![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Briefcase and Me | Bob McKellar | Military Aviation | 11 | December 24th 03 11:57 PM |