View Single Post
  #9  
Old January 16th 04, 12:16 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

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


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

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

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

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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