never
> > any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat Ledbed (is that
his
> > name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely for scaring the crap out of
> > western nations.
> > >BUFDRVR
> >
> > We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only fair to
> assume
> > that the Soviets had/have them too.
> >
> > If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would be a
> good
> > way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any liability for
> negligent
> > management of their armaments should the new owners use one in a terror
> attack.
> >
> > Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.
> > Dave
>
> IIRC, they were termed Atomic Demolition Munitions. They were designed to
> do things such as take out tunnels, and to demolish ports as they were
> abandoned. The ADM's were not thermonuclear, which would be small comfort
> to those close. The lightest one I ever read about was under 500 lbs, and
I
> think it may have been very close to 100. I seem to remember they could
> also be submerged for up to 6 months on a timer. Those were ours.
Theirs,
> I never saw detailed at all. It's public information.

Ours were grouped into two categories--medium, which could be up into the
many hundreds of pounds (and over a thoudand pounds in their early form,
IIRC), and small, which weighed in at around 110 pounds or so IIRC (the W-54
warhead itself weighed less (around 60 pounds), but it was pretty much
worthless without the accoutrements that made up the rest of the SADM
package). A lot of the info available on these weapons is still somewhat
speculative, with different sources providing different weights, yields,
etc.; unless somebody went through the (five week IIRC) ADM course at FT
Belvoir back in the eighties or earlier, then you can't really know for sure
what the yields were (or exactly how the PAL worked, etc.)--those of us who
just attended the two-day ADM familiarization phase (which required a SECRET
clearance that was verified at the entrance to the ADM training facility--no
foreign officers in our OBC course were allowed to participate) were only
provided with theoretical yields to use in doing the calculations for
emplacement. Not sure that the Soviets ever really had need for ADM's, being
as they were not really planning on fighting a major defensive effort that
would have required them (they could have quite easily nuked any target in
our own rear area with the myriad rocket, missile, tube arty, and freefall
nuclear weapons they had in their inventory, and included the use of in
their OPLAN's based upon post Cold War revelations).

Brooks

>
> Don H.
>
>

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Dav1936531) writes:
>>From: (BUFDRVR)
>
>
>>>There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of Soviet suitcase
> nukes having disappeared from their inventory.<<
>
>>What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet nuclear
> scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there were never
> any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat Ledbed (is that his
> name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely for scaring the crap out of
> western nations.
>>BUFDRVR
>
> We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only fair to assume
> that the Soviets had/have them too.

Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or
"Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition
Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like luggage.
> If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would be a good
> way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any liability for negligent
> management of their armaments should the new owners use one in a terror attack.

Which wouldn't work worth a damn if they were ever used. Over the
last 6 decades, we've become very, very, good at puling radioactive
particles out of the air, and figuring out their provenance. We can
identify the parts of teh bombs that that dust was, originally. We
can identify the origin of the pit by assaying the various levels of
impurities and such that were part of teh original metal. I wouldn't
be a damned bit surprised if we could tell what production batch the
bomb pit was from.

> Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.

Even the Russians don't do bombast quite like the Arabs.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Bernardz]

In article >,
says...
> If AQ had them for some time, they'd have used them by now. And would not
> have been wasting their time trying to foment "dirty bomb" plots. AFAIK, the
> smallest Soviet device would have been a 152mm warhead for artillery
> use--but that would undoubtedly have been a gun-type or linear implosion
> device, so it would be kind of long, not to mention heavy (more than 100
> pounds IIRC based upon US 155mm warheads)--and of a rather small yield.
> Color me (very) dubious on this whole "suitcase nukes are lying around
> everywhere" hysteria that periodically arises (this ain't the first time).
>

Definitely as the un maintained shelf life of a bomb is only a few years
and the longer that they sit on the bomb the more likely it is to be
found.

--
The freer the society, the more expensive the elections.

Observations of Bernard - No 55

[Jim Yanik]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> (Dav1936531) writes:
>>>From: (BUFDRVR)
>
>>
>>>>There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of Soviet
>>>>suitcase
>> nukes having disappeared from their inventory.<<
>>
>>>What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet
>>>nuclear
>> scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there
>> were never any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat
>> Ledbed (is that his name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely for
>> scaring the crap out of western nations.
>>>BUFDRVR
>>
>> We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only fair
>> to assume that the Soviets had/have them too.
>
> Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or
> "Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition
> Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like luggage.
>> If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would be
>> a good way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any liability
>> for negligent management of their armaments should the new owners use
>> one in a terror attack.
>
> Which wouldn't work worth a damn if they were ever used. Over the
> last 6 decades, we've become very, very, good at puling radioactive
> particles out of the air, and figuring out their provenance. We can
> identify the parts of teh bombs that that dust was, originally. We
> can identify the origin of the pit by assaying the various levels of
> impurities and such that were part of teh original metal. I wouldn't
> be a damned bit surprised if we could tell what production batch the
> bomb pit was from.
>
>> Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.
>
> Even the Russians don't do bombast quite like the Arabs.
>

If a nuclear bomb can be made to fit into a 155mm projectile,surely one
could fit into a suitcase? And since 155's are loaded into some artillery
by 'hand',they would not weigh more than what a person could lift.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[No SPAM]

> In article >, says...
>
>>If AQ had them for some time, they'd have used them by now. And would not
>>have been wasting their time trying to foment "dirty bomb" plots.

Not especially.

Even al qaeda has a sense of public relations.

Blowing up innocent civilians in Western countries is acceptable to most
of the people al qaeda are targeting as their "audience'; i.e.,
jihadists against the West.

However, a good argument could be made that use of a nuke against a
Western country would loose al qaeda the support of many currently
moderate Middle Eastern/Southwest Asia countries, and potentially hurt
their image with the typical man on (their) street.

It would also definitely change the opinion of many of the moderate
countries world-wide that are unhappy with the US and its recent
actions; it could swing world-wide opinion back similiar to that of just
after 9/11 when the US enjoyed nearly world-wide support.

In short, it could hurt their 'cause' far more than help it.

[Grantland]

No SPAM > wrote:

>> In article >, says...
>>
>>>If AQ had them for some time, they'd have used them by now. And would not
>>>have been wasting their time trying to foment "dirty bomb" plots.
>
>Not especially.
>
>Even al qaeda has a sense of public relations.
>
>Blowing up innocent civilians in Western countries is acceptable to most
>of the people al qaeda are targeting as their "audience'; i.e.,
>jihadists against the West.
>
>However, a good argument could be made that use of a nuke against a
>Western country would loose al qaeda the support of many currently
>moderate Middle Eastern/Southwest Asia countries, and potentially hurt
>their image with the typical man on (their) street.
>
>It would also definitely change the opinion of many of the moderate
>countries world-wide that are unhappy with the US and its recent
>actions; it could swing world-wide opinion back similiar to that of just
> after 9/11 when the US enjoyed nearly world-wide support.
>
>In short, it could hurt their 'cause' far more than help it.
>
Good insight! Just like 9/11. Vot?

Grantland

[Dav1936531]

>From: (Peter Stickney)
>
>
>Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or
>"Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition
>Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like luggage.

Doesn't really matter how tiny (or big) the things are. If they fit in an SUV
and can be left on the street and detonated like a regular car bomb, they will
suit Al-Qaeda's purpose

I think the term "suitcase nuke" just refers to an free floating small sized
demolition munition that can be used independent from some type of delivery
system such as an aircraft or artillery piece.
Dave

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> (Peter Stickney) wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > (Dav1936531) writes:
> >>>From: (BUFDRVR)
> >
> >>
> >>>>There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of Soviet
> >>>>suitcase
> >> nukes having disappeared from their inventory.<<
> >>
> >>>What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet
> >>>nuclear
> >> scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there
> >> were never any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat
> >> Ledbed (is that his name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely for
> >> scaring the crap out of western nations.
> >>>BUFDRVR
> >>
> >> We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only fair
> >> to assume that the Soviets had/have them too.
> >
> > Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or
> > "Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition
> > Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like luggage.
> >> If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would be
> >> a good way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any liability
> >> for negligent management of their armaments should the new owners use
> >> one in a terror attack.
> >
> > Which wouldn't work worth a damn if they were ever used. Over the
> > last 6 decades, we've become very, very, good at puling radioactive
> > particles out of the air, and figuring out their provenance. We can
> > identify the parts of teh bombs that that dust was, originally. We
> > can identify the origin of the pit by assaying the various levels of
> > impurities and such that were part of teh original metal. I wouldn't
> > be a damned bit surprised if we could tell what production batch the
> > bomb pit was from.
> >
> >> Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.
> >
> > Even the Russians don't do bombast quite like the Arabs.
> >
>
> If a nuclear bomb can be made to fit into a 155mm projectile,surely one
> could fit into a suitcase? And since 155's are loaded into some artillery
> by 'hand',they would not weigh more than what a person could lift.

You make it 155mm or so in diameter, you have to make it *long*. And they
usually have a crew loading 155mm guns; even the regular HE rounds are sort
of heavy for one man to handle getting into position.

Brooks

>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik-at-kua.net

[Kevin Brooks]

"Dav1936531" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (Peter Stickney)
> >
> >
> >Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or
> >"Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition
> >Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like luggage.
>
> Doesn't really matter how tiny (or big) the things are. If they fit in an
SUV
> and can be left on the street and detonated like a regular car bomb, they
will
> suit Al-Qaeda's purpose
>
> I think the term "suitcase nuke" just refers to an free floating small
sized
> demolition munition that can be used independent from some type of
delivery
> system such as an aircraft or artillery piece.

No, the term "suitcase nuke" became a common (and misunderstood) term when
Alexander Lebed came out with his since-discredited claims that the GRU/KGB
had built numerous very small devices that could supposedly fit into a
briefcase/suitase size satchel and of which some number were supposedly
unaccounted for. One congressional committee even saw an extraordinary
"mockup" of this fantastic "weapon". None of this has ever panned out as
being based in real fact.

Brooks

> Dave

[Al Dykes]

In article >,
Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>"Dav1936531" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: (Peter Stickney)
>> >
>> >
>> >Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or
>> >"Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition
>> >Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like luggage.
>>
>> Doesn't really matter how tiny (or big) the things are. If they fit in an
>SUV
>> and can be left on the street and detonated like a regular car bomb, they
>will
>> suit Al-Qaeda's purpose
>>
>> I think the term "suitcase nuke" just refers to an free floating small
>sized
>> demolition munition that can be used independent from some type of
>delivery
>> system such as an aircraft or artillery piece.
>
>No, the term "suitcase nuke" became a common (and misunderstood) term when
>Alexander Lebed came out with his since-discredited claims that the GRU/KGB
>had built numerous very small devices that could supposedly fit into a
>briefcase/suitase size satchel and of which some number were supposedly
>unaccounted for. One congressional committee even saw an extraordinary
>"mockup" of this fantastic "weapon". None of this has ever panned out as
>being based in real fact.
>

ISTR some 60's promotional literature from Picatinny Arsenal showing a
jeep-mounted recoilless rifle with a crew of two. It was pointed to
the horizon and there was a mushroom cloud. I think they talked about
yields down to 1Kt. It reminds me of the proverbial nulcear handgrenade.

What's the range of a 105 RR ?

Of course it was an artist's sketch.

The same artists are now working on sketches of nuc bunker busters.
Another bad idea IMHO.






--
Al Dykes
-----------

[Dav1936531]

>From: (Al Dykes)
>Date: 3/22/04 2:01 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ISTR some 60's promotional literature from Picatinny Arsenal showing a
jeep-mounted recoilless rifle with a crew of two. It was pointed to the horizon
and there was a mushroom cloud. I think they talked about yields down to 1Kt.
It reminds me of the proverbial nulcear handgrenade.
>
>What's the range of a 105 RR ?
>Of course it was an artist's sketch.
>
>The same artists are now working on sketches of nuc bunker busters.
>Another bad idea IMHO.
>--
>Al Dykes

The recoiless rifle set up was called the "davey crockett" and fired an actual
nuclear shell based on the W-54(? IIRC) warhead which weighed in at about 62
pounds or so. Do a google on it.
Dave

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 16:16:01 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Dav1936531" > wrote in message
...
>> Truth or terrorist bluff?
>> Dave
>>
>> SYDNEY, Australia (March 21) - Osama bin Laden's terror network claims to
>have
>> bought ready-made nuclear weapons on the black market in central Asia, the
>> biographer of al-Qaida's No. 2 leader was quoted as telling an Australian
>> television station.
>
>If #2 had suitcase nukes he would have used one, instead of being killed
>"attempting to escape".
>
I am always amazed by the number of people that believe in "suitcase"
nukes. Can a physics package be small? Sure. Can one tote it around
in a suitcase? NO!!!

Al Minyard

[David Windhorst]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>snip
>
>
>
>
>
>No, the term "suitcase nuke" became a common (and misunderstood) term when
>Alexander Lebed came out with his since-discredited claims that the GRU/KGB
>had built numerous very small devices that could supposedly fit into a
>briefcase/suitase size satchel and of which some number were supposedly
>unaccounted for. One congressional committee even saw an extraordinary
>"mockup" of this fantastic "weapon". None of this has ever panned out as
>being based in real fact.
>
>Brooks
>
Given the old Soviet propensity of duplicating, or attempting to
duplicate, so many Western weapons systems, if only on the principle
that if we had it they'd better have it too because even if they
couldn't immediately see the utility of the system in question, no need
to take chances (i.e., they couldn't afford to foster a "suitcase gap")
-- how likely is it that they _wouldn't_ have developed such a device?

David Windhorst

>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> >
> >"Dav1936531" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: (Peter Stickney)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or
> >> >"Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition
> >> >Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like luggage.
> >>
> >> Doesn't really matter how tiny (or big) the things are. If they fit in
an
> >SUV
> >> and can be left on the street and detonated like a regular car bomb,
they
> >will
> >> suit Al-Qaeda's purpose
> >>
> >> I think the term "suitcase nuke" just refers to an free floating small
> >sized
> >> demolition munition that can be used independent from some type of
> >delivery
> >> system such as an aircraft or artillery piece.
> >
> >No, the term "suitcase nuke" became a common (and misunderstood) term
when
> >Alexander Lebed came out with his since-discredited claims that the
GRU/KGB
> >had built numerous very small devices that could supposedly fit into a
> >briefcase/suitase size satchel and of which some number were supposedly
> >unaccounted for. One congressional committee even saw an extraordinary
> >"mockup" of this fantastic "weapon". None of this has ever panned out as
> >being based in real fact.
> >
>
> ISTR some 60's promotional literature from Picatinny Arsenal showing a
> jeep-mounted recoilless rifle with a crew of two. It was pointed to
> the horizon and there was a mushroom cloud. I think they talked about
> yields down to 1Kt. It reminds me of the proverbial nulcear
handgrenade.
>
> What's the range of a 105 RR ?
>
> Of course it was an artist's sketch.
>
> The same artists are now working on sketches of nuc bunker busters.
> Another bad idea IMHO.

You are referring to the Davey Crockett, which was indeed fielded. It used
the W-54 warhead, the smallest spherical implosion device ever fielded by
the US, mounted on what was basically a "spigot" which was inserted into the
tube, with the warhead being that bulbous bomb-like contraption sticking out
of the end. The same warhead was the basis for the SADM.

Brooks

>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Al Dykes
> -----------
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"David Windhorst" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> >snip
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >No, the term "suitcase nuke" became a common (and misunderstood) term
when
> >Alexander Lebed came out with his since-discredited claims that the
GRU/KGB
> >had built numerous very small devices that could supposedly fit into a
> >briefcase/suitase size satchel and of which some number were supposedly
> >unaccounted for. One congressional committee even saw an extraordinary
> >"mockup" of this fantastic "weapon". None of this has ever panned out as
> >being based in real fact.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> Given the old Soviet propensity of duplicating, or attempting to
> duplicate, so many Western weapons systems, if only on the principle
> that if we had it they'd better have it too because even if they
> couldn't immediately see the utility of the system in question, no need
> to take chances (i.e., they couldn't afford to foster a "suitcase gap")
> -- how likely is it that they _wouldn't_ have developed such a device?

Being as we have seen no cridible evidence that they did (and we have seen
photos, accounts, etc., of their nuclear weapons developments since the fall
of the Soviet Union), and knowing that they did indeed have some problem
providing the materiel for all of the warheads they *did* want, the burden
of proof is on those who are claiming they did have these things. So far,
Lebed and his followers have been long on talk, short on proof.

Brooks

>
> David Windhorst
>
> >
> >
>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:

> I am always amazed by the number of people that believe in "suitcase"
> nukes. Can a physics package be small? Sure. Can one tote it around
> in a suitcase? NO!!!

The "physics package" of a Minuteman III/Mk-12 is about 250 pounds once
you take it out of the reentry vehicle, and has a yield of 170 kilotons
or so.

It's small enough to fit into one of my suitcases, and weighs less than
some things I've shipped airfreight during road shows. For example, it
weighs about half that of a professional video projector in a road case,
and is about three times the bulk.

The W-44 ASW warhead was about 170 pounds, and was certainly small
enough to fit into a suitcase or trunk (less than 1 foot diameter), with
a yield of 10 kilotons or so.

The W-25 warhead for the Genie AAM was about 220 pounds, and gave a
yield of about 1.7 kilotons.

Any of these could be considered a "suitcase" nuke, but not a
"briefcase" one.

But you also have to consider that the actual "pit" is very small
(grapefruit or thermos sized, according to the design), with explosives
wrapped around it (not that much, actually) and triggered with some
high-precision electronics. The problem in the past was that the
electronics and power supply were a major weight addition to the weapon,
and that we've had a half-century of electronics advance to make that
part pretty small.

The whole apparatus would have to be no larger than a couple of
footballs (or a basketball plus a laptop computer), and less than 50
pounds, for a yield of a kiloton or so.

And a thousand tons of explosives, plus radiation effects? Pretty hard
to ignore.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:09:44 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>> I am always amazed by the number of people that believe in "suitcase"
>> nukes. Can a physics package be small? Sure. Can one tote it around
>> in a suitcase? NO!!!
>
>The "physics package" of a Minuteman III/Mk-12 is about 250 pounds once
>you take it out of the reentry vehicle, and has a yield of 170 kilotons
>or so.
>
>It's small enough to fit into one of my suitcases, and weighs less than
>some things I've shipped airfreight during road shows. For example, it
>weighs about half that of a professional video projector in a road case,
>and is about three times the bulk.
>
>The W-44 ASW warhead was about 170 pounds, and was certainly small
>enough to fit into a suitcase or trunk (less than 1 foot diameter), with
>a yield of 10 kilotons or so.
>
>The W-25 warhead for the Genie AAM was about 220 pounds, and gave a
>yield of about 1.7 kilotons.
>
>Any of these could be considered a "suitcase" nuke, but not a
>"briefcase" one.
>
>But you also have to consider that the actual "pit" is very small
>(grapefruit or thermos sized, according to the design), with explosives
>wrapped around it (not that much, actually) and triggered with some
>high-precision electronics. The problem in the past was that the
>electronics and power supply were a major weight addition to the weapon,
>and that we've had a half-century of electronics advance to make that
>part pretty small.
>
>The whole apparatus would have to be no larger than a couple of
>footballs (or a basketball plus a laptop computer), and less than 50
>pounds, for a yield of a kiloton or so.
>
>And a thousand tons of explosives, plus radiation effects? Pretty hard
>to ignore.

It is a "definitional" thing :-) I am aware of the devices that you mention. I also
know that none of them are the sort of thing you would casually walk into a
hotel with. Nor would sending the device "air freight" be such a bright idea.

Al Minyard

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
> > I am always amazed by the number of people that believe in "suitcase"
> > nukes. Can a physics package be small? Sure. Can one tote it around
> > in a suitcase? NO!!!
>
> The "physics package" of a Minuteman III/Mk-12 is about 250 pounds once
> you take it out of the reentry vehicle, and has a yield of 170 kilotons
> or so.

Only if you disregard the HE required to get it to go boom; the W-79 was a
fairly good sized warhed all-up, with a diameter of around 21 inches and a
length of a bit over five feet. And I doubt any 250 pound "physics package"
has a yield of 170 Kt. If that were the case, the freefall bombs like the
the B-61, which did not need all of the protection an RV has to have, would
have weighed in at less than the 700 pounds or so that they do.

>
> It's small enough to fit into one of my suitcases, and weighs less than
> some things I've shipped airfreight during road shows. For example, it
> weighs about half that of a professional video projector in a road case,
> and is about three times the bulk.
>
> The W-44 ASW warhead was about 170 pounds, and was certainly small
> enough to fit into a suitcase or trunk (less than 1 foot diameter), with
> a yield of 10 kilotons or so.

No, the W-44 was about 14 inches in diameter, and over 25 inches long. See:
http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

>
> The W-25 warhead for the Genie AAM was about 220 pounds, and gave a
> yield of about 1.7 kilotons.
>
> Any of these could be considered a "suitcase" nuke, but not a
> "briefcase" one.

The smallest warhead we ever fielded was the W-54, at around sixty or so
pounds and a diameter of around 12 inches. When configured into your
"suitcase" (hate that term) mode as SADM, the weight went up a bit, to a bit
over 100 pounds.

>
> But you also have to consider that the actual "pit" is very small
> (grapefruit or thermos sized, according to the design), with explosives
> wrapped around it (not that much, actually) and triggered with some
> high-precision electronics. The problem in the past was that the
> electronics and power supply were a major weight addition to the weapon,
> and that we've had a half-century of electronics advance to make that
> part pretty small.

But in fact the miniturization has not advanced all that much since the days
of the earlier devices like the W-54. You are stuck with a 12 plus inch
dimension any way you go aout it for a spherical device; you can go lower
with linear implosion, but then your length increases. The dimensions and
weight of the 155mm rounds did not dramatically change (W-48 from 1963 at
6.5 inches by 33 inches and 118 pounds versus the W-82 cancelled in 1990, at
34 inches and 95 pounds) over the decades.

>
> The whole apparatus would have to be no larger than a couple of
> footballs (or a basketball plus a laptop computer), and less than 50
> pounds, for a yield of a kiloton or so.

Less than 50 pounds? I doubt that. W-54 remains king of lilliputs as of now,
and it was 59 pounds, with a maximum yield of around a quarter of a kiloton.

Brooks

>
> And a thousand tons of explosives, plus radiation effects? Pretty hard
> to ignore.
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John R Weiss]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote...
>
> It is a "definitional" thing :-) I am aware of the devices that you mention. I
also
> know that none of them are the sort of thing you would casually walk into a
> hotel with. Nor would sending the device "air freight" be such a bright idea.

Well...

Check out the W48: http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/155mm.htm or
http://www.twilight2000.net/t2k/nuclear.shtml

I have a rolling "computer briefcase" that I'm almost positive would accommodate
the W48 device, even if not the entire M454 shell...

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:09:44 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >Any of these could be considered a "suitcase" nuke, but not a
> >"briefcase" one.
>
> It is a "definitional" thing :-) I am aware of the devices that you
> mention. I also know that none of them are the sort of thing you
> would casually walk into a hotel with.

Actually, it's *exactly* the sort of thing I've walked into hotels with.
Much smaller and lighter, actually. Put it in a road case with wheels,
and it'll fit quite nicely on an elevator ("it's medical equipment").
I've brought multi-hundred-pound radiation therapy machines into hotel
rooms for shows with no comment.

> Nor would sending the device "air freight" be such a bright idea.

Why not? I've drop-shipped thousand-pound boxes of stuff with nobody
blinking an eye. Hell, we had them fly a 1200 pound road case full of
steel plates from Orlando to Las Vegas. Not all airports have explosive
detectors or x-ray machines for airfreight. And if you're really
worried about that part, ship it by bus or train.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Jeb Hoge]

(Al Dykes) wrote in message >...

> ISTR some 60's promotional literature from Picatinny Arsenal showing a
> jeep-mounted recoilless rifle with a crew of two. It was pointed to
> the horizon and there was a mushroom cloud. I think they talked about
> yields down to 1Kt. It reminds me of the proverbial nulcear handgrenade.
>
> What's the range of a 105 RR ?

IIRC, the range was less than the danger zone radius. :) Bad idea.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > In article >,
> > Alan Minyard > wrote:
> >
> > > I am always amazed by the number of people that believe in "suitcase"
> > > nukes. Can a physics package be small? Sure. Can one tote it around
> > > in a suitcase? NO!!!
> >
> > The "physics package" of a Minuteman III/Mk-12 is about 250 pounds once
> > you take it out of the reentry vehicle, and has a yield of 170 kilotons
> > or so.
>
> Only if you disregard the HE required to get it to go boom;

Nope. The 250 pounds *is* with explosives included. You don't need a
lot more mass to increase a small nuke to make a much bigger bang. If
you double the mass of the fissionables, you get a *lot* more than twice
the yield, and don't need much more explosives, either. Efficiency for
very small weapons is pretty pathetic, actually.

> the W-79 was a fairly good sized warhed all-up, with a diameter of
> around 21 inches and a length of a bit over five feet.

You mean W-78, right? I was referring to the Mk-12 W-68 warhead, not
the -12A. The W-68 "package" was only about 20 inches in diameter and
about 40 inches long. Slightly bigger in volume than a golf club bag.

> And I doubt any 250 pound "physics package"
> has a yield of 170 Kt.

Well, you'd be wrong, according to your own source:

<http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html>

> If that were the case, the freefall bombs like the
> the B-61, which did not need all of the protection an RV has to have, would
> have weighed in at less than the 700 pounds or so that they do.

Not so much. The airframe and fuzing mechanisms for any airdropped bomb
are, by themselves, moderately heavy. You don't design that sort of
thing for lightness, you design it for reliability. You don't want a
bird strike to wipe out your multimillion dollar nuke. The B-61
airframes I've seen were *definitely* not lightweight constructions.

> > The W-44 ASW warhead was about 170 pounds, and was certainly small
> > enough to fit into a suitcase or trunk (less than 1 foot diameter), with
> > a yield of 10 kilotons or so.
>
> No, the W-44 was about 14 inches in diameter, and over 25 inches long. See:
> http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

The W-44, *inside its ASW casing*, was about that big. It takes a good
bit of metal to handle slamming into the water at a good clip.

You should note, that unless otherwise mentioned, the specs for the
weapons on that page are inside their casings, ready to fire or drop.

> > The W-25 warhead for the Genie AAM was about 220 pounds, and gave a
> > yield of about 1.7 kilotons.
> >
> > Any of these could be considered a "suitcase" nuke, but not a
> > "briefcase" one.
>
> The smallest warhead we ever fielded was the W-54, at around sixty or so
> pounds and a diameter of around 12 inches. When configured into your
> "suitcase" (hate that term) mode as SADM, the weight went up a bit, to a bit
> over 100 pounds.

The SADM had a much tougher casing and was designed to be
tamper-resistant. Kicked the weight up a *lot*.

The W-54 was about 51 pounds all by itself, and could easily fit into a
large suitcase or small trunk.

> But in fact the miniturization has not advanced all that much since the days
> of the earlier devices like the W-54. You are stuck with a 12 plus inch
> dimension any way you go aout it for a spherical device; you can go lower
> with linear implosion, but then your length increases.

Which means that, instead of a basketball and a laptop, you have two
footballs and a laptop.

Not a briefcase, but certainly man-portable.

> The dimensions and weight of the 155mm rounds did not dramatically
> change (W-48 from 1963 at 6.5 inches by 33 inches and 118 pounds
> versus the W-82 cancelled in 1990, at 34 inches and 95 pounds) over
> the decades.

Take the mechanism out of the steel artillery round, and there you go.
About four inches in diameter, and a couple of feet long. Remember that
the W-82 weight and size were ready to fire, inside a heavy steel shell.

> > The whole apparatus would have to be no larger than a couple of
> > footballs (or a basketball plus a laptop computer), and less than 50
> > pounds, for a yield of a kiloton or so.
>
> Less than 50 pounds? I doubt that. W-54 remains king of lilliputs as of now,
> and it was 59 pounds, with a maximum yield of around a quarter of a kiloton.

....and a lot of that weight was 1960s-era electronics, with a mechanical
PAL lock.

Knock ten pounds off least for a modern design.

And, in an operational situation, if the gadget weighed as much as 200
pounds, you'd put it on wheels and roll it around. Look at any transit
location and notice the large number of people with wheeled cases.

--
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:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > > In article >,
> > > Alan Minyard > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am always amazed by the number of people that believe in
"suitcase"
> > > > nukes. Can a physics package be small? Sure. Can one tote it around
> > > > in a suitcase? NO!!!
> > >
> > > The "physics package" of a Minuteman III/Mk-12 is about 250 pounds
once
> > > you take it out of the reentry vehicle, and has a yield of 170
kilotons
> > > or so.
> >
> > Only if you disregard the HE required to get it to go boom;
>
> Nope. The 250 pounds *is* with explosives included. You don't need a
> lot more mass to increase a small nuke to make a much bigger bang. If
> you double the mass of the fissionables, you get a *lot* more than twice
> the yield, and don't need much more explosives, either. Efficiency for
> very small weapons is pretty pathetic, actually.

It appears you are mixing your weapons up a bit...

>
> > the W-79 was a fairly good sized warhed all-up, with a diameter of
> > around 21 inches and a length of a bit over five feet.
>
> You mean W-78, right? I was referring to the Mk-12 W-68 warhead, not
> the -12A. The W-68 "package" was only about 20 inches in diameter and
> about 40 inches long. Slightly bigger in volume than a golf club bag.

Mea culpa--I wrote 79 instead of 78. But you need to check that data; the
W-78 *was* the weapon included in the Mk 12 RV. The W-68 was a much smaller
device (40-50 Kt yield) and was used on Poseidon SLBM, not on the Minuteman.
The dimensions I gave for the W-78 are apparently correct.

>
> > And I doubt any 250 pound "physics package"
> > has a yield of 170 Kt.
>
> Well, you'd be wrong, according to your own source:
>
> <http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html>

Uhmmm...he indicates the W-78 had a yield in the 300 plus Kt range. Your
"much smaller" W-68 had only about a third of the yield you are ascribing to
it. The W-69, as mounted on the SRAM, did have a 170 Kt tield, at about 275
pounds, so I will acknowledge that the 250 pound class weapon is apparently
indeed capable of much higher yeilds than I thought [possible--but your
examples did not do much to get me to that conclusion. :-)

>
> > If that were the case, the freefall bombs like the
> > the B-61, which did not need all of the protection an RV has to have,
would
> > have weighed in at less than the 700 pounds or so that they do.
>
> Not so much. The airframe and fuzing mechanisms for any airdropped bomb
> are, by themselves, moderately heavy. You don't design that sort of
> thing for lightness, you design it for reliability. You don't want a
> bird strike to wipe out your multimillion dollar nuke. The B-61
> airframes I've seen were *definitely* not lightweight constructions.

Likewise, you don't create a "suitcase bomb" that gets turned into at best a
fizle yield source when some bellboy bangs it into the luggage cart. SADM
weighed in at over 100 pounds--I doubt anyone has done any better in that
regard since then.

>
> > > The W-44 ASW warhead was about 170 pounds, and was certainly small
> > > enough to fit into a suitcase or trunk (less than 1 foot diameter),
with
> > > a yield of 10 kilotons or so.
> >
> > No, the W-44 was about 14 inches in diameter, and over 25 inches long.
See:
> > http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html
>
> The W-44, *inside its ASW casing*, was about that big. It takes a good
> bit of metal to handle slamming into the water at a good clip.
>
> You should note, that unless otherwise mentioned, the specs for the
> weapons on that page are inside their casings, ready to fire or drop.
>
> > > The W-25 warhead for the Genie AAM was about 220 pounds, and gave a
> > > yield of about 1.7 kilotons.
> > >
> > > Any of these could be considered a "suitcase" nuke, but not a
> > > "briefcase" one.
> >
> > The smallest warhead we ever fielded was the W-54, at around sixty or so
> > pounds and a diameter of around 12 inches. When configured into your
> > "suitcase" (hate that term) mode as SADM, the weight went up a bit, to a
bit
> > over 100 pounds.
>
> The SADM had a much tougher casing and was designed to be
> tamper-resistant. Kicked the weight up a *lot*.

Pardon me for saying so, but have you ever been exposed to the SADM in any
fashion? Suffice it to say that an exposed physics package is not realistic
in this thread--the supposition is that AQ allegedly got its hands on a
product of some ex-Soviet device, and it will be a cased device, one that to
the best of my knowledge will include a PAL, too (say what you will about
the Soviets, but they reportedly took their nuclear weapons control as
seriously as we did). SADM added about a hundred pounds to the warhead
weight for a reason.

>
> The W-54 was about 51 pounds all by itself, and could easily fit into a
> large suitcase or small trunk.

Debatable as to the actual weight; many sources indicate that the actual
weight was 59 pounds. The truth of the matter is that we don't *know* the
exact weight (they did not even tell us that in the ADM short course).

>
> > But in fact the miniturization has not advanced all that much since the
days
> > of the earlier devices like the W-54. You are stuck with a 12 plus inch
> > dimension any way you go aout it for a spherical device; you can go
lower
> > with linear implosion, but then your length increases.
>
> Which means that, instead of a basketball and a laptop, you have two
> footballs and a laptop.

Big footballs you have there.

>
> Not a briefcase, but certainly man-portable.
>
> > The dimensions and weight of the 155mm rounds did not dramatically
> > change (W-48 from 1963 at 6.5 inches by 33 inches and 118 pounds
> > versus the W-82 cancelled in 1990, at 34 inches and 95 pounds) over
> > the decades.
>
> Take the mechanism out of the steel artillery round, and there you go.
> About four inches in diameter, and a couple of feet long. Remember that
> the W-82 weight and size were ready to fire, inside a heavy steel shell.

I don't know WHAT that shell was made out of, or how thick it was---for all
I know they used a more exotic material, like titanium. Nor do we know the
actual cross sectional dimensions of the warhead itself. We do know that a
particularly thick outerwall was not *required*, and that the actual physics
package diameter could have been as high as maybe six inches, with quarter
inch thick shell walls (the need for extreme thickness is not really
evident). Your device still needs its batteries, its HE component, its
high-speed detonators and associated fuzing, its initial neutron
booster--all of the components minus the actual screw in fuze and the
external casing. The apparent limit to the package itself, minus the
unnecessary accoutrements, is going to be in the 50-60 pound range. If you
have found a smaller device, by weight, that has actually been proven to
work (i.e., either tested or fielded), please explain what it is.

>
> > > The whole apparatus would have to be no larger than a couple of
> > > footballs (or a basketball plus a laptop computer), and less than 50
> > > pounds, for a yield of a kiloton or so.
> >
> > Less than 50 pounds? I doubt that. W-54 remains king of lilliputs as of
now,
> > and it was 59 pounds, with a maximum yield of around a quarter of a
kiloton.
>
> ...and a lot of that weight was 1960s-era electronics, with a mechanical
> PAL lock.
>
> Knock ten pounds off least for a modern design.

Not sure about that. Using the W-48 to W-82 as a ratio, we have devices
about 80% of the previous weight. How much of that weight savings is in a
new, higher-strength, lighter weight casing design? And, you have to
remember that the devices in question are supposedly OLD Soviet designs, so
your whole they-could-be-much-smaller-because-they-are-newer argument kind
of goes right out the window; if anything, the Soviet weapons were MORE
bulky and weighed more than our own. AQ does not have a weapons lab at its
disposal churning out state-of-the-art nuclear weapons; even the Pakis and
Indians have undoubtedly not gotten down to the size capabilities we
developed (I don't believe either has developed arty capable packages as of
yet).

This whole thing sounds like more Lebed-like musings to me.

Brooks

>
> And, in an operational situation, if the gadget weighed as much as 200
> pounds, you'd put it on wheels and roll it around. Look at any transit
> location and notice the large number of people with wheeled cases.
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Leadfoot]

> If AQ had them for some time, they'd have used them by now. And would not
> have been wasting their time trying to foment "dirty bomb" plots. AFAIK,
the
> smallest Soviet device would have been a 152mm warhead for artillery
> use--but that would undoubtedly have been a gun-type or linear implosion
> device, so it would be kind of long, not to mention heavy (more than 100
> pounds IIRC based upon US 155mm warheads)--and of a rather small yield.
> Color me (very) dubious on this whole "suitcase nukes are lying around
> everywhere" hysteria that periodically arises (this ain't the first time).

An ideal target would be a Presidential Political convention. Decapitation
and the destruction of a substantial part of NYC would be a possible result
of exploding a SADM at the republican convention. But you have to consider
the democratic convention in Boston as a target since Bush is such an
effective recruiter for AQ

>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.
> > Dave
>
>

[Jim Yanik]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> (Peter Stickney) wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > (Dav1936531) writes:
>> >>>From: (BUFDRVR)
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>>There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of
>> >>>>Soviet suitcase
>> >> nukes having disappeared from their inventory.<<
>> >>
>> >>>What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet
>> >>>nuclear
>> >> scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there
>> >> were never any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat
>> >> Ledbed (is that his name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely
>> >> for scaring the crap out of western nations.
>> >>>BUFDRVR
>> >>
>> >> We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only
>> >> fair to assume that the Soviets had/have them too.
>> >
>> > Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or
>> > "Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition
>> > Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like
>> > luggage.
>> >> If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would
>> >> be a good way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any
>> >> liability for negligent management of their armaments should the
>> >> new owners use one in a terror attack.
>> >
>> > Which wouldn't work worth a damn if they were ever used. Over the
>> > last 6 decades, we've become very, very, good at puling radioactive
>> > particles out of the air, and figuring out their provenance. We
>> > can identify the parts of teh bombs that that dust was, originally.
>> > We can identify the origin of the pit by assaying the various
>> > levels of impurities and such that were part of teh original metal.
>> > I wouldn't be a damned bit surprised if we could tell what
>> > production batch the bomb pit was from.
>> >
>> >> Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.
>> >
>> > Even the Russians don't do bombast quite like the Arabs.
>> >
>>
>> If a nuclear bomb can be made to fit into a 155mm projectile,surely
>> one could fit into a suitcase? And since 155's are loaded into some
>> artillery by 'hand',they would not weigh more than what a person
>> could lift.
>
> You make it 155mm or so in diameter, you have to make it *long*. And
> they usually have a crew loading 155mm guns; even the regular HE
> rounds are sort of heavy for one man to handle getting into position.
>
> Brooks
>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Yanik
>> jyanik-at-kua.net
>
>
>

How long is a 155mm projectile?
(not the entire cartridge,if that's whats used)
I doubt the nuclear ones are any longer than a standard 155mm projectile.
(how long is one of those?)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:



> The dimensions and weight of the 155mm rounds did not dramatically
> change (W-48 from 1963 at 6.5 inches by 33 inches and 118 pounds
> versus the W-82 cancelled in 1990, at 34 inches and 95 pounds) over
> the decades.
>

155mm is 6.10 inches,so how could a W-48 be -larger- in diameter(6.5")?
and that includes the bomb casing.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Jim Yanik > wrote:

> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>
> > The dimensions and weight of the 155mm rounds did not dramatically
> > change (W-48 from 1963 at 6.5 inches by 33 inches and 118 pounds
> > versus the W-82 cancelled in 1990, at 34 inches and 95 pounds) over
> > the decades.
> >
>
> 155mm is 6.10 inches,so how could a W-48 be -larger- in diameter(6.5")?
> and that includes the bomb casing.



One factor overlooked in all this discussion is that nuclear weapons, in
addition to generating lots of detectable radiation, get HOT! In FBM
tests we installed heaters to simulate the heat generated by a snoutful
of physics packages.

A good terrorist would have to wrap the whole thing in a lead vessel,
adding a lot of weight and then have to try to keep it cool. I know that
DC has radiation detectors spread all over the city; I assume that NYC
and Boston would, also,

It ain't as simple as it seems!

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >> (Peter Stickney) wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > (Dav1936531) writes:
> >> >>>From: (BUFDRVR)
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>>>There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of
> >> >>>>Soviet suitcase
> >> >> nukes having disappeared from their inventory.<<
> >> >>
> >> >>>What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet
> >> >>>nuclear
> >> >> scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there
> >> >> were never any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat
> >> >> Ledbed (is that his name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely
> >> >> for scaring the crap out of western nations.
> >> >>>BUFDRVR
> >> >>
> >> >> We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only
> >> >> fair to assume that the Soviets had/have them too.
> >> >
> >> > Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or
> >> > "Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition
> >> > Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like
> >> > luggage.
> >> >> If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would
> >> >> be a good way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any
> >> >> liability for negligent management of their armaments should the
> >> >> new owners use one in a terror attack.
> >> >
> >> > Which wouldn't work worth a damn if they were ever used. Over the
> >> > last 6 decades, we've become very, very, good at puling radioactive
> >> > particles out of the air, and figuring out their provenance. We
> >> > can identify the parts of teh bombs that that dust was, originally.
> >> > We can identify the origin of the pit by assaying the various
> >> > levels of impurities and such that were part of teh original metal.
> >> > I wouldn't be a damned bit surprised if we could tell what
> >> > production batch the bomb pit was from.
> >> >
> >> >> Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.
> >> >
> >> > Even the Russians don't do bombast quite like the Arabs.
> >> >
> >>
> >> If a nuclear bomb can be made to fit into a 155mm projectile,surely
> >> one could fit into a suitcase? And since 155's are loaded into some
> >> artillery by 'hand',they would not weigh more than what a person
> >> could lift.
> >
> > You make it 155mm or so in diameter, you have to make it *long*. And
> > they usually have a crew loading 155mm guns; even the regular HE
> > rounds are sort of heavy for one man to handle getting into position.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jim Yanik
> >> jyanik-at-kua.net
> >
> >
> >
>
> How long is a 155mm projectile?
> (not the entire cartridge,if that's whats used)
> I doubt the nuclear ones are any longer than a standard 155mm projectile.
> (how long is one of those?)

The nuclear 155mm projectiles we fielded (they have all since been retired)
were around 41 inches long, IIRC (which is a bit longer than a standard HE
projectile, again IIRC--and not as long as the Copperhead CLGP). And since
you are talking about a 155mm system, that is the projectile only--those
kind of guns use seperate propellent charges. Weight of the nuclear round
was given as 118 pounds.

Brooks

>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik-at-kua.net

[Kevin Brooks]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > >
> > > "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > >> (Peter Stickney) wrote in
> > >> :
> > >>
> > >> > In article >,
> > >> > (Dav1936531) writes:
> > >> >>>From: (BUFDRVR)
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>>There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of
> > >> >>>>Soviet suitcase
> > >> >> nukes having disappeared from their inventory.<<
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet
> > >> >>>nuclear
> > >> >> scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there
> > >> >> were never any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat
> > >> >> Ledbed (is that his name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely
> > >> >> for scaring the crap out of western nations.
> > >> >>>BUFDRVR
> > >> >>
> > >> >> We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only
> > >> >> fair to assume that the Soviets had/have them too.
> > >> >
> > >> > Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or
> > >> > "Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition
> > >> > Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like
> > >> > luggage.
> > >> >> If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would
> > >> >> be a good way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any
> > >> >> liability for negligent management of their armaments should the
> > >> >> new owners use one in a terror attack.
> > >> >
> > >> > Which wouldn't work worth a damn if they were ever used. Over the
> > >> > last 6 decades, we've become very, very, good at puling radioactive
> > >> > particles out of the air, and figuring out their provenance. We
> > >> > can identify the parts of teh bombs that that dust was, originally.
> > >> > We can identify the origin of the pit by assaying the various
> > >> > levels of impurities and such that were part of teh original metal.
> > >> > I wouldn't be a damned bit surprised if we could tell what
> > >> > production batch the bomb pit was from.
> > >> >
> > >> >> Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.
> > >> >
> > >> > Even the Russians don't do bombast quite like the Arabs.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> If a nuclear bomb can be made to fit into a 155mm projectile,surely
> > >> one could fit into a suitcase? And since 155's are loaded into some
> > >> artillery by 'hand',they would not weigh more than what a person
> > >> could lift.
> > >
> > > You make it 155mm or so in diameter, you have to make it *long*. And
> > > they usually have a crew loading 155mm guns; even the regular HE
> > > rounds are sort of heavy for one man to handle getting into position.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Jim Yanik
> > >> jyanik-at-kua.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > How long is a 155mm projectile?
> > (not the entire cartridge,if that's whats used)
> > I doubt the nuclear ones are any longer than a standard 155mm
projectile.
> > (how long is one of those?)
>
> The nuclear 155mm projectiles we fielded (they have all since been
retired)
> were around 41 inches long, IIRC (which is a bit longer than a standard HE
> projectile, again IIRC--and not as long as the Copperhead CLGP). And since
> you are talking about a 155mm system, that is the projectile only--those
> kind of guns use seperate propellent charges. Weight of the nuclear round
> was given as 118 pounds.

My bad. Length was actually 33 inches, weight between 118 and 128 pounds.

Brooks

>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > --
> > Jim Yanik
> > jyanik-at-kua.net
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>
> > The dimensions and weight of the 155mm rounds did not dramatically
> > change (W-48 from 1963 at 6.5 inches by 33 inches and 118 pounds
> > versus the W-82 cancelled in 1990, at 34 inches and 95 pounds) over
> > the decades.
> >
>
> 155mm is 6.10 inches,so how could a W-48 be -larger- in diameter(6.5")?
> and that includes the bomb casing.

Gee, I am so sorry. 6.5 inches. Happy now?

Brooks

>
>
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik-at-kua.net

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > You mean W-78, right? I was referring to the Mk-12 W-68 warhead, not
> > the -12A. The W-68 "package" was only about 20 inches in diameter and
> > about 40 inches long. Slightly bigger in volume than a golf club bag.
>
> Mea culpa--I wrote 79 instead of 78. But you need to check that data; the
> W-78 *was* the weapon included in the Mk 12 RV. The W-68 was a much smaller
> device (40-50 Kt yield) and was used on Poseidon SLBM, not on the Minuteman.
> The dimensions I gave for the W-78 are apparently correct.

Shoot. You messed up one number, so did I. The *W-62* was what I was
using for weights.

Warhead/RV: 700-800 lb;
Warhead: 253 lb
170 Kt

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

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

> > The SADM had a much tougher casing and was designed to be
> > tamper-resistant. Kicked the weight up a *lot*.
>
> Pardon me for saying so, but have you ever been exposed to the SADM in any
> fashion?

Yep. At least, I've seen the casing and such. It's not a backpack and
an alarm clock. Think military-designed and hard to break.

> Suffice it to say that an exposed physics package is not realistic
> in this thread--the supposition is that AQ allegedly got its hands on a
> product of some ex-Soviet device, and it will be a cased device, one that to
> the best of my knowledge will include a PAL, too (say what you will about
> the Soviets, but they reportedly took their nuclear weapons control as
> seriously as we did). SADM added about a hundred pounds to the warhead
> weight for a reason.

Yeah, they wanted a bomb they could stash under a bridge, set a timer,
and not have to worry about until it went off. They could also
(supposedly) leave it under water.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > Take the mechanism out of the steel artillery round, and there you go.
> > About four inches in diameter, and a couple of feet long. Remember that
> > the W-82 weight and size were ready to fire, inside a heavy steel shell.
>
> I don't know WHAT that shell was made out of, or how thick it was---for all
> I know they used a more exotic material, like titanium. Nor do we know the
> actual cross sectional dimensions of the warhead itself. We do know that a
> particularly thick outerwall was not *required*, and that the actual physics
> package diameter could have been as high as maybe six inches, with quarter
> inch thick shell walls (the need for extreme thickness is not really
> evident).

They were firing it out of a *cannon*. You don't do that with very thin
shell walls, and it also suggests a large amount of ruggedization for
the warhead itself (something not needed for a hand-carried bomb).

At *worst*, you have a package that will easily fit in a golf bag. How
many ways can you think of to sneak something that size into the US?

> Your device still needs its batteries, its HE component, its
> high-speed detonators and associated fuzing, its initial neutron
> booster--all of the components minus the actual screw in fuze and the
> external casing. The apparent limit to the package itself, minus the
> unnecessary accoutrements, is going to be in the 50-60 pound range. If you
> have found a smaller device, by weight, that has actually been proven to
> work (i.e., either tested or fielded), please explain what it is.

Why? Fifty pounds and small enough to fit in a hand-carried case is
certainly small enough. It's not like you need to fit the thing under a
coach airline seat.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article
>
,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> One factor overlooked in all this discussion is that nuclear weapons, in
> addition to generating lots of detectable radiation, get HOT! In FBM
> tests we installed heaters to simulate the heat generated by a snoutful
> of physics packages.
>
> A good terrorist would have to wrap the whole thing in a lead vessel,
> adding a lot of weight and then have to try to keep it cool. I know that
> DC has radiation detectors spread all over the city; I assume that NYC
> and Boston would, also,
>
> It ain't as simple as it seems!

But it also ain't hard. Once you have one, you just need to get it into
the city for a minute or so, especially since we can assume a
hand-carried and detonated device.

I wouldn't bet that someone could get one into NYC at ground level, but
there are other ways.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
>
> > > The SADM had a much tougher casing and was designed to be
> > > tamper-resistant. Kicked the weight up a *lot*.
> >
> > Pardon me for saying so, but have you ever been exposed to the SADM in
any
> > fashion?
>
> Yep. At least, I've seen the casing and such. It's not a backpack and
> an alarm clock. Think military-designed and hard to break.
>
> > Suffice it to say that an exposed physics package is not realistic
> > in this thread--the supposition is that AQ allegedly got its hands on a
> > product of some ex-Soviet device, and it will be a cased device, one
that to
> > the best of my knowledge will include a PAL, too (say what you will
about
> > the Soviets, but they reportedly took their nuclear weapons control as
> > seriously as we did). SADM added about a hundred pounds to the warhead
> > weight for a reason.
>
> Yeah, they wanted a bomb they could stash under a bridge, set a timer,
> and not have to worry about until it went off. They could also
> (supposedly) leave it under water.

Actually, you are only looking at one rather minor use of the device. The
major use was in denial and barrier operations--our corps level combat
engineer battalions were tasked with supporting their emplacement by the ADM
company troops, which is why we all had to attend that "what every engineer
lieutenant needs to know about ADM's" short course program as part of our
OBC. The special operators could emplace them, but that was the exception,
not the rule.

Brooks

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > >
> > > Take the mechanism out of the steel artillery round, and there you go.
> > > About four inches in diameter, and a couple of feet long. Remember
that
> > > the W-82 weight and size were ready to fire, inside a heavy steel
shell.
> >
> > I don't know WHAT that shell was made out of, or how thick it was---for
all
> > I know they used a more exotic material, like titanium. Nor do we know
the
> > actual cross sectional dimensions of the warhead itself. We do know that
a
> > particularly thick outerwall was not *required*, and that the actual
physics
> > package diameter could have been as high as maybe six inches, with
quarter
> > inch thick shell walls (the need for extreme thickness is not really
> > evident).
>
> They were firing it out of a *cannon*. You don't do that with very thin
> shell walls, and it also suggests a large amount of ruggedization for
> the warhead itself (something not needed for a hand-carried bomb).

Yes, you can--witness the use of various cargo rounds, to include RAAM/ADAM.
Thin walled structures can be very strong, especially since the force it was
designed to sustain was pretty much a pure axial kick in the seat of the
pants with the rotational force being a nonplayer. And what were the charge
restrictions on its use?

>
> At *worst*, you have a package that will easily fit in a golf bag. How
> many ways can you think of to sneak something that size into the US?

Doesn't matter--the claim by Lebed, which these folks have apparently
latched onto, was that we were talking "suitcase bombs", not arty rounds.
Sorry, but I still find it less than believable. Maybe it si the complete
and utter lack of evidence to support Lebed's claims...

>
> > Your device still needs its batteries, its HE component, its
> > high-speed detonators and associated fuzing, its initial neutron
> > booster--all of the components minus the actual screw in fuze and the
> > external casing. The apparent limit to the package itself, minus the
> > unnecessary accoutrements, is going to be in the 50-60 pound range. If
you
> > have found a smaller device, by weight, that has actually been proven to
> > work (i.e., either tested or fielded), please explain what it is.
>
> Why? Fifty pounds and small enough to fit in a hand-carried case is
> certainly small enough. It's not like you need to fit the thing under a
> coach airline seat.

But you have been saying they could be even smaller--where's the beef?

Brooks

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

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

> > Yeah, they wanted a bomb they could stash under a bridge, set a timer,
> > and not have to worry about until it went off. They could also
> > (supposedly) leave it under water.
>
> Actually, you are only looking at one rather minor use of the device. The
> major use was in denial and barrier operations--our corps level combat
> engineer battalions were tasked with supporting their emplacement by the ADM
> company troops, which is why we all had to attend that "what every engineer
> lieutenant needs to know about ADM's" short course program as part of our
> OBC. The special operators could emplace them, but that was the exception,
> not the rule.

....and they didn't design and deploy two separate kinds of devices.
They made one weapon they could use in a number of cases.

So they had a relatively small, somewhat rugged and weatherproof bomb
that could be deployed in some very rough conditions.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> Doesn't matter--the claim by Lebed, which these folks have apparently
> latched onto, was that we were talking "suitcase bombs", not arty rounds.

And we've solidly established that the smaller weapons would easily fit
into a moderately large suitcase. It would be a bit too heavy to put on
a plane without a "heavy luggage" sticker, but it would, most certainly,
go into something that a rational person would call a "suitcase."

My favorite piece of luggage, which has flown all over the place, is
three feet long, a foot thick, and two feet wide. *Two* of your
artillery rounds would fit into it... it would be heavy, but still quite
compact.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
> > Doesn't matter--the claim by Lebed, which these folks have apparently
> > latched onto, was that we were talking "suitcase bombs", not arty
rounds.
>
> And we've solidly established that the smaller weapons would easily fit
> into a moderately large suitcase. It would be a bit too heavy to put on
> a plane without a "heavy luggage" sticker, but it would, most certainly,
> go into something that a rational person would call a "suitcase."
>
> My favorite piece of luggage, which has flown all over the place, is
> three feet long, a foot thick, and two feet wide. *Two* of your
> artillery rounds would fit into it... it would be heavy, but still quite
> compact.

Well, you can climb into bed with the Lebed fans if you want. IMO, the story
has about as much reliability associated with it as the old "red mercury"
crap.

Brooks

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

[Jim Yanik]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in news:rdednadjKtlDJcLdRVn-
:

>
> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > The dimensions and weight of the 155mm rounds did not dramatically
>> > change (W-48 from 1963 at 6.5 inches by 33 inches and 118 pounds
>> > versus the W-82 cancelled in 1990, at 34 inches and 95 pounds) over
>> > the decades.
>> >
>>
>> 155mm is 6.10 inches,so how could a W-48 be -larger- in diameter(6.5")?
>> and that includes the bomb casing.
>
> Gee, I am so sorry. 6.5 inches. Happy now?
>
> Brooks
>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Yanik
>> jyanik-at-kua.net
>
>
>

My point was that the 155mm bomb -casing- is ~6 inches diameter,but the
physics package inside is going to be quite a bit smaller.
For a "suitcase" nuke,say 5 inches by something less than 33 inches.Of
course,the electronics part no longer needs to be in-line with the physics
pkg;in a suitcase,it could be next to it.No problem fitting it in a
suitcase.(especially the ones women always seem to have their entire
wardrobe packed into on trips. ;-) )

Then,118 lbs. includes the bomb casing,too,so I suspect a substantial
amount of weight could be cut from that number.

So,it would seem that a suitcase nuke is possible,but not a briefcase-size
nuke.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

> Well, you can climb into bed with the Lebed fans if you want. IMO, the story
> has about as much reliability associated with it as the old "red mercury"
> crap.

I never said I believed they had sold nukes, but it's bloody obvious
that a nuclear warhead will fit into a suitcase.

From a technical standpoint, it's not that hard.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > writes:

>> What's the range of a 105 RR ?

Well, the Davey Crockett wasn't a 105 RCL. It came in 2 flavors - a
120mm bore tube with a range band of between 300m and 200m, and a
155mm tube with a range band of between 200m and 4000m.
Warhead yield was dialable in a range of 20t to 250t. (.02 KT -> ,25
KT). (It was a muzzleloader, btw)


>> Of course it was an artist's sketch.
>>
>> The same artists are now working on sketches of nuc bunker busters.
>> Another bad idea IMHO.

And a very old idea. The first nuclear penetrating bomb was the Navy's
Mk 8, from teh very early 1950s.

> You are referring to the Davey Crockett, which was indeed fielded. It used
> the W-54 warhead, the smallest spherical implosion device ever fielded by
> the US, mounted on what was basically a "spigot" which was inserted into the
> tube, with the warhead being that bulbous bomb-like contraption sticking out
> of the end. The same warhead was the basis for the SADM.

Yeah, Basically, it was an Atomic Bottle Rocket. It was technically
feasible, but when you consider that it was still a Nuke, with all the
security, accountability, and authorization requirements that a Great
Big Nuke has, I don't think any of the very few Infantry units that
got them really liked teh idea. After all, what's the point of a
Jeep-portable Atomic Gun when you need another Jeep and trailer to
hold all the paperwork?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Chad Irby > writes:
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>
>> > Yeah, they wanted a bomb they could stash under a bridge, set a timer,
>> > and not have to worry about until it went off. They could also
>> > (supposedly) leave it under water.
>>
>> Actually, you are only looking at one rather minor use of the device. The
>> major use was in denial and barrier operations--our corps level combat
>> engineer battalions were tasked with supporting their emplacement by the ADM
>> company troops, which is why we all had to attend that "what every engineer
>> lieutenant needs to know about ADM's" short course program as part of our
>> OBC. The special operators could emplace them, but that was the exception,
>> not the rule.
>
> ...and they didn't design and deploy two separate kinds of devices.
> They made one weapon they could use in a number of cases.

Actually, they did. Partnered with the SADM was the MADM (Medium
Atomic Demolition Munition), with a yeild of 1-15 KT, and a wight of
around 450#. All in all, the US deployed 5 different types of ADM.
(Never more than 2 types at any given time).



--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Jim Yanik > writes:
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in news:rdednadjKtlDJcLdRVn-
> :
>
> My point was that the 155mm bomb -casing- is ~6 inches diameter,but the
> physics package inside is going to be quite a bit smaller.
> For a "suitcase" nuke,say 5 inches by something less than 33 inches.Of
> course,the electronics part no longer needs to be in-line with the physics
> pkg;in a suitcase,it could be next to it.No problem fitting it in a
> suitcase.(especially the ones women always seem to have their entire
> wardrobe packed into on trips. ;-) )
>
> Then,118 lbs. includes the bomb casing,too,so I suspect a substantial
> amount of weight could be cut from that number.
>
> So,it would seem that a suitcase nuke is possible,but not a briefcase-size
> nuke.

Jim, that's true, but it really is rather arrelevant. If it fits into
a Shipping Container or Conex Box, it's probably small enough to get
into any port in the world. The thing is, though, and my point from
before, is that it doesn't matter. If one is detonated, we'll know
who the source was before the fallout has finished, well, falling
out. We really are that good, and the different refinement processes
and plants all leave their own signatures. Whoever sold or "lost" it
is going to have a lot of explaining to do.
But not much time to do it in.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Jim Yanik]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Jim Yanik > writes:
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
>> news:rdednadjKtlDJcLdRVn- :
>>
>> My point was that the 155mm bomb -casing- is ~6 inches diameter,but
>> the physics package inside is going to be quite a bit smaller.
>> For a "suitcase" nuke,say 5 inches by something less than 33
>> inches.Of course,the electronics part no longer needs to be in-line
>> with the physics pkg;in a suitcase,it could be next to it.No problem
>> fitting it in a suitcase.(especially the ones women always seem to
>> have their entire wardrobe packed into on trips. ;-) )
>>
>> Then,118 lbs. includes the bomb casing,too,so I suspect a substantial
>> amount of weight could be cut from that number.
>>
>> So,it would seem that a suitcase nuke is possible,but not a
>> briefcase-size nuke.
>
> Jim, that's true, but it really is rather arrelevant. If it fits into
> a Shipping Container or Conex Box, it's probably small enough to get
> into any port in the world. The thing is, though, and my point from
> before, is that it doesn't matter. If one is detonated, we'll know
> who the source was before the fallout has finished, well, falling
> out. We really are that good, and the different refinement processes
> and plants all leave their own signatures. Whoever sold or "lost" it
> is going to have a lot of explaining to do.
> But not much time to do it in.
>

The smaller the nuke,the easier it is to smuggle it into the US.
You have more options for the method of entry.Even a small boat like they
use for smuggling drugs into the US.A backpack-sized nuke of 80 lbs could
be walked into the US from Mexico or Canada,by a small team of terrorists.

And what if Russia had some renegade officer sell a nuke to terrorists who
used it on a US city? That would not mean the US is going to nuke Russia in
return.Same for China or N.Korea. I suspect the US would take some time
investigating,and find that the terrorists had disappeared,if they managed
to find out who the nuke had been sold to,and no nuclear retaliation
launched at all. That's the worst part about WMD in non-State hands;there's
no ready target to retaliate against;the terrorists can scattter and hide
in other countries,where it's politically impossible to apply nuclear
retaliation.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > writes:
>
>>> What's the range of a 105 RR ?
>
> Well, the Davey Crockett wasn't a 105 RCL. It came in 2 flavors - a
> 120mm bore tube with a range band of between 300m and 200m, and a
> 155mm tube with a range band of between 200m and 4000m.
> Warhead yield was dialable in a range of 20t to 250t. (.02 KT -> ,25
> KT). (It was a muzzleloader, btw)
>
>
>>> Of course it was an artist's sketch.
>>>
>>> The same artists are now working on sketches of nuc bunker busters.
>>> Another bad idea IMHO.
>
> And a very old idea. The first nuclear penetrating bomb was the Navy's
> Mk 8, from teh very early 1950s.
>
>> You are referring to the Davey Crockett, which was indeed fielded. It
>> used the W-54 warhead, the smallest spherical implosion device ever
>> fielded by the US, mounted on what was basically a "spigot" which was
>> inserted into the tube, with the warhead being that bulbous bomb-like
>> contraption sticking out of the end. The same warhead was the basis
>> for the SADM.
>
> Yeah, Basically, it was an Atomic Bottle Rocket. It was technically
> feasible, but when you consider that it was still a Nuke, with all the
> security, accountability, and authorization requirements that a Great
> Big Nuke has, I don't think any of the very few Infantry units that
> got them really liked teh idea. After all, what's the point of a
> Jeep-portable Atomic Gun when you need another Jeep and trailer to
> hold all the paperwork?
>

And don't forget the Guard detachment.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > writes:
>
> >> What's the range of a 105 RR ?

Peter, please watch how yo do your snippage--all of these were not my
comments/questions.

>
> Well, the Davey Crockett wasn't a 105 RCL. It came in 2 flavors - a
> 120mm bore tube with a range band of between 300m and 200m, and a
> 155mm tube with a range band of between 200m and 4000m.
> Warhead yield was dialable in a range of 20t to 250t. (.02 KT -> ,25
> KT). (It was a muzzleloader, btw)

One presumes you meant "2000" meters...
>
>
> >> Of course it was an artist's sketch.
> >>
> >> The same artists are now working on sketches of nuc bunker busters.
> >> Another bad idea IMHO.
>
> And a very old idea. The first nuclear penetrating bomb was the Navy's
> Mk 8, from teh very early 1950s.

A bit different concept these days. The idea then was to have a weapon that
could penetrate some depth to create a big crater. The idea now is to
penetrate much deeper with a very small yield device that minimizes venting
of radioactive debris to the surface.

>
> > You are referring to the Davey Crockett, which was indeed fielded. It
used
> > the W-54 warhead, the smallest spherical implosion device ever fielded
by
> > the US, mounted on what was basically a "spigot" which was inserted into
the
> > tube, with the warhead being that bulbous bomb-like contraption sticking
out
> > of the end. The same warhead was the basis for the SADM.
>
> Yeah, Basically, it was an Atomic Bottle Rocket. It was technically
> feasible, but when you consider that it was still a Nuke, with all the
> security, accountability, and authorization requirements that a Great
> Big Nuke has, I don't think any of the very few Infantry units that
> got them really liked teh idea. After all, what's the point of a
> Jeep-portable Atomic Gun when you need another Jeep and trailer to
> hold all the paperwork?

One of the oft-mentioned concerns raised was supposedly the reluctance to
give some E-5 the power to unleash a nuclear strike. But that really could
nopt have been much of a concern; firstly, odds are that an LT or CPT would
have been detailed to control the firing party, and we were already letting
1LT's loose with real live nuclear weapons under thier wings in F-84's and
the like at that time. I doubt any of the lower level firing units were too
concerned about excessive paperwork, either; the weapons' custodians had
that share of the formula to worry about, and IIRC this would have probably
been before the PRP (Personnel Reliability Program) for nuclear armed units
got into full swing. The availability of the W-48 155mm tac nuke round
probably had more to do with retiring the critter early than anything else.

Brooks

>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> (Peter Stickney) wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > Jim Yanik > writes:
> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> >> news:rdednadjKtlDJcLdRVn- :
> >>
> >> My point was that the 155mm bomb -casing- is ~6 inches diameter,but
> >> the physics package inside is going to be quite a bit smaller.
> >> For a "suitcase" nuke,say 5 inches by something less than 33
> >> inches.Of course,the electronics part no longer needs to be in-line
> >> with the physics pkg;in a suitcase,it could be next to it.No problem
> >> fitting it in a suitcase.(especially the ones women always seem to
> >> have their entire wardrobe packed into on trips. ;-) )
> >>
> >> Then,118 lbs. includes the bomb casing,too,so I suspect a substantial
> >> amount of weight could be cut from that number.
> >>
> >> So,it would seem that a suitcase nuke is possible,but not a
> >> briefcase-size nuke.
> >
> > Jim, that's true, but it really is rather arrelevant. If it fits into
> > a Shipping Container or Conex Box, it's probably small enough to get
> > into any port in the world. The thing is, though, and my point from
> > before, is that it doesn't matter. If one is detonated, we'll know
> > who the source was before the fallout has finished, well, falling
> > out. We really are that good, and the different refinement processes
> > and plants all leave their own signatures. Whoever sold or "lost" it
> > is going to have a lot of explaining to do.
> > But not much time to do it in.
> >
>
> The smaller the nuke,the easier it is to smuggle it into the US.
> You have more options for the method of entry.Even a small boat like they
> use for smuggling drugs into the US.A backpack-sized nuke of 80 lbs could
> be walked into the US from Mexico or Canada,by a small team of terrorists.

That same boat could haul one that weighs 300 pounds or more, too. As could
any number of moving vans, pick up trucks, etc.

>
> And what if Russia had some renegade officer sell a nuke to terrorists who
> used it on a US city? That would not mean the US is going to nuke Russia
in
> return.

Big "if". The Russians would be doing everything in their power, to include
letting us know what was afoot, to prevent that, as it would palce them in
the worst possible situation diplomatically for many years thereafter, at
the very minimum. Thus far, the Lebed claims have been pretty much
discredited. The Russians have plenty of problems/faults with their current
military situation, but they have always been rather tight in terms of
controlling their nuclear weapons, just as we have been. "A" Russian officer
is not going to make this scenario realistic--and the more you have in the
cabal, the greater the chance the conspiracy is detected.

> Same for China

Ditto the above comments in regards to China.

> or N.Korea.

Now that would be the wild card. But then again, there is absolutely no way
in hell that the DPRK has gotten to the point of manufacturing very small
tactical nuclear weapons of the type you are fixating upon; you are back to
a pretty good sized first-generation device (or, give them some credit for
taking advantage of other's efforts and credit them with the ability to
deploy a five or six hundred pound device, but that would likely be a
stretch).

I suspect the US would take some time
> investigating,and find that the terrorists had disappeared,if they managed
> to find out who the nuke had been sold to,and no nuclear retaliation
> launched at all. That's the worst part about WMD in non-State
hands;there's
> no ready target to retaliate against;the terrorists can scattter and hide
> in other countries,where it's politically impossible to apply nuclear
> retaliation.

Most large terrorist organizations are dependent upon national support, or
at least tacit agreement to "look in the other direction", on the part of
some nation or nations. AQ used Sudan (until they wore out their welcome
there)and Yemen (ditto), and then Afghanistan. Hamas has been linked to
Syria and Iran, etc. Linkage between a group perpetrating such an attack
would likely be a quick ticket for the supporting nations to undergo some
very unpleasant responsive measures.

Brooks

>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik-at-kua.net

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

> In article >,
> Chad Irby > writes:
> >
> > ...and they didn't design and deploy two separate kinds of devices.
> > They made one weapon they could use in a number of cases.
>
> Actually, they did. Partnered with the SADM was the MADM (Medium
> Atomic Demolition Munition), with a yeild of 1-15 KT, and a wight of
> around 450#. All in all, the US deployed 5 different types of ADM.
> (Never more than 2 types at any given time).

But they didn't have two types of casings for the SADM.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[George Ruch]

(Al Dykes) wrote:

>ISTR some 60's promotional literature from Picatinny Arsenal showing a
>jeep-mounted recoilless rifle with a crew of two. It was pointed to
>the horizon and there was a mushroom cloud. I think they talked about
>yields down to 1Kt. It reminds me of the proverbial nulcear handgrenade.

Is the Davy Crockett what you're looking for?
http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/coldwar.cfm

I recently visited the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque. (Info from
the web site and the tour.) The Davy Crockett was designed as an anti-tank
weapon, but wasn't terribly successful. It couldn't penetrate the armor of
contemporary tanks on a direct hit, and a tank 50 feet away would still be
standing.

/------------------------------------------------------------\
| George Ruch |
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" |
\------------------------------------------------------------/