Quoted: Suitcase nukes don't exist? Since when? People REALLY understimate  what a large government can come up with when time and money are given...........America has admitted several times to having nukes suitcase sized , as well as the possibility of nukes in-country waiting for on ground detonation. I know no one in here saw it but...............Around 10 years ago , 20/20 (yes , the tv show) did a special on the possibility of terrorists with 'superweapon's one of the people brought onto the show was able to build a device that was suit cased sized , out of junkyard/radio shack parts that could shut down one block's worth of anything electronic. It was noted that his device could crash airplanes , damage cars, computer systems , IV pumps ect..........Mysteriously , i've NEVER heard anything about that specific tv show afterwards......

1) Device above is a non-nuclear weapon, specifically an EM bomb... Current state of admitted development -> Air Force has them, of the large & air droppable variety...

2) vis-a-vis 'suitcase nukes' -> Both the US & Russia had 'man portable' nuclear weapons (rucksack nuke would be a more apt description, as the size & weight were more along the lines of an over-stuffed field pack) in all reported cases, the devices were found to be unstable & unreliable, without proper 'maintanance' they would fail to cause a nuclear explosion if detonated.... The technology to make one is beyond the level of 'newly nuclear' powers (vis-a-vis Pakistan, N Korea, and maybe Iran if they get away with it)....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: what is a "suitcase nuke"? It's a small nuclear explosive device built in a suitcase size container and much more easily activable and concealable. It also doesn't exist. Correct. www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007478 As for the small size of the weapons and the notion that they can be detonated by one person, those claims also been authoritatively dismissed. The only U.S. government official to publicly admit seeing a suitcase-sized nuclear device is Rose Gottemoeller. As a Defense Department official, she visited Russia and Ukraine to monitor compliance with disarmament treaties in the early 1990s. The Soviet-era weapon "actually required three footlockers and a team of several people to detonate," she said. "It was not something you could toss in your shoulder bag and carry on a plane or bus" Lebed's onetime deputy, Vladimir Denisov, said he headed a special investigation in July 1996--almost a year before Lebed made his charges--and found that no army field units had portable nuclear weapons of any kind. All portable nuclear devices--which are much bigger than a suitcase--were stored at a central facility under heavy guard. Lt. Gen. Igor Valynkin, chief of the Russian Defense Ministry's 12th Main Directorate, which oversees all nuclear weapons, denied that any weapons were missing. "Nuclear suitcases . . . were never produced and are not produced," he said. While he acknowledged that they were technically possible to make, he said the weapon would have "a lifespan of only several months" and would therefore be too costly to maintain. Gen. Valynkin is referring to the fact that radioactive weapons require a lot of shielding. To fit the radioactive material and the appropriate shielding into a suitcase would mean that a very small amount of material would have to be used. Radioactive material decays at a steady, certain rate, expressed as "half-life," or the length of time it takes for half of the material to decay into harmless elements. The half-life of the most likely materials in the infinitesimal weights necessary to fit in a suitcase is a few months. So as a matter of physics and engineering, the nuclear suitcase is an impractical weapon. It would have to be rebuilt with new radioactive elements every few months.

We have ones that can be fired from a Howitzer?  How big can that be?  105mmx??

The SADM was a re-machined 'Davy Crockett' weapon.  Core weight -/= 50 lbs or so.  1950s tech.

It has been reported that about 25% of the stated  SADM @ weight was actually the container.  

Do some research - smaller low-yield munitions are 'theoretically' possible.  Hmm.  
Consider also systems in which tritium and other stuff can be added later, or component systems.

Anyway, the threat is real.  

FYI: this is not a "Nukem all" type of posting.  Not trying get locked.


I think this topic is finally going to force me to post about the new book i just finished and what we (once again) can learn from history.

I just finished reading the book DEFCON-2, got it from the Military Book Club and its on  Amazon.  Great read and brings back many many memories of growing up during the cold war.  Even though I was born toward the end of the crisis, Nov. 12, I've read and talked to many about thistopic for years.  But a few key things stand out from the book that I hope we can apply to todays issues.

1) The Soviets were deterred by our overwelhming strategic forces and our apparent willingness to us them.  There was no parity in 1962, the good old USA has a massive superiority in Strategic forces (Misseles, esp Bombers, # of nukes, etc).  SAC and our Naval forces had them bottled up and they knew it.  It wasn't even close.  Thats actually what caused the Soviets to try to pull the Cuban thing off. Give them a striking capability at our "soft underbelly" while they caught up overall.  They did by end of 60's/early 70's in total #'s.


I hope we can translate this into today's world and state clearly to the rest of the worls, esp our "friends" in the RoP.  Any attack against the USA with WMD will result in a massive US response in kind against all Muslim "holy places". Its the old "CounterForce" strategy.  Any attack against US Military targets would bring an immediate direct stike agasint Soviet/Commie military targets.   Well, the RoP doesn't have any military targets per se, escept for some training camps, so we need to hold hostage via MAD something of value to them.

Might want to also add to this, we will take out any other Muslim countries military capability, esp WMD centers if this happens to USA.  So, good bye Iranian nuke research, missel sites, Syranin sites, etc, etc.

Take it to the next level, the final round, the "big game"....CounterValue strike.  You strike our population centers/Cities and yours go bye bye too.  So, Any WMD attack on US cities will result in a prortionate attack on any state sponsor of said attack.


So when will some US leader stand up and bring some addtioanl deterence to the table?

The countries in the middle east would be wise to cooperate with the US to see that this never happens. I imagine the threats have already been made to a few terrorists sponsoring states about what would happen if AQ gets ahold of a nuke. Something like turning your cities into burned out radioactive hell holes.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: what is a "suitcase nuke"? It's a small nuclear explosive device built in a suitcase size container and much more easily activable and concealable. It also doesn't exist. Correct. www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007478 As for the small size of the weapons and the notion that they can be detonated by one person, those claims also been authoritatively dismissed. The only U.S. government official to publicly admit seeing a suitcase-sized nuclear device is Rose Gottemoeller. As a Defense Department official, she visited Russia and Ukraine to monitor compliance with disarmament treaties in the early 1990s. The Soviet-era weapon "actually required three footlockers and a team of several people to detonate," she said. "It was not something you could toss in your shoulder bag and carry on a plane or bus" Lebed's onetime deputy, Vladimir Denisov, said he headed a special investigation in July 1996--almost a year before Lebed made his charges--and found that no army field units had portable nuclear weapons of any kind. All portable nuclear devices--which are much bigger than a suitcase--were stored at a central facility under heavy guard. Lt. Gen. Igor Valynkin, chief of the Russian Defense Ministry's 12th Main Directorate, which oversees all nuclear weapons, denied that any weapons were missing. "Nuclear suitcases . . . were never produced and are not produced," he said. While he acknowledged that they were technically possible to make, he said the weapon would have "a lifespan of only several months" and would therefore be too costly to maintain. Gen. Valynkin is referring to the fact that radioactive weapons require a lot of shielding. To fit the radioactive material and the appropriate shielding into a suitcase would mean that a very small amount of material would have to be used. Radioactive material decays at a steady, certain rate, expressed as "half-life," or the length of time it takes for half of the material to decay into harmless elements. The half-life of the most likely materials in the infinitesimal weights necessary to fit in a suitcase is a few months. So as a matter of physics and engineering, the nuclear suitcase is an impractical weapon. It would have to be rebuilt with new radioactive elements every few months. We have ones that can be fired from a Howitzer?  How big can that be?  105mmx??

Again, they have different storage and maintenance requirements than the 'suitcase' nuke. As an artillery shell, you can concentrate on solely the items needed for the blast in the shell. Other functions can be handled by the container - i.e. shielding.

Incorporating the nuke weapon, electronics, and shielding into a portable device makes it much bigger, or the yield much smaller.

The press and kook sites love to play up the "suitcase bomb" hype. Maybe it gets them better ratings or more ad views. But the image they portraty does not jibe with reality.

And the guy that the press took all the rumors of missing suitcase nukes from was essentially full of shit...but it doesn't keep people from hyping the threat of 'missing suitcase nukes' when none of them are either missing or the size of suitcases.

Quoted: Each Division had a platoon of nuclear demolition specialists. Old 12E MOS.  The MK-54 was the standard munition. Heavy and cumbersome. The bigges threat is a shipping container.  We can't inspect them all.  Just put a normal device in one of those, drive where you want it and get your jihad on.

That is the big threat  - far more likely than the mytical suitcase nuke or a rogue launch against the US.

The nuclear nations that have the willingness to hand out nukes to terrorists do not have the technology to build a small. man-portable nuclear device with proper shielding that will keep it from detection, operate reliably, and produce a the massive yield everyone hypes.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Suitcase nukes don't exist? Since when? Since we started living in the real world instead of the make believe hollywood world. Read the opinion journal link. The closest thing to a suitcase nuke is about the size of a few footlockers an would take several people to deploy / maintain. There is no 'suitcase nuke' out there. Perhaps you should start reading Fact Journals... Have been. The ones who check their FACTS and are interested in facts instead of hype have thoroughly debunked the suitcase nuke myth. Uh huh. Then kindly explain how our military was able to shoot one out of a cannon in the Fifties...? Did they debunk that one too?

Again...different technology for different uses. Do a little research on your own before you compare the two.

Posting a pic of  nuclear field artillery to prove the existance of suitcase nukes is like posting a pic of a lowland gorilla to prove the existance of bigfoot. They might have some similarities, but they're not the same, and the existance of one doesn't validate the myth of the other.

Why would an organization that cannot produce its own nuclear materials and maintain them want to waste their time with the expense of nuclear weapons?  Biological weapons are much more affordable, last longer and fit into a much smaller package.  They also take a heck of a lot less scientifically advanced support system to create them.

Quoted: Quoted: A nuclear response to the sponsoring state.  No other action would be acceptable.   They'd figure out where it came from, you dont just pop a nuke together from spare parts.    Once a sponsoring nation is found, they're gonna be a big smoking hole. I can believe this if they hit NY. The Brits also when pissed off can press the red button to fire their submarine based ICBM. What if the center of the christianity would be tranformed in a glass parking lot? We Italians don't have means to "prosecute diplomacy with other means..."

Even though some politicians in Italy have pussified SOME Italians, I cannot believe that the race which once was master of the known world  - orbis terrari and surrounding "mare nostrum" - would take this lying down.  It is an unfortunate truth that one just cannot be "nice" in this world.  A few legions, properly generaled would put these creeps in their place.  As they used to say: "the Dolabellas were old when Romulus and Remus were pups, and Rome was a civilization when others were living in trees."

Quoted: Why would an organization that cannot produce its own nuclear materials and maintain them want to waste their time with the expense of nuclear weapons?  Biological weapons are much more affordable, last longer and fit into a much smaller package.  They also take a heck of a lot less scientifically advanced support system to create them.

Probably for the psychological effect of a nuclear bomb going off on US soil.

I think prezhilly would immediately order the formation of a blue ribbon committee that would spend 40 million dollars investigating the incident. Three years later the committee would release a very strongly worded letter condemning the action.

ARH

We have nuke Tomahawks, right?

A tomahawk is about 20 inches in diameter and I don't know how long.

How much of that size is the payload?

Quoted: Quoted: I don't profess to know anything about the atomic demolition munition, but the atomic cannon had a bore of 280 mm  (11 inches), and the warhead was probably not more than a couple of feet long, so draw your own conclusions about the size issue. atomic cannon link And that is old technology. There are nukes that are very small. Not all nukes are made to have the destruction power to take out an entire city or smiliar area. Tac nukes have been around, used to take out an airfield area and that is it...or a fleet of ships...etc..

That is true.  However, even that's barking up the wrong tree.  I realize the initial premise implied a nuclear explosion taking out part of a city.  What do terrorists really need?  Kill some people, panic even mmore.  Try to get a civilization to stop.  You don't need a NUCLEAR explosion: conventional dynamite will do if you have some Plutonium packed in with it.  Make a good chunk of NYC radioactive, the plutonium particles will sentence tens or even hundreds of thousands to death by lung cancer - a Plutonium particle entering a lung is 98%+ lung cancer.  The panic and uncertainty alone would accomplish as much as a smoking hole that any theoretical suitcase nuke could cause.  The blast from a suitcase device probably would not be as widespread as the radioactivity from such a device as described.

Quoted: The biggest problem for any target country's leadership would be to identify the sponsoring state.  Al Qaeda is stateless...an amorphous gaggle of terrorists from many countries who are just dying to get their hands on a nuclear bomb to use on a Christian state and begin the apocopalyptic war they so badly want.  They would gladly sacrifice just about any Muslim city (With the possible exception of Mecca) to start a nuclear war.  In the meantime, they are holed up in some shithole cave way up in the Hindu Kush. So...what do we bomb if attacked?  Is it good, smart, logical policy and in the USA's best interests to turn Mecca into a giant pile of radioactive rubble?  If we nuke the holy city of Qom in Iranifuckistan...is that the correct "payback" for say...50,000 American dead? I certainly don't have the answer...and this is one tough problem for anyone.  Which is why I suspect that Bush and his crew are pushing SO damn hard to keep nukes from Iran - Hezbollah - Al Qaeda, etc. Someone here posted a good scenario a few months ago:  Tell the entire world that if ONE Islamofacist terrorist bomb goes off in the USA...Mecca, Medina and Qom simply disappear.  Then see what happens.

Those are my thoughts exactly LWilde.

If Russia sent us an ICBM we send one back in return. Same with China, Korea or any other country.

But terrorists are ghosts who float in and out of countries. Terrorist organizations can only operate with the support of a country's treasury, terrorism is an expensive buisness. But do we really nuke a sponsering country? Maybe we did make a mistake and nuked the wrong one? That would be even worse than nuking the right one.


Problem here is the current president may say it and mean it. But what he says is not binding on the next one. We may very well indeed get a pussyfooter like the last one. When the tangos figure out the threat no longer exists they'll step up their attacks and maybe even include more nukes/dirty bombs.

It is much more desirable to work like hell to keep nukes out of the hands of tangos.


One more thing...

Suitcase nukes don't exist? If we can build a ~10kiloton warhead for a 155mm artillery piece I think we can build one to fit inside a small steamer trunk, or maybe a large Samsonite suitcase.

Quoted: One more thing... Suitcase nukes don't exist? If we can build a ~10kiloton warhead for a 155mm artillery piece I think we can build one to fit inside a small steamer trunk, or maybe a large Samsonite suitcase.

The operative word is "WE".

And yet again, the storage and size requirements for an artillery nuke and a 'suitcase' nuke are different. With a 'suitcase' nuke you need to balance the yield size and shielding...and the shield takes up a huge part of the size and weight. You need that to prevent detection and keep it from killing you before you can use it. Not to even to go into the required upkeep for 'suitcase' weapons.

People need to go back to how this whole 'suitcase nuke' myth started. It was a russian General, Alexander Lebed, who made the claim. A guy with a flare for the dramatic instead of the truth. His claim has been backed up by no one. A claim that has been debunked by the russians and americans who inspected the nuclear programs.

He claimed weapons of a size that didn't exist. He claimed they were missing from places they never were at in the first place. And he claimed numbers of weapons missing that fluctuated based on however he felt that day.

So the basis of the 'suitcase nuke' story is utter bullshit. They didn't have them as claimed, they weren't where he claimed, and anything they had even close to a suitcase nuke were all accounted for.

So that leaves a third party - not the US, not the russians - that would have to come up with these magical suitcase sized nukes. For any country that has nuclear weapons capability and that is not a direct ally, they are signifantly behind the US and even russia in their nuclear program that a suitcase sized nuke with a significant yield and proper shielding and reliability has about as much likelyhood of currently existing as bigfoot does.

But hell, if people feel better worrying about something that doesn't exist, go ahead. The more realisitc threat is the kind mentioned by sylvan - a larger device coming over on a shipping container then either detonated near a port city or transported inland. Worry about that, not some random terrorist carrying a nuclear device the size of a suitcase that he couldn't possibly have.

Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM), a Navy and Marine Corps project that was demonstrated as feasible in the mid-to-late 1960s. The package shown was intended to be used by UDT/Seal Special Forces, delivered into water by parachute along with a two man team, then floated to the target, set in place and armed by hand. Designed to attack a harbor or other strategic location that could be accessed from the sea.

A suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb is a very compact and portable nuclear weapon and could have the dimensions of 60 x 40 x 20 centimeters or 24 x 16 x 8 inches. The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions.

The Pu-239 weighs 10.5 kg and is 10.1 cm across. It doesn't take much more than a single critical mass to cause significant explosions ranging from 10-20 tons. These types of weapons can also be as big as two footlockers.

The warhead of a suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb consists of a tube with two pieces of uranium, which, when rammed together, would cause a blast. Some sort of firing unit and a device that would need to be decoded to cause detonation may be included in the "suitcase."

Another portable weapon is a "backpack" bomb. The Soviet nuclear backpack system was made in the 1960s for use against NATO targets in time of war and consists of three "coffee can-sized" aluminum canisters in a bag. All three must be connected to make a single unit in order to explode. The detonator is about 6 inches long. It has a 3-to-5 kiloton yield, depending on the efficiency of the explosion. It's kept powered during storage by a battery line connected to the canisters.

Effects

External radiation occurs when either part of or all of the body is exposed from an external source, such as when a person is standing near the site of where a radiological device such as a suitcase bomb or suitcase nuke is set off and he or she is exposed to radiation, which can be absorbed by the body or can pass completely through it.

Contamination occurs when radioactive materials in the form of solids, liquids or gases are released into the air and contaminate people externally, internally or both. This happens when body parts such as the skin become contaminated and/or if the harmful material gets inside the body via the lungs, gut or wounds.

Incorporation of radioactive material occurs when body cells, tissues and organs such as bone, liver, thyroid or kidney, are contaminated.

Gamma radiation can travel many meters in the air and many centimeters once in human tissue; therefore they represent a major external threat. Dense material is needed as a shield. Beta radiation can travel meters in air and can moderately penetrate human skin, but clothing and some protection can help. Alpha radiation travels a very short distance through the air and can't penetrate the skin, but can be harmful if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through open wounds.

Radiation in the first hour after an explosion is about 90 percent, with it going down to about 1 percent of the original level after two days. Radiation only drops to trace levels after 300 hours.

Symptoms

People in the immediate vicinity of a suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb detonation would likely die from the force of the conventional explosion itself. Some survivors of the blast might die of radiation poisoning in the weeks afterward. Those farther away from the explosion might suffer radiation sickness in the days and weeks afterward, but recover. Over time, risks of cancer in the affected area would rise, but perhaps only slightly.

A mix of physical symptoms must be used to judge the seriousness of exposure. Impact of radiation poisoning also changes if the body has experienced burns or physical trauma. In the case of treatable victims, extensive medical treatment may be needed for more than two months after exposure.

Some symptoms may include vomiting, headache, fatigue, weakness, diarrhea, thermal burn-like skin effects, secondary infections, reoccurring bleeding and hair loss.

Treatment

If detection and decontamination occurs soon after exposure, about 95 percent of external radioactive material can be removed by taking off the victim's clothing and shoes and washing with water. Further decontamination may require the use of bleaches or other mild abrasives.

Treatment of a victim within the first six weeks to two months after exposure is vital and is determined by what types of radioactive isotopes to which the victim was exposed.

Medical personnel will treat victims for hemorrhage and shock. Open wounds are usually irrigated to cleanse them of any radioactive traces. Amputation of limbs may occur if a wound is highly contaminated and functional recovery isn't likely.

If radioactive material is ingested, treatment is given to reduce absorption and enhance excretion and elimination. It includes stomach pumping or giving the victim laxatives or aluminum antacids, among other things.

If radioactive material has gotten into a victim's internal organs and tissues, treatment includes giving the patient various blocking and diluting agents, such as potassium iodide, to decrease absorption. Mobilizing agents such as ammonium chloride, diuretics, expectorants and inhalants are given to a patient to force the tissues to release the harmful isotopes. Other treatments involve chelating agents. When ingested, these agents bind with some metals more strongly than others to form a stable complex that, when soluble, are more easily excreted through the kidneys.

bastiat I didn't read all 3 pgs before I replied so I see I was a touch late coming in with the Atomic Cannon topic. Plus I got the size of the shell wrong. It's 280mm not 155mm like I had thought.

That said, if an artillery man can manhandle a 280mm diameter shell (~11") then a box can be built around it. Yes it would be much heavier then your normal suitcase full of clothes and like I said probably more the size of a steamer trunk. That's not really the same as a "suitcase bomb" like the press loves to worry about, but compared to the warheads and MIRV's in ICBMs it certainly is suitcase sized.

I also agree they would likely be high maintence items and may not be very reliable anymore, but one that works only half right would still be a pretty big explosion and dirty as hell. And if we can make something that size, so could the Soviets. Although ours are/were more reliable, compact and powerful I'm sure.

So, I'm personally convinced compact sized nukes existed at one time. Thus a few may still be around. But they are not/were not something as small and light as a large Samsonite suitcase full of vacation clothing. Once again the press are misleading people with their reporting. There's a big surprise.

And I agree that shipping containers are the most likely way bad things will get into this country.

Quoted: img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/pcsutton/nuclear_suitcase_bomb_nuke.gif

Super. Where did you get this work of fiction? Hollywood?

Amazing that people will believe what comes out of hollywood and the liberal press when they want to believe it.

Quoted: Quoted: img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/pcsutton/nuclear_suitcase_bomb_nuke.gif Super. Where did you get this work of fiction? Hollywood? Amazing that people will believe what comes out of hollywood and the liberal press when they want to believe it.

Try the previous post.

Quoted: i2.tinypic.com/r2ketu.jpg Above: The carrying case for the Mk-54 SADM, which had a yield from .01 to 1.0 kiloton. The entire unit weighed less than 163 pounds. This weapon was in 3AD inventory with the 23rd Engineers from 1964 into (apparently) the 1980's. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SADM Film of SADM delivery

It was gun weapon and was quite "warm" due to the fact the sub-critical mass's are within 3 feet of each other with very little shielding.   IIRC, one can only carry it for a few days before they reach the point of getting lethal dose via neutron's and x-ray's.

Quoted: bastiat I didn't read all 3 pgs before I replied so I see I was a touch late coming in with the Atomic Cannon topic. Plus I got the size of the shell wrong. It's 280mm not 155mm like I had thought. That said, if an artillery man can manhandle a 280mm diameter shell (~11") then a box can be built around it. Yes it would be much heavier then your normal suitcase full of clothes and like I said probably more the size of a steamer trunk. That's not really the same as a "suitcase bomb" like the press loves to worry about, but compared to the warheads and MIRV's in ICBMs it certainly is suitcase sized. I also agree they would likely be high maintence items and may not be very reliable anymore, but one that works only half right would still be a pretty big explosion and dirty as hell. And if we can make something that size, so could the Soviets. Although ours are/were more reliable, compact and powerful I'm sure. So, I'm personally convinced compact sized nukes existed at one time. Thus a few may still be around. But they are not/were not something as small and light as a large Samsonite suitcase full of vacation clothing. Once again the press are misleading people with their reporting. There's a big surprise. And I agree that shipping containers are the most likely way bad things will get into this country.

Yes, things like the SADM did exist (the last one was destroyed in 2003, iirc) and they were the closest thing to a 'suitcase' sized nuke. But even they had to deal with the same factors - weight, shielding, maintenance, etc.

We were able to make them, the russians were able to make them, albeit a bit bigger. Since all of them are either destroyed or accounted for, any 'suitcase' nuke would have to come from another party - and it would be much bigger and much less reliable, with less of a yield.

My main problems with all this are twofold: First, people keep referring to this as a 'suitcase' nuke like some terrorist is going to travel cross country with it in a samsonite sized case on a greyhound bus. Second, the story that spawned the 'suitcase nuke' scare is based on bullshit. But it doesn't stop people from using that as the basis for their theories.

Are suitcase sized nukes in the hands of terrorists possible? Sure, sometime in the future. But not now. Now they only exist in hollywood movies and the minds of people who need something else to worry about.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/pcsutton/nuclear_suitcase_bomb_nuke.gif Super. Where did you get this work of fiction? Hollywood? Amazing that people will believe what comes out of hollywood and the liberal press when they want to believe it. Try the previous post.

I mean a link to the story you posted.

Note that the very first sentence of the article contains the most important word:

A suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb is a very compact and portable nuclear weapon and could have the dimensions of 60 x 40 x 20 centimeters or 24 x 16 x 8 inches.

Could.

That is the word that matters. The only place that 'briefcase' nuke exists right now is in someone's head.

Quoted:

You could not have two masses of Pu-239 so close to each other, Pu-239 (and its other isotopes like Pu-240) are far too fissile.  That is why Ur-235 is used in gun weapons and Ur-235 in such close proximity would be belting out a nice output of radiation via neutrons and gamma/X-ray radiation.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/pcsutton/nuclear_suitcase_bomb_nuke.gif Super. Where did you get this work of fiction? Hollywood? Amazing that people will believe what comes out of hollywood and the liberal press when they want to believe it. Try the previous post. I mean a link to the story you posted. Note that the very first sentence of the article contains the most important word: A suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb is a very compact and portable nuclear weapon and could have the dimensions of 60 x 40 x 20 centimeters or 24 x 16 x 8 inches. Could. That is the word that matters. The only place that 'briefcase' nuke exists right now is in someone's head.

My impetus was only to show that tactical nukes have been deveoped that are small emough to be 'man portable', NOT to claim any authenticity to that artists depiction. However, we do have, and regularly deploy W80 warheads that are very much 'man portable'.



The W80 is a small atomic bomb (fission weapon) in the nuclear stockpile of the USA. It was designed for deployment on cruise missiles and is the warhead used in the majority of nuclear-armed US Air Force ALCM and ACM missiles, and their US Navy counterpart, the BGM-109 Tomahawk. It is essentially a modification of the widely deployed W-61 weapon, which forms the basis of most of the current US stockpile.

The W80 is physically quite small, the "physics package" itself is about the size of a conventional Mk.82 250 lb (113 kg) bomb, and only slightly heavier at about 290 lb (132 kg). Armorers have the ability to select the yield of the resulting explosion in-flight, a capability sometimes referred to as "dial-a-yield". At one end of the scale, perhaps using just the boosted fission primary, the W80 delivers about 5 kilotons of TNT, at the other it delivers about 150 kt.

The Los Alamos National Laboratory began development on the W80 in June 1976, with the brief of producing a custom weapon for the cruise missiles then under construction. The main differences between the W80 and W61 appear to relate to the physical packaging of the device, and to the removal of the 0.3 kt yield mode; the W61 apparently needed this feature when deployed as a depth charge, a role for which the W80 was not intended.

Production of the W80 Model 1 (W80-1 or Mod 1) to arm the ALCM started in January 1979, and a number of warheads had been completed by January 1981 when the first low-temperature test was carried out. To everyone's surprise the test delivered a much lower yield than was expected, apparently due to problems in the electrical firing system and the conventional explosives used to fire the primary. This problem turned out to effect the entire W61-based line, and production of all weapons was suspended while a solution was worked on. Production restarted in February 1982.

In March 1982 designers began working on a W80 variant intended for the Navy's Tomahawk program. The W80 Model 0 (W80-0 or Mod 0) used "supergrade" fission fuel in the primary in place of the conventional plutonium used in the Air Force's version. The first models were delivered in December 1983 and the Mod 0 went into full production in March 1984.

Production of the W80 was completed by September 1990, although the exact date at which the respective Mod 0 and Mod 1 runs ended is not clear. A total of 1750 Mod 1 and 367 Mod 0 devices were delivered; 1,000 Mod 1 devices were deployed on the original ALCM, another 400 on the later ACM, and 350 Mod 0s on the Tomahawk.

A number of the original ALCMs equipped with the Mod 1 later had their warheads removed in order to use them with conventional explosives (the CALCM conversion), and under START II only 400 ACMs would retain their warheads and the rest would be removed, apparently with all remaining ALCMs converted to CALCMs and their warheads removed to the "inactive stockpile". With the fall of the START II treaty it is not clear what the current plans are, but it is highly likely they will take place as originally planned in order to remove the ALCM from service. Mod 0 armed Tomahawks are currently stored onshore, but there are/were plans to make this the primary US Navy nuclear weapon.

Link

If that isn't small enough, try the W54 warhead that was tested in the Davy Crocket program. If you cant fit that in a back-pack you need a bigger backpack!



The W54 was designed by Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and built by the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Around 400 units were manufactured from 1961 until early 1962, and they were deployed until at least 1971.

[edit]
Models
There were three distinct models of the basic W54 design used, each with different yield, but the same basic design. These were:

Mk-54 (Davey Crockett) - 10 or 20 ton yield, Davy Crockett (nuclear device) artillery warhead
Mk-54 (SADM) - variable yield 10 ton to 1 kiloton, Special Atomic Demolition Munition device
W-54 - 250 ton yield, warhead for AIM-26 Falcon air to air missile
All three models share the same basic core: a nuclear system which is 10.75 inches diameter (270 mm), about 15.7 inches long (400 mm), and weighs around or slightly over 50 pounds (23 kg).

The W54 would have fit into the Special Atomic Demolition Munition ("Backpack Nuke") casings.These small size devices were first intended for use by United States Army ground soldiers in battle, and were in theory small enough to be delivered by a bazooka style firing mechanism. Early known versions could destroy a two block area, with an estimated yield comparable to aproximate 10 tons of TNT. Larger versions were later developed with a selectable yield of between 10 and 250 tons. Though small compared to most other nuclear weapons, whose yields are usually measured in the thousands of tons of TNT (kilotons), in human terms they are still extremely large. By comparsion, the 10 ton version of the W54 is two to four times as powerful as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Several variations of the W54 are known to exist and they were used in weapons projects by every branch of the U.S. armed forces.

The W54 style warhead was known to be used on the M-388 Davy Crockett, a tactical nuclear recoilless rifle projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War.

The W54 in theory is small enough to be deployed as a SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition) or so called "Backpack Nuke".

The W54 would also unfortunately be an ideal terrorist weapon if used in the making of a "dirty bomb" or Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD), due to its high yield to size ratio in comparison to traditional explosives. However it would be considerably easier to make such weapons out of non-nuclear explosives.

The W54 was tested for use in a U.S. Navy SEALs project that was demonstrated as feasible in the mid-to-late 1960s, designed to attack a harbor or other strategic location that could be accessed from the sea. The SEALs version would be delivered into water by parachute along with a two man team, then floated to the target, set in place and armed by hand.

The United States Air Force also developed a project using the W54, the Hughes Electronics AIM-26 Falcon. This was a larger, more powerful version of the AIM-4 Falcon air-to-air missile. It is notable for being the only U.S. guided air-to-air weapon with a nuclear warhead.

Documented testing
Stockpiled W54 warheads were test fired at the Nevada Test Site on July 7 and 17, 1962. In Little Feller II (July 7), the warhead was suspended only three feet above the ground and had a yield equivalent to only 22 tons of TNT. In Little Feller I (July 17), the warhead was launched as Davy Crockett device from a stationary 155 millimeter launcher and set to detonate between 20 and 40 feet above the ground around 1.7 miles from the launch point, with a yield of 18 tons. This test was the last atmospheric test at Nevada Test Site and was performed in conjunction with Operation IVY FLATS, a simulated military environment, and was observed by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and presidential adviser General Maxwell D. Taylor. Footage of Operation IVY FLATS was declassified by the United States Department of Energy on December 22, 1997. Limited operational details of early SADM projects were published prior to this declassification.

Preproduction testing
The earliest identified nuclear tests of devices corresponding to the W54 characteristics were the Pascal-A and Pascal-B test detonations in 1957, in the Plumbob nuclear test series. These were both intended to be very low yield, but overshot to higher yields (tens and hundreds of tons).

These were followed by tests of the XW-51 design which evolved into the XW-54 in the Hardtack test series in 1958 (Hardtack Quince and Hardtack Fig). These were both described as fizzles, or test failures.

A number of XW-51/XW-54 tests followed in the 1958 Hardtack II test series, including Hardtack II Otero, Bernalillo, Luna, Mora, Colfax, Lea, Hamilton, Dona Ana, San Juan, Socorro, Catron, De Baca, Chavez, Humboldt, and Santa Fe. By this time, the XW-51 / XW-54 design had been test fired more times than any preceding US nuclear weapon prior to its successful introduction in service, indicating the difficulty of successfully making this small and low yield design work reliably and safely.

Further testing followed in the 1961 Nougat test series, probably including Nougat Shrew, Boomer, Ringtail, and possibly others. By this time the W-54 design was performing consistently as expected at low yields.

Oh...I almost forgot to include the picture of the backpack device for the W54:

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/pcsutton/nuclear_suitcase_bomb_nuke.gif Super. Where did you get this work of fiction? Hollywood? Amazing that people will believe what comes out of hollywood and the liberal press when they want to believe it. Try the previous post. I mean a link to the story you posted. Note that the very first sentence of the article contains the most important word: A suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb is a very compact and portable nuclear weapon and could have the dimensions of 60 x 40 x 20 centimeters or 24 x 16 x 8 inches. Could. That is the word that matters. The only place that 'briefcase' nuke exists right now is in someone's head. My impetus was only to show that tactical nukes have been deveoped that are small emough to be 'man portable', NOT to claim any authenticity to that artists depiction. However, we do have, and regularly deploy W80 warheads that are very much 'man portable'.

And my point isn't that small nuclear devices don't exist. My point, which I've been trying to drive home, is that the threat of a terrorist with a 'suitcase' sized is just about all hype. The parties able to make them have them in control or have destroyed them. Other nuclear powers may be able to build weapons, but do not have the technology to produce a capable suitcase sized single man portable nuke. The origin of the suitcase nuke scare was from an unreliable russian general who was shown to be full of it.

Ultimately, to get back to the thread and the myth of suitcase nuke terrorism, mohammed durka durka isn't going to go up to the top of the empire state building with a large backpack and set off a nuke that will wipe out the city of new york. If they're going to do it, it's likely going to be big and bulky and in some sort of container - most likely detonated on a ship in some harbor near a large city.

 I KNOW IT'S TRUE...I SAW IT ON THE INTERWEB!!  

OK...the post of the drawing was not from a reliable source. My bad. The rest of the information is from a more reliable source.

I was intent upon showing that indeed small, man portable nuclear warheads do exist. As to their sources or past control of those weapons, I tend to agree with you. I doubt there are hadjis running about with suitcase nukes.

Where my curiosity is raised is whether or not the USSR had small weapons and what ended up happening to them upon the dissoluton of the Soviet Union.

Quoted:  I KNOW IT'S TRUE...I SAW IT ON THE INTERWEB!!   OK...the post of the drawing was not from a reliable source. My bad. The rest of the information is from a more reliable source. I was intent upon showing that indeed small, man portable nuclear warheads do exist. As to their sources or past control of those weapons, I tend to agree with you. I doubt there are hadjis running about with suitcase nukes. Where my curiosity is raised is whether or not the USSR had small weapons and what ended up happening to them upon the dissoluton of the Soviet Union.

If you haven't yet, read the link I posted to the opinion journal piece. It covered the items they had and the disposition of them after the USSR fell.  Everything they had in a small size was in one facility, and everything was tightly controlled, accounted for, and then destroyed. The only thing outside that facility were dummy training units filled with sand.

Even if any got out, and that would have to have been years ago, they take regular maintenance to keep them operational. That takes money and people with know how. If terrorist had them years ago, their best bet would have been to use them within a few months of aquiring them, otherwise they'd turn into radioactive paperweights.

What would happen is that a great number of Americans would rush to defend Islam as a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few bad seeds, and our collective gaze would turn toward examining what we did to deserve the attack.

Candles would be lit. Tears would be shed. Guilt & self loathing would flourish. Concessions to the "arab street" would be made.

Like it or not, that's what would really happen.

I agree it will be something like above.  Our country does not have the balls or support to defend it's self like we did in WWII.  Read the book by James Bradley, Flyboys, to see how we really defeated Japan. Nukes really didn't make a difference. It was the napalm that burnt their cities to a crisp that made the difference.  In this day and age, I'd go with nukes for effeciency reasons. No need to use hundreds of B-29's like back in the day, when a few B-2's will do the job.

None of this will keep us from imploding from within though.....

Without ever having seen a suitcase nuke, it would be easy to figure out if someone is carrying one. Because it would weigh a lot, it would be very difficult to carry around. Think of placing a 45 pound barbell plate into a briefcase and try to carry it around casually until you find your target zone.

1. Martial law.
2. Mandatory draft
3. Trail searching like never seen before to find the responsible sponsoring nation.
4.  WW IV.

before the dust settled, the slaughter of a whole bunch of people...

i dont believe we would have done iraq if not for 9-11. a nuke inside the us would raise a cry for blood the likes of which has never been seen in the country. talk all you want about the libs, and the touchy feeling sentiments of the left.. come a nuke in this country and the country will demand and get their pound of flesh.. and the flesh of anyone that even seems to be in the way... look at wwII. started with sneak attack on us, and at military targets, ended with 2 nuke attacks, and the fire bombing of tokyo and other cities.. and im not even bringing up europe...

Quoted: How does that cartoon go? "You know what this means, Right Bob?.....Screw the size requirements, and the bag limit...."

ROFLMAO!  I have that  cartoon on a coffee cup at home.  It was from the old comic strip "The Far Side" by Gary Larsen.  The picture is two old geezers out in a boat fishing with a mushroom cloud in the background.

Quoted: bastiat I didn't read all 3 pgs before I replied so I see I was a touch late coming in with the Atomic Cannon topic. Plus I got the size of the shell wrong. It's 280mm not 155mm like I had thought. That said, if an artillery man can manhandle a 280mm diameter shell (~11") then a box can be built around it. Yes it would be much heavier then your normal suitcase full of clothes and like I said probably more the size of a steamer trunk. That's not really the same as a "suitcase bomb" like the press loves to worry about, but compared to the warheads and MIRV's in ICBMs it certainly is suitcase sized. I also agree they would likely be high maintence items and may not be very reliable anymore, but one that works only half right would still be a pretty big explosion and dirty as hell. And if we can make something that size, so could the Soviets. Although ours are/were more reliable, compact and powerful I'm sure. So, I'm personally convinced compact sized nukes existed at one time. Thus a few may still be around. But they are not/were not something as small and light as a large Samsonite suitcase full of vacation clothing. Once again the press are misleading people with their reporting. There's a big surprise. And I agree that shipping containers are the most likely way bad things will get into this country.

We used to have lots of 155mm nuclear ammo for the Army and Marine Corps.  IIRC they were carried at the Corps level.  That is in addition to the 8".  The 11" (280mm) "nuclear cannon" wasn't much of a useful weapon because of its huge size and lack of mobility.  We had LOTS of the other arty to go around though...

Quoted: Quoted: img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/pcsutton/nuclear_suitcase_bomb_nuke.gif You could not have two masses of Pu-239 so close to each other, Pu-239 (and its other isotopes like Pu-240) are far too fissile.  That is why Ur-235 is used in gun weapons and Ur-235 in such close proximity would be belting out a nice output of radiation via neutrons and gamma/X-ray radiation.

Thank you.  Beat me to it...

Try this and you won't get far.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: what is a "suitcase nuke"? It's a small nuclear explosive device built in a suitcase size container and much more easily activable and concealable. It also doesn't exist.

Keep tellin' yourself that .

If AQ did get hold of some compact nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union disintegrated they would not have had the maintenance personnel or equipment to keep them reliable. I doubt if one would go off now due to not being maintained.

nvm

Quoted: What would happen is that a great number of Americans would rush to defend Islam as a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few bad seeds, and our collective gaze would turn toward examining what we did to deserve the attack. Candles would be lit. Tears would be shed. Guilt & self loathing would flourish. Concessions to the "arab street" would be made. Like it or not, that's what would really happen. I agree it will be something like above.  Our country does not have the balls or support to defend it's self like we did in WWII.  Read the book by James Bradley, Flyboys, to see how we really defeated Japan. Nukes really didn't make a difference. It was the napalm that burnt their cities to a crisp that made the difference.  In this day and age, I'd go with nukes for effeciency reasons. No need to use hundreds of B-29's like back in the day, when a few B-2's will do the job. None of this will keep us from imploding from within though.....

Oh jeez would you guys relax. The plain fact is most people are cynical now becuase of Iraq Which Bush really screwed the pooch on! Were people like that after 9-11? No. Are people now clamoring for us to withdraw from Afghanistan? no. It's just that nothing the Bush admin said about Iraq has panned out. When we were going to invade Afghanistan I dont remeber one protest. But even before we went into Iraq there were massive demos. WHY? Look i'm not gonna go into why, thats not my point, My point is this, Follow Holland and Denmark and Belgium. These are the biggest gay marriage, smoke pot, legal hookers, Pinko-liberal countries on the continent. Look at how nasty they have gotten reguarding their "tusken raiders" . If you dont know look it up on the net, The once super tolerant dutch have lost all thier tolerance. For the first time since the Protestant Reformation The dutch have attacked and firebombed houses of worship.  Political leaders have basically said to community leaders on TV "intergrate or get out". Laws have been passed making it hard to live according to the "tusken raider code" These countries see thier slow doom if they do nothing. Even certain leaders have complained that an "iron curtain" has decended between Europe and 'Tatooine' with no new Visas or student exchanges Etc. So all i wanna really say is that if the poofie Dutch can get plum mad dog mean so can we. I mean comeon someone has to stand up to the "phantom menace"!!

Some sort of wmd will be used on a city.  Not if, but when and where.

A gun bomb using uranium is the most likely nuke.  It will be big and delivered by truck or oil tanker,  or shipping container.  Air burst is better so it might get a ride in a freight elevator.  It will be assembled just prior to use so the two radioactive masses in close proximity don't emit telltale radiation to give it away.  

We won't know who to strike back against, but somebody will 'get it'.   Sure hope we chose the correct 'somebody'.  

Property values will go way down in big cities and up in less developed, non target areas.   Urban poor will be left in cities....racist accusations will be made.  lib-turds will shut up for a while and then they will blame the US for 'causing' ourselves to be terrorist nuked.

There will eventually be a 'fight  to the death' struggle between islam and everybody else.

We are in great position to strike iran because we have mucho assets next door in iraq and iraq has lots of long, wide runways near to iran.  Also we are in afghanistan and thus have iran 'surrounded' on two sides.  Brilliant move....being in iraq and afghanistan when we need to nail iran.   Just brilliant.  Well done Bushie.  

Oops, forgot, eventually we will use bio weapons big-time if the global shirts vs skins thing really gets going.  

Could be a real bad time to be wearing laundry on your head.  No doubt.

Why would they even bother with a suitcase when less than 1% of incoming Cargo boxes are even inspected? Who needs a suitcase size when you have semi-truck size room available?

I just hope people dont over react and start shooting and burning local Mosques in their neighborhoods. Or shoot up and burn the local Muslim retaurants, help centers and "charitable Muslim outreach places" that would just be awful and would make me sad.
     KTALGSTO

Maybe my expression of "suitcase A bomb" generates a lot of misunderstandings, and I apologize for it.

I was meaning a small size, low power (1Kt or little more) nuclear device, put somewhere in a Western city and assembled on the place by some specialist, and not one-piece device.

Something very similar to the A bomb in Ken Follett's "The Fourth Protocol".

The only real problem in introducing in an enemy country components for an A bomb is to introduce the nuclear explosive mass.

The next question is assemblying the device: has Al Qaeda specialists trained to do the job?