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.

Christopher Campbell wrote:
The W-48 155mm nuclear artillery round is 34" long and weighs about 110 lbs.
It could fit diagonally in a large suitcase,

errrr no it woudldn't. Typical size of a suitcase (and the one claimed by
Lebed) is 24x16x8". And it would take two-three people to carry such
suitcase (depending on the required distance). And that's an every day sight
on the street or airport, right? Three people carying ONE briefcase - it
really doesn't look suspicus at all! By omitting the shielding, your device
will trigger the most cheapest toy radiation sensor (not to mention the
sophisticated ones that would detect you long before you even get into
plane).

The relatively short halflife of Pu239 means that a large amount of energy
is emitted through radioactive decay. The Pu239 produces about 2 watt/kg.
That's why a piece of Pu239 is warm. If you would use "Lebed's suitcase"
design with only Pu and explosive, the temperature of suitcase would rise
from room temperature to the boiling point of water in less than two hours.
(And to the alpha-beta transition point soon after). I guess they deliver
you "Lebed's refrigerator" for FREE of charge when you buy "Lebed's suitcase
nuke". Or maybe the suitcase has a built *large* cooler and a fan on the
outside, making it look like a large scale model of a cpu with intel sticker
on it - while 3 people carry it around the airport.

The Soviets claimed to have built prototype suitcase weapons 20cm thick. A

Do you have some relevant document/reference that proves this? It's getting
pretty annoying with stroies of "suitcase nukes", "aliens in area 51" and
"We were not on the Moon" conspiracies. (No hard feelings)

In article , x-ray wrote:
Christopher Campbell wrote:
The W-48 155mm nuclear artillery round is 34" long and weighs about 110 lbs.
It could fit diagonally in a large suitcase,

errrr no it woudldn't. Typical size of a suitcase (and the one claimed by
Lebed) is 24x16x8". And it would take two-three people to carry such
suitcase (depending on the required distance). And that's an every day sight
on the street or airport, right? Three people carying ONE briefcase - it
really doesn't look suspicus at all! By omitting the shielding, your device
will trigger the most cheapest toy radiation sensor (not to mention the
sophisticated ones that would detect you long before you even get into
plane).

But that's not to say that very small nuclear weapons have not been made
(and tested) without killing the operators - they have, and by the
United States no less. The Davy Crockett was tested in the early 1960s.
The M388 projectile weighed 76lbs (the warhead being 51lbs of this), The
projectile was 31 inches long and 11 inches wide at its widest point.
2100 Davy Crocketts were deployed between 1961 and 1971.

I'm not exactly the world's strongest guy but even I could manhandle the
76lb Davy Crockett projectile. Since the weapons deployed to soldiers in
the field didn't kill the soldiers, we can assume that they had adequate
shielding.

The Davy Crockett round was tested in the Little Feller II test in 1962.
The warhead tested was 11 inches wide and 15 inches long, and weighed in
at 50lbs. Both a warhead suspended by cables a couple of feet off the
ground, and an actual firing of the whole Davy Crockett weapons system
was performed. The yields of the explosions were in the 20t range. (20
tonnes, not kilotonnes, tonnes). Even so that's a big bang for a small
bomb. It was the last atmospheric test at the Nevada test site.

The smallest diameter nuclear device tested by the US was 5 inches in
diameter. It exploded with a yield of 190t (it was actually a fizzle).
It weighed 96lbs. That's about the weight of my "portable" Roland A-90
keyboard (which has a travel case with wheels on the bottom. I took it
to the P'ville fly in in the back of a Bonanza about 3 years ago). That
particular round would also fit in my keyboard case. Whilst hardly a
suitcase, not many people are suspicious of musicians moving their kit
and the wheeled case would make it pretty easy to move on foot.

Some more information on the Davy Crockett (and some discussion on
'suitcase nukes') can be found at the Nuclear Weapons Archive:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News...ukesExist.html

--
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 in message
I'm not exactly the world's strongest guy but even I could manhandle the
76lb Davy Crockett projectile.

Me too, but for a limited period of time, with each step walking slower and
slower. )

the field didn't kill the soldiers, we can assume that they had adequate
shielding.

Of course they had. Point is that i can't find topics for shielding and
cooling in Lebed's suitace articles. That's why i have so much pessimism.
And remember, pessimist is - an optimist with experience

It weighed 96lbs. That's about the weight of my "portable" Roland A-90

Arghhh! I hate hammer action. If you will ever need something lighter, i
recomend JV-90.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News...ukesExist.html

That is a very good link. I've been visiting this site quite often after,
specially after i bought GM-45 radiation detector (computer controlled) few
months ago.

Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Well. Greetings from Diso system, from an ex. smuggler and a sicko who uses
mining grade lasers to attack other ships. My ASP Explorer is parked for the
past 3-4 years. From time to time i think about turning on that old thrusty
engine. Wish i could find some free time. I had first flight in 1993 (Ross
154 system).

In article , x-ray wrote:
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Well. Greetings from Diso system, from an ex. smuggler and a sicko who uses
mining grade lasers to attack other ships.

Funny where other Elite fans show up :-)

--
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"

"x-ray" wrote in message
...
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
I'm not exactly the world's strongest guy but even I could manhandle the
76lb Davy Crockett projectile.

Me too, but for a limited period of time, with each step walking slower
and
slower. )

So you put it on one of those two wheel luggage carriers. Problem solved
for $25.

On 5/12/05 2:04 AM, in article , "x-ray"
wrote:

Christopher Campbell wrote:
The W-48 155mm nuclear artillery round is 34" long and weighs about 110 lbs.
It could fit diagonally in a large suitcase,

errrr no it woudldn't. Typical size of a suitcase (and the one claimed by
Lebed) is 24x16x8". And it would take two-three people to carry such
suitcase (depending on the required distance). And that's an every day sight
on the street or airport, right? Three people carying ONE briefcase - it
really doesn't look suspicus at all! By omitting the shielding, your device
will trigger the most cheapest toy radiation sensor (not to mention the
sophisticated ones that would detect you long before you even get into
plane).


I made that same point myself in another part of the thread. Even if you
managed to get the weight of the briefcase down to 60 lbs, you would look
pretty funny trying to carry it. Imagine trying to carry something like the
SADM, though.

The UCRL Swift device was only 5" in diameter and 24.5" long. It would have
fit easily into Lebed's suitcase. Of course, the whole package would have
weighed about 100 lbs, but a suitcase full of books can weigh that much (I
know, AllATP's texts fit into a suitcase and weigh 120 lbs.)

If Lebed's bombs actually exist, they would probably use technology similar
to the Swift -- a linear implosion design using a football shaped
subcritical mass.


The Soviets claimed to have built prototype suitcase weapons 20cm thick. A

Do you have some relevant document/reference that proves this? It's getting
pretty annoying with stroies of "suitcase nukes", "aliens in area 51" and
"We were not on the Moon" conspiracies. (No hard feelings)

Lebed claimed in 1997 that the Soviets had actually manufactured such a
device. Of course, no one has ever seen it and you have to wonder what they
would have ever used it for.

Nevertheless, I think the W-54 does show that bombs of amazingly small size
are possible, even if they are still very heavy. I agree that it is
extremely unlikely that any terrorist organization would have the capability
to manufacture such a device. Stealing or buying one from the Soviets might
be possible, but that assumes a) Lebed was telling the truth and b) no one
has noticed that such a device is missing. Besides, supposing a group such
as Chechen rebels or the Russian mafia managed to obtain the thing -- would
they really be eager to turn it over to bin Laden's boys? More likely they
would use it to blackmail Russia.

120 LBS!,
Heck my wife's purse weighs that much!!!!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

In article , Christopher Campbell wrote:
never been interested in such a weapon. The smallest weapon ever tested by
the US was the UCRL Swift device in 1956.

I think the Davy Crockett round they tested in the early 60s was
actually smaller than that, I think it had a yield of around 20t (but I
could be wrong).

--
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"

On 5/12/05 2:46 AM, in article ,
"Dylan Smith" wrote:

In article , Christopher
Campbell wrote:
never been interested in such a weapon. The smallest weapon ever tested by
the US was the UCRL Swift device in 1956.

I think the Davy Crockett round they tested in the early 60s was
actually smaller than that, I think it had a yield of around 20t (but I
could be wrong).

The W-54 Davy Crockett was bigger, but not by much. The Swift had a higher
yield of 190 tons, though. The Swift was never actually deployed. The W-54
is the smallest bomb ever deployed by the US.