"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
-----------