Dangerous Cessna evacuates govt again

In article , Jose wrote:
Yes, it's silly for the gov't to scatter like hens when a Cessna
approaches, but that's not the point.

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

and how is this different from having the gov't scatter like hens when a
small car approaches? It's not like you have to approach very closely
with an A-bomb.

With the yield of an A-bomb that you could carry in a C150, you'd need
to. The largest nuclear weapon you could practically carry in a C150
would be something like a Davy Crockett. This was a nuclear bazooka
round weighing in at 76lbs, with a (user selectable) yield of between
10t and 250t of TNT.

You'd have to get it within 0.5km if *airburst* to be effective - if
exploded on the ground, its destructive range would be very short (maybe
a city block) - you'd have to drive right up to the gates of the White
House.

Of course if they had the Davy Crockett launcher too, they would only
have to get within 3 miles or so.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote:

You'd have to get it within 0.5km if *airburst* to be effective - if
exploded on the ground, its destructive range would be very short (maybe
a city block) - you'd have to drive right up to the gates of the White
House.

You can park within about three blocks of thw White House and as long
as you look inconspicuous enough (like a brown delivery uniform guy
pushing a hand truck), you could walk easily to within a block.

("Dylan Smith" wrote)
You'd have to get it within 0.5km if *airburst* to be effective - if
exploded on the ground, its destructive range would be very short (maybe
a city block) - you'd have to drive right up to the gates of the White
House.

Of course if they had the Davy Crockett launcher too, they would only
have to get within 3 miles or so.


Hello - a bunch of helium balloons and a lawn chair - for the "device" - not
to sit in. Plus a few $2.99 'wind direction' mylar balloons.

I say we march right over to rec.aviation.ballooning with our torches and
pitchforks!!


Montblack

Sport Pilot wrote:
Yes, it's silly for the gov't to scatter like hens when a Cessna

approaches,

but that's not the point.


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

A Geo Metro could carry a similar size bomb and could have gotten closer
to the Capitol than the plane managed to do.

Weapon would be much more effective if detonated at altitude.

--
Hello, my name is Mike, and I am an airplane addict....

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...
Sport Pilot wrote:
Yes, it's silly for the gov't to scatter like hens when a Cessna

approaches,

but that's not the point.


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

A Geo Metro could carry a similar size bomb and could have gotten closer
to the Capitol than the plane managed to do.

"Mike W." wrote in message ...
Weapon would be much more effective if detonated at altitude.

Despends upon what you're trying to accomplish... Fallout works better with
a subsurface blast... Do it right and more people will die from the fallout
than the original blast...

Grumman-581 wrote:
"Mike W." wrote in message ...

Weapon would be much more effective if detonated at altitude.


Despends upon what you're trying to accomplish... Fallout works better with
a subsurface blast... Do it right and more people will die from the fallout
than the original blast...


You have to realize that the rules for the ADIZ and FRZ have squat to
do with protecting the people of DC. It's the secret service
protecting the president backed up by the selfish nature of our
elected legislature that is responsible for the rules.

"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).

They cant? Gee.. I guess this guy listed below was lying. So, why cant
they exist? Only need a few pounds of fissionable material and some
shielding. Dont need a LOT of shielding, since the guy delivering it is
on a suicide mission and not really worried about radiation sickness.
But Im not a nuclear physicist.. I just play one on TV :P.

Dave

http://armageddononline.tripod.com/nuclear.htm

Why are suitcase bombs such a great risk?
Russia created around 250 suitcase bombs - nuclear weapons the size of
suitcases. According to a Soviet defector called Aleksander Lebed it has
lost track of more than 100 - each of which could kill more than 100,000
people. Many of these bombs were distributed and hidden in hostile
countries. Possibly the worst effect of a terrorist nuclear device would
be that it could trigger a nuclear war. If America thought Russia had
used nuclear weapons against it, it would not hesitate to retaliate; so
one small nuclear device could kill billions.
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).

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.