Al-Qaida Leader Says They Have Briefcase Nukes

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
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.

Only if you disregard the HE required to get it to go boom;

Nope. The 250 pounds *is* with explosives included. You don't need a
lot more mass to increase a small nuke to make a much bigger bang. If
you double the mass of the fissionables, you get a *lot* more than twice
the yield, and don't need much more explosives, either. Efficiency for
very small weapons is pretty pathetic, actually.

the W-79 was a fairly good sized warhed all-up, with a diameter of
around 21 inches and a length of a bit over five feet.

You mean W-78, right? I was referring to the Mk-12 W-68 warhead, not
the -12A. The W-68 "package" was only about 20 inches in diameter and
about 40 inches long. Slightly bigger in volume than a golf club bag.

And I doubt any 250 pound "physics package"
has a yield of 170 Kt.

Well, you'd be wrong, according to your own source:

http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

If that were the case, the freefall bombs like the
the B-61, which did not need all of the protection an RV has to have, would
have weighed in at less than the 700 pounds or so that they do.

Not so much. The airframe and fuzing mechanisms for any airdropped bomb
are, by themselves, moderately heavy. You don't design that sort of
thing for lightness, you design it for reliability. You don't want a
bird strike to wipe out your multimillion dollar nuke. The B-61
airframes I've seen were *definitely* not lightweight constructions.

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.

No, the W-44 was about 14 inches in diameter, and over 25 inches long. See:
http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/W.../Allbombs.html

The W-44, *inside its ASW casing*, was about that big. It takes a good
bit of metal to handle slamming into the water at a good clip.

You should note, that unless otherwise mentioned, the specs for the
weapons on that page are inside their casings, ready to fire or drop.

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.

The smallest warhead we ever fielded was the W-54, at around sixty or so
pounds and a diameter of around 12 inches. When configured into your
"suitcase" (hate that term) mode as SADM, the weight went up a bit, to a bit
over 100 pounds.

The SADM had a much tougher casing and was designed to be
tamper-resistant. Kicked the weight up a *lot*.

The W-54 was about 51 pounds all by itself, and could easily fit into a
large suitcase or small trunk.

But in fact the miniturization has not advanced all that much since the days
of the earlier devices like the W-54. You are stuck with a 12 plus inch
dimension any way you go aout it for a spherical device; you can go lower
with linear implosion, but then your length increases.

Which means that, instead of a basketball and a laptop, you have two
footballs and a laptop.

Not a briefcase, but certainly man-portable.

The dimensions and weight of the 155mm rounds did not dramatically
change (W-48 from 1963 at 6.5 inches by 33 inches and 118 pounds
versus the W-82 cancelled in 1990, at 34 inches and 95 pounds) over
the decades.

Take the mechanism out of the steel artillery round, and there you go.
About four inches in diameter, and a couple of feet long. Remember that
the W-82 weight and size were ready to fire, inside a heavy steel shell.

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.

Less than 50 pounds? I doubt that. W-54 remains king of lilliputs as of now,
and it was 59 pounds, with a maximum yield of around a quarter of a kiloton.

....and a lot of that weight was 1960s-era electronics, with a mechanical
PAL lock.

Knock ten pounds off least for a modern design.

And, in an operational situation, if the gadget weighed as much as 200
pounds, you'd put it on wheels and roll it around. Look at any transit
location and notice the large number of people with wheeled cases.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
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.

Only if you disregard the HE required to get it to go boom;

Nope. The 250 pounds *is* with explosives included. You don't need a
lot more mass to increase a small nuke to make a much bigger bang. If
you double the mass of the fissionables, you get a *lot* more than twice
the yield, and don't need much more explosives, either. Efficiency for
very small weapons is pretty pathetic, actually.

It appears you are mixing your weapons up a bit...


the W-79 was a fairly good sized warhed all-up, with a diameter of
around 21 inches and a length of a bit over five feet.

You mean W-78, right? I was referring to the Mk-12 W-68 warhead, not
the -12A. The W-68 "package" was only about 20 inches in diameter and
about 40 inches long. Slightly bigger in volume than a golf club bag.

Mea culpa--I wrote 79 instead of 78. But you need to check that data; the
W-78 *was* the weapon included in the Mk 12 RV. The W-68 was a much smaller
device (40-50 Kt yield) and was used on Poseidon SLBM, not on the Minuteman.
The dimensions I gave for the W-78 are apparently correct.


And I doubt any 250 pound "physics package"
has a yield of 170 Kt.

Well, you'd be wrong, according to your own source:

http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

Uhmmm...he indicates the W-78 had a yield in the 300 plus Kt range. Your
"much smaller" W-68 had only about a third of the yield you are ascribing to
it. The W-69, as mounted on the SRAM, did have a 170 Kt tield, at about 275
pounds, so I will acknowledge that the 250 pound class weapon is apparently
indeed capable of much higher yeilds than I thought [possible--but your
examples did not do much to get me to that conclusion. :-)


If that were the case, the freefall bombs like the
the B-61, which did not need all of the protection an RV has to have,
would
have weighed in at less than the 700 pounds or so that they do.

Not so much. The airframe and fuzing mechanisms for any airdropped bomb
are, by themselves, moderately heavy. You don't design that sort of
thing for lightness, you design it for reliability. You don't want a
bird strike to wipe out your multimillion dollar nuke. The B-61
airframes I've seen were *definitely* not lightweight constructions.

Likewise, you don't create a "suitcase bomb" that gets turned into at best a
fizle yield source when some bellboy bangs it into the luggage cart. SADM
weighed in at over 100 pounds--I doubt anyone has done any better in that
regard since then.


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.

No, the W-44 was about 14 inches in diameter, and over 25 inches long.
See:
http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/W.../Allbombs.html

The W-44, *inside its ASW casing*, was about that big. It takes a good
bit of metal to handle slamming into the water at a good clip.

You should note, that unless otherwise mentioned, the specs for the
weapons on that page are inside their casings, ready to fire or drop.

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.

The smallest warhead we ever fielded was the W-54, at around sixty or so
pounds and a diameter of around 12 inches. When configured into your
"suitcase" (hate that term) mode as SADM, the weight went up a bit, to a
bit
over 100 pounds.

The SADM had a much tougher casing and was designed to be
tamper-resistant. Kicked the weight up a *lot*.

Pardon me for saying so, but have you ever been exposed to the SADM in any
fashion? Suffice it to say that an exposed physics package is not realistic
in this thread--the supposition is that AQ allegedly got its hands on a
product of some ex-Soviet device, and it will be a cased device, one that to
the best of my knowledge will include a PAL, too (say what you will about
the Soviets, but they reportedly took their nuclear weapons control as
seriously as we did). SADM added about a hundred pounds to the warhead
weight for a reason.


The W-54 was about 51 pounds all by itself, and could easily fit into a
large suitcase or small trunk.

Debatable as to the actual weight; many sources indicate that the actual
weight was 59 pounds. The truth of the matter is that we don't *know* the
exact weight (they did not even tell us that in the ADM short course).


But in fact the miniturization has not advanced all that much since the
days
of the earlier devices like the W-54. You are stuck with a 12 plus inch
dimension any way you go aout it for a spherical device; you can go
lower
with linear implosion, but then your length increases.

Which means that, instead of a basketball and a laptop, you have two
footballs and a laptop.

Big footballs you have there.


Not a briefcase, but certainly man-portable.

The dimensions and weight of the 155mm rounds did not dramatically
change (W-48 from 1963 at 6.5 inches by 33 inches and 118 pounds
versus the W-82 cancelled in 1990, at 34 inches and 95 pounds) over
the decades.

Take the mechanism out of the steel artillery round, and there you go.
About four inches in diameter, and a couple of feet long. Remember that
the W-82 weight and size were ready to fire, inside a heavy steel shell.

I don't know WHAT that shell was made out of, or how thick it was---for all
I know they used a more exotic material, like titanium. Nor do we know the
actual cross sectional dimensions of the warhead itself. We do know that a
particularly thick outerwall was not *required*, and that the actual physics
package diameter could have been as high as maybe six inches, with quarter
inch thick shell walls (the need for extreme thickness is not really
evident). Your device still needs its batteries, its HE component, its
high-speed detonators and associated fuzing, its initial neutron
booster--all of the components minus the actual screw in fuze and the
external casing. The apparent limit to the package itself, minus the
unnecessary accoutrements, is going to be in the 50-60 pound range. If you
have found a smaller device, by weight, that has actually been proven to
work (i.e., either tested or fielded), please explain what it is.


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.

Less than 50 pounds? I doubt that. W-54 remains king of lilliputs as of
now,
and it was 59 pounds, with a maximum yield of around a quarter of a
kiloton.

...and a lot of that weight was 1960s-era electronics, with a mechanical
PAL lock.

Knock ten pounds off least for a modern design.

Not sure about that. Using the W-48 to W-82 as a ratio, we have devices
about 80% of the previous weight. How much of that weight savings is in a
new, higher-strength, lighter weight casing design? And, you have to
remember that the devices in question are supposedly OLD Soviet designs, so
your whole they-could-be-much-smaller-because-they-are-newer argument kind
of goes right out the window; if anything, the Soviet weapons were MORE
bulky and weighed more than our own. AQ does not have a weapons lab at its
disposal churning out state-of-the-art nuclear weapons; even the Pakis and
Indians have undoubtedly not gotten down to the size capabilities we
developed (I don't believe either has developed arty capable packages as of
yet).

This whole thing sounds like more Lebed-like musings to me.

Brooks


And, in an operational situation, if the gadget weighed as much as 200
pounds, you'd put it on wheels and roll it around. Look at any transit
location and notice the large number of people with wheeled cases.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

You mean W-78, right? I was referring to the Mk-12 W-68 warhead, not
the -12A. The W-68 "package" was only about 20 inches in diameter and
about 40 inches long. Slightly bigger in volume than a golf club bag.

Mea culpa--I wrote 79 instead of 78. But you need to check that data; the
W-78 *was* the weapon included in the Mk 12 RV. The W-68 was a much smaller
device (40-50 Kt yield) and was used on Poseidon SLBM, not on the Minuteman.
The dimensions I gave for the W-78 are apparently correct.

Shoot. You messed up one number, so did I. The *W-62* was what I was
using for weights.

Warhead/RV: 700-800 lb;
Warhead: 253 lb
170 Kt

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

The SADM had a much tougher casing and was designed to be
tamper-resistant. Kicked the weight up a *lot*.

Pardon me for saying so, but have you ever been exposed to the SADM in any
fashion?

Yep. At least, I've seen the casing and such. It's not a backpack and
an alarm clock. Think military-designed and hard to break.

Suffice it to say that an exposed physics package is not realistic
in this thread--the supposition is that AQ allegedly got its hands on a
product of some ex-Soviet device, and it will be a cased device, one that to
the best of my knowledge will include a PAL, too (say what you will about
the Soviets, but they reportedly took their nuclear weapons control as
seriously as we did). SADM added about a hundred pounds to the warhead
weight for a reason.

Yeah, they wanted a bomb they could stash under a bridge, set a timer,
and not have to worry about until it went off. They could also
(supposedly) leave it under water.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

The SADM had a much tougher casing and was designed to be
tamper-resistant. Kicked the weight up a *lot*.

Pardon me for saying so, but have you ever been exposed to the SADM in
any
fashion?

Yep. At least, I've seen the casing and such. It's not a backpack and
an alarm clock. Think military-designed and hard to break.

Suffice it to say that an exposed physics package is not realistic
in this thread--the supposition is that AQ allegedly got its hands on a
product of some ex-Soviet device, and it will be a cased device, one
that to
the best of my knowledge will include a PAL, too (say what you will
about
the Soviets, but they reportedly took their nuclear weapons control as
seriously as we did). SADM added about a hundred pounds to the warhead
weight for a reason.

Yeah, they wanted a bomb they could stash under a bridge, set a timer,
and not have to worry about until it went off. They could also
(supposedly) leave it under water.

Actually, you are only looking at one rather minor use of the device. The
major use was in denial and barrier operations--our corps level combat
engineer battalions were tasked with supporting their emplacement by the ADM
company troops, which is why we all had to attend that "what every engineer
lieutenant needs to know about ADM's" short course program as part of our
OBC. The special operators could emplace them, but that was the exception,
not the rule.

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...

Yeah, they wanted a bomb they could stash under a bridge, set a timer,
and not have to worry about until it went off. They could also
(supposedly) leave it under water.

Actually, you are only looking at one rather minor use of the device. The
major use was in denial and barrier operations--our corps level combat
engineer battalions were tasked with supporting their emplacement by the ADM
company troops, which is why we all had to attend that "what every engineer
lieutenant needs to know about ADM's" short course program as part of our
OBC. The special operators could emplace them, but that was the exception,
not the rule.

....and they didn't design and deploy two separate kinds of devices.
They made one weapon they could use in a number of cases.

So they had a relatively small, somewhat rugged and weatherproof bomb
that could be deployed in some very rough conditions.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
Chad Irby writes:
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...

Yeah, they wanted a bomb they could stash under a bridge, set a timer,
and not have to worry about until it went off. They could also
(supposedly) leave it under water.

Actually, you are only looking at one rather minor use of the device. The
major use was in denial and barrier operations--our corps level combat
engineer battalions were tasked with supporting their emplacement by the ADM
company troops, which is why we all had to attend that "what every engineer
lieutenant needs to know about ADM's" short course program as part of our
OBC. The special operators could emplace them, but that was the exception,
not the rule.

...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).



--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

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.

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

Take the mechanism out of the steel artillery round, and there you go.
About four inches in diameter, and a couple of feet long. Remember that
the W-82 weight and size were ready to fire, inside a heavy steel shell.

I don't know WHAT that shell was made out of, or how thick it was---for all
I know they used a more exotic material, like titanium. Nor do we know the
actual cross sectional dimensions of the warhead itself. We do know that a
particularly thick outerwall was not *required*, and that the actual physics
package diameter could have been as high as maybe six inches, with quarter
inch thick shell walls (the need for extreme thickness is not really
evident).

They were firing it out of a *cannon*. You don't do that with very thin
shell walls, and it also suggests a large amount of ruggedization for
the warhead itself (something not needed for a hand-carried bomb).

At *worst*, you have a package that will easily fit in a golf bag. How
many ways can you think of to sneak something that size into the US?

Your device still needs its batteries, its HE component, its
high-speed detonators and associated fuzing, its initial neutron
booster--all of the components minus the actual screw in fuze and the
external casing. The apparent limit to the package itself, minus the
unnecessary accoutrements, is going to be in the 50-60 pound range. If you
have found a smaller device, by weight, that has actually been proven to
work (i.e., either tested or fielded), please explain what it is.

Why? Fifty pounds and small enough to fit in a hand-carried case is
certainly small enough. It's not like you need to fit the thing under a
coach airline seat.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

Take the mechanism out of the steel artillery round, and there you go.
About four inches in diameter, and a couple of feet long. Remember
that
the W-82 weight and size were ready to fire, inside a heavy steel
shell.

I don't know WHAT that shell was made out of, or how thick it was---for
all
I know they used a more exotic material, like titanium. Nor do we know
the
actual cross sectional dimensions of the warhead itself. We do know that
a
particularly thick outerwall was not *required*, and that the actual
physics
package diameter could have been as high as maybe six inches, with
quarter
inch thick shell walls (the need for extreme thickness is not really
evident).

They were firing it out of a *cannon*. You don't do that with very thin
shell walls, and it also suggests a large amount of ruggedization for
the warhead itself (something not needed for a hand-carried bomb).

Yes, you can--witness the use of various cargo rounds, to include RAAM/ADAM.
Thin walled structures can be very strong, especially since the force it was
designed to sustain was pretty much a pure axial kick in the seat of the
pants with the rotational force being a nonplayer. And what were the charge
restrictions on its use?


At *worst*, you have a package that will easily fit in a golf bag. How
many ways can you think of to sneak something that size into the US?

Doesn't matter--the claim by Lebed, which these folks have apparently
latched onto, was that we were talking "suitcase bombs", not arty rounds.
Sorry, but I still find it less than believable. Maybe it si the complete
and utter lack of evidence to support Lebed's claims...


Your device still needs its batteries, its HE component, its
high-speed detonators and associated fuzing, its initial neutron
booster--all of the components minus the actual screw in fuze and the
external casing. The apparent limit to the package itself, minus the
unnecessary accoutrements, is going to be in the 50-60 pound range. If
you
have found a smaller device, by weight, that has actually been proven to
work (i.e., either tested or fielded), please explain what it is.

Why? Fifty pounds and small enough to fit in a hand-carried case is
certainly small enough. It's not like you need to fit the thing under a
coach airline seat.

But you have been saying they could be even smaller--where's the beef?

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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