Dangerous Cessna evacuates govt again

On 5/11/05 3:12 PM, in article , "x-ray"
wrote:

"Sport Pilot" wrote:

Not when its possible for a C150 to carry a small A bomb in a suitcase.


Apparently you do not understand nuclear weapons.

1) You can NOT put "A bomb" in a suitcase.
2) Considering the weight of such "suitcase" it would take 4 people to carry
it.
3) You need explosives to compress the plutonium to approx 3 times normal
density, not to mention the weight of the shielding you need, unless you
want to be a martyr.
4) By skipping 3) the device would be enough radioactive to harm the one who
is carrying it - they would be dead before they got to target!
5) Oh, by the way, by skipping 3) radiation sensors around various areas
would go ape ****.

In short, "A bomb" suitcase is nothing but paranoia (but that's already
mentioned in thread, so i won't go into it again).



The W-48 155mm nuclear artillery round is 34" long and weighs about 110 lbs.
It could fit diagonally in a large suitcase, especially if you removed the
fusing and other unnecessary parts of the case. Yield is about 70 tons of
TNT. It would probably kill everyone within 400 yards of it, mostly with
radiation. However, all of these weapons are accounted for.

The Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition) was a man-carried bomb
developed by the US. It was a variant of the W-48, but was a cylinder 40cm X
60cm and it weighed 68kg. An interesting weapon, to be sure, but I think
they have all been decommissioned.

The Soviets claimed to have built prototype suitcase weapons 20cm thick. A
linear triggered device (as opposed to the implosion types most people seem
to be thinking of) can theoretically be made 5cm thick, but it would take a
special development effort well beyond the capabilities of anyone but an
extremely advanced nuclear power such as the US, and it appears that we have
never been interested in such a weapon. The smallest weapon ever tested by
the US was the UCRL Swift device in 1956. It had a diameter of 5", was 24.5"
long, and weighed 96 lbs. It had a yield of 190 tons. It was supposed to be
a trigger for a fusion bomb, but it might have been a step along the way to
the W-48.

So yes, suitcase bombs are possible and some may have even been developed.
They would have explosive power in the range of a few hundred tons of TNT
instead of the kilotons that we usually think of when talking about nuclear
weapons. A terrorist would be extremely unlikely to get his hands on such a
device and even less likely be able to credibly build one. Not that it would
be impossible. China, for example, might consider a terrorist nuclear attack
on the US to be a useful way of distracting our attention from Taiwan. A
rather scary thought.

Plutonium is poisonous, radioactive, and explosive (even at less than
critical mass), but that does not mean an unshielded bomb would kill a
terrorist before he got a chance to deliver it to his target. After all,
plutonium is even used in pacemakers.