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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 "Alan Minyard" a écrit dans le message de news: ... On 12 Jan 2004 09:01:28 -0800, (Alexander Malinowski) wrote: Gregory Baker wrote in message nk.net... marcus wrote: didn't Flight International run an article a few years ago (2000 ? sometime ?) about the Poles and their nuclear capable Sukhois ? As I recall, there was also so mention in passing of the Pole's own nuclear ambitions. Israel has 400 nuclear weapons, why cannot Poles also have some ? They, after all, are heroically dying in Bush's service to liberate Iraqis from their oil, so they cannot be a rogue or terrorist state! The Poles can build them... I think the reason they don't is because Poland signed a non-proliferation treaty. I am proud to have Poland as a friendly country. March on, Dombrowski! Recently there were a news, that in 70-ties Poland's leader Edward Gierek spent a lot of money for researches of the micro thermonuclear bomb. On the way, Poles have invented blue laser and tried to use it to blast deuter+lithium mixture, obviously without success. Not sure if it were serious info. Possesing microthermonuclear bomb would give Poland immediate independence from Soviet Union. You obviously have no idea how a nuclear device works Al Minyard |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "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 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." 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. Lebed's rants have been amply discounted. "Gen. Lebed has told a variety of stories; first, that 100 were perhaps missing. Later, he said that perhaps none were missing. Later, he seemed to be confused about the difference between atomic demolition munitions and artillery shells. And now he claims that perhaps, even if they're missing, they don't pose a threat." (www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/ jan-june98/nukes_3-19.html ) The "Sixty Minutes" TV report that broke his story was later revealed to have been produced by a lady who, with her husband, had a book being published about the alleged threat of small nukes and who was involved in the production of a movie with a similar plotline. The Nuclear Weapons Archive has an interesting treatment of the Lebed claims that casts further doubt as to the specific veracity of his claims. Lastly, if they *had* developed weapons that small, and if they *were* unaccounted for, we'd likely have seen their use somewhere in the world by now, or at least heard more substantive information since then. Brooks Keith |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
It was just a joke,mister...
For the rest,you are right (SOS,why did I i just say???!!!) "Alan Minyard" a écrit dans le message de news: ... 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Brooks -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Keith Willshaw | Military Aviation | 2 | December 10th 03 08:05 AM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 PM |
please stop bashing France | Grantland | Military Aviation | 233 | October 29th 03 01:23 AM |
What about the AIM-54 Pheonix Missile? | Flub | Military Aviation | 26 | October 5th 03 05:34 AM |
Laser simulator provides weapons training | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 28th 03 09:58 PM |