Czechoslovak nuclear weapons? Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...)

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

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


He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only being
somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms of
HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation); in that same
article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest practical sherical
device ever fielded, and then also describes the linear implosion devices
(which are narrower, but also longer) used in arty rounds. None of the
fielded weapons ever got below around 100 pounds or so.

That isn't how I understood it.

'This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead.
This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum
mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages)'

John

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

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

He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only being
somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms of
HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation);

Not particularly. The high explosives would add up to a couple of
kilograms, for sure, but the beryllium won't need to be thick (and
therefore would not add much to the weight), the triggering system would
be negligible in weight (a handful of detonators, a timing system, and
some batteries). At most, you're looking at *maybe* 15 kilograms for
the whole device. My personal toolkit weighs more than that, full up.

Note that you're not going to build something this small on a shoestring
budget or from public documents, either. Very small nukes take very
large mathematics.

in that same article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest
practical sherical device ever fielded, and then also describes the
linear implosion devices (which are narrower, but also longer) used
in arty rounds. None of the fielded weapons ever got below around 100
pounds or so.

The artillery shells and Davy Crockett were all *projectiles*, and had a
lot of extra weight in casings and shockproofing. A lightweight nuke
would need none of that, and would be *much* lighter and smaller. The
SADM had a lot of failsafe and ruggedization extras in the mix, and was
a very different sort of device (and had a variable yield to boot).

The warhead for the 155mm artillery round was much smaller in diameter,
and somewhat longer, in a steel casing, and still fell below 100 pounds.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

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


He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only
being
somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4
kilograms of
HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation); in that same
article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest practical sherical
device ever fielded, and then also describes the linear implosion
devices
(which are narrower, but also longer) used in arty rounds. None of the
fielded weapons ever got below around 100 pounds or so.

That isn't how I understood it.

Here was his description of the SADM:
"The W-54 nuclear package is certainly light enough by itself to be used in
a "suitcase bomb" but the closest equivalent to such a device that US has
ever deployed was a man-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic
Demolition Munition). This used a version of the W-54, but the whole package
was much larger and heavier. 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."



'This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead.
This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum
mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages)'

That is already over 50 pounds with no protective covering for the internals
(I doubt you'd want to have all of those initiators, wires, etc., not to
mention the HE layer itself, exposed). Sorry, but the evidence for a
"suitcase bomb" just is not very convincing at this point.

Brooks


John

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

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

He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only
being
somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4
kilograms of
HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation);

Not particularly. The high explosives would add up to a couple of
kilograms, for sure, but the beryllium won't need to be thick (and
therefore would not add much to the weight), the triggering system would
be negligible in weight (a handful of detonators, a timing system, and
some batteries). At most, you're looking at *maybe* 15 kilograms for
the whole device. My personal toolkit weighs more than that, full up.

You gotta wonder, if this is the case, why a smaller weapon was never
developed or deployed by the US; W-54 was the smallest of the sherical
implosion devices, and in its SADM form it weighed in at over 100 pounds all
up and (allegedly) between 50 and 70 pounds for the internals alone. We
never fielded linear implosion warheads that weighed any less (based upon
the 155mm rounds).


Note that you're not going to build something this small on a shoestring
budget or from public documents, either. Very small nukes take very
large mathematics.

in that same article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest
practical sherical device ever fielded, and then also describes the
linear implosion devices (which are narrower, but also longer) used
in arty rounds. None of the fielded weapons ever got below around 100
pounds or so.

The artillery shells and Davy Crockett were all *projectiles*, and had a
lot of extra weight in casings and shockproofing. A lightweight nuke
would need none of that,

I disagree. Unless you want your initiators and HE shell to be exposed to
all manner of damage, an outer casing is going to be trequired around the
physics package. A dent in the HE covering can be the difference between a
significant detonation and a fizzle. The US military was extremely
interested in developing (a) the smallest possible deployable warhead for
use by ADM and SOF elements, and (b) found that SADM, with a full-up weight
of over 100 pounds, was the best they could do.

and would be *much* lighter and smaller. The
SADM had a lot of failsafe and ruggedization extras in the mix, and was
a very different sort of device (and had a variable yield to boot).

Have you ever seen what the PAL on the SADAM consisted of? And I doubt the
variable yield function added much to the weight, if anything. Yes, it was
"ruggedized"--but if you want your small nuke to be reliable at all, it
better be able to withstand being transported.


The warhead for the 155mm artillery round was much smaller in diameter,
and somewhat longer, in a steel casing, and still fell below 100 pounds.

The same source indicates the minimum weight for the W-48 155mm projectile
was 118 pounds--the upper limit was 128 pounds. I have no idea what the
specs, or material used, for the casing was, nor do I have any idea what if
any restrictions there were on propellent charges for it. We can surmise
that it likely had a rather thin shell because getting the physics package
small enough to fit into the tube was challenge enough.

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War


He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only being
somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms of
HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation); in that same
article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest practical sherical
device ever fielded, and then also describes the linear implosion devices
(which are narrower, but also longer) used in arty rounds. None of the
fielded weapons ever got below around 100 pounds or so.

Brooks

Linear implosion? How would that work?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War


He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only
being
somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms
of
HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation); in that same
article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest practical sherical
device ever fielded, and then also describes the linear implosion devices
(which are narrower, but also longer) used in arty rounds. None of the
fielded weapons ever got below around 100 pounds or so.

Brooks

Linear implosion? How would that work?

Instead of compressing a sphere, imagine a football shaped pit surrounded by
explosive material, with detonation initiated at each end--the detonation
wavefront progresses inward from each end (the wavefront is actually
"shaped" by inserting plates of a somewhat lesser diameter than that of the
HE charge into the HE in front of the initiators so that the wavefront
propogates radially first to get around the plate, then inwards from the
explosive outside the plate perimeter) and compresses the "football" into a
sphere. This allows you to design a weapon with a smaller diameter (but a
greater length) than if it used normal spherical implosion. The other
method of reducing diameter is use of a gun-type device, but IIRC Pu does
not work in gun designs. The Nuclear Weapons Archive has a better
description if you are interested (
http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/News/...ukesExist.html ).

Brooks


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

'This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead.
This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum
mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages)'

That is already over 50 pounds with no protective covering for the internals
(I doubt you'd want to have all of those initiators, wires, etc., not to
mention the HE layer itself, exposed). Sorry, but the evidence for a
"suitcase bomb" just is not very convincing at this point.

The weight for the Davy Crockett was "ready to fire," inside its casing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

"John Mullen" wrote in message
...

'This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett
warhead.
This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum
mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages)'

That is already over 50 pounds with no protective covering for the
internals
(I doubt you'd want to have all of those initiators, wires, etc., not to
mention the HE layer itself, exposed). Sorry, but the evidence for a
"suitcase bomb" just is not very convincing at this point.

The weight for the Davy Crockett was "ready to fire," inside its casing.

No, that all-up weight was apparently greater than 100 pounds (NWA says 150
pounds; see: http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/W.../Allbombs.html ). The
weight of the W-54 "only" is listed as 59 pounds.

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On 15 Jan 2004 18:40:34 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: Alan Minyard
Date: 1/15/2004 12:34 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" wrote:

Your French friends have many ones Mr.Minyard.
Launched from planes,SSBNs,carriers....
Tactical ones,strategical powerful ones...
And if they are as idiot as you always say,if what they do is
always ****,like you tell us post after post,
why couldn't the poles have their ones?
Do you consider they are even more stupid and weak than the French?
(No,you don't,of course.They helped Bush...)


;-ppppp


What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not exist.
No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has them.
The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.

Al Minyard

The U.S. Army's Green Light program and the U.S. Air Forces Davey Crockett come
pretty close.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

True, but they were very low yield, and would be way too heavy to qualify.

Al Minyard

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:16:38 -0000, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" wrote:


What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not exist.
No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has
them.
The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.

However the 'micro fission device' is very real. The USA produced the
Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) that would fit in a large
duffle bag and 80-100 lbs and the soviets had a similar device

Clips of teams exercising with SADM can be seen at

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ssia/suitcase/

Alexander Lebed, ex Soviet General reported that a
significant number of Soviet nuclear demolition charges
were unaccounted for IRC.

Keith

But not a "suitcase" bomb. 100lbs is about the minimum.

Al Minyard