Al-Qaida Leader Says They Have Briefcase Nukes

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

(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

(Peter Stickney) wrote in
news
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

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
news
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

"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

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.

(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?" |
\------------------------------------------------------------/