Czechoslovak nuclear weapons? Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...)

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

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

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

From: Alan Minyard
Date: 1/15/2004 12:34 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

The U.S. Army's Green Light program and the U.S. Air Forces Davey Crockett come
pretty close.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On 15 Jan 2004 18:40:34 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: Alan Minyard
Date: 1/15/2004 12:34 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

The U.S. Army's Green Light program and the U.S. Air Forces Davey Crockett come
pretty close.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

True, but they were very low yield, and would be way too heavy to qualify.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On 15 Jan 2004 18:40:34 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: Alan Minyard
Date: 1/15/2004 12:34 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

The U.S. Army's Green Light program and the U.S. Air Forces Davey
Crockett come
pretty close.

I have no idea what "Green Light" was, but I suppose it was a SADM or
similar--which was not a "suitcase bomb". And the USAF NEVER fielded Davey
Crockett--that was a US Army system (sort of a recoiless rifle with a
spigot) which used the same physics package as the SADM (W-54).

Brooks


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

True, but they were very low yield, and would be way too heavy to qualify.

Al Minyard

From: "Kevin Brooks"
Date: 1/16/2004 11:13 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On 15 Jan 2004 18:40:34 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: Alan Minyard
Date: 1/15/2004 12:34 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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

The U.S. Army's Green Light program and the U.S. Air Forces Davey
Crockett come
pretty close.

I have no idea what "Green Light" was, but I suppose it was a SADM or
similar--which was not a "suitcase bomb". And the USAF NEVER fielded Davey
Crockett--that was a US Army system (sort of a recoiless rifle with a
spigot) which used the same physics package as the SADM (W-54).

Brooks


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

True, but they were very low yield, and would be way too heavy to qualify.

Al Minyard


I don't recall suggesting Davey Crocket was a USAF program.

As for Green Light it was a man portable device. They would be emplaced by a
crew of two, timer set and left behind while the crew retired to a safe
distance. Other than that I don't know much more about it.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"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

"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

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.