Al-Qaida Leader Says They Have Briefcase Nukes

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

"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...

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.