Al-Qaida Leader Says They Have Briefcase Nukes

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Dav1936531" wrote in message
...
From: (Peter Stickney)


Hardly "Suitcase Nukes". More like "Steamer Trunk Nukes" or
"Footlocker Nukes". Our smallest nuke, the Small Atomic Demolition
Munition, wasn't really amenable to being carried about like luggage.

Doesn't really matter how tiny (or big) the things are. If they fit in
an
SUV
and can be left on the street and detonated like a regular car bomb,
they
will
suit Al-Qaeda's purpose

I think the term "suitcase nuke" just refers to an free floating small
sized
demolition munition that can be used independent from some type of
delivery
system such as an aircraft or artillery piece.

No, the term "suitcase nuke" became a common (and misunderstood) term
when
Alexander Lebed came out with his since-discredited claims that the
GRU/KGB
had built numerous very small devices that could supposedly fit into a
briefcase/suitase size satchel and of which some number were supposedly
unaccounted for. One congressional committee even saw an extraordinary
"mockup" of this fantastic "weapon". None of this has ever panned out as
being based in real fact.


ISTR some 60's promotional literature from Picatinny Arsenal showing a
jeep-mounted recoilless rifle with a crew of two. It was pointed to
the horizon and there was a mushroom cloud. I think they talked about
yields down to 1Kt. It reminds me of the proverbial nulcear
handgrenade.

What's the range of a 105 RR ?

Of course it was an artist's sketch.

The same artists are now working on sketches of nuc bunker busters.
Another bad idea IMHO.

You are referring to the Davey Crockett, which was indeed fielded. It used
the W-54 warhead, the smallest spherical implosion device ever fielded by
the US, mounted on what was basically a "spigot" which was inserted into the
tube, with the warhead being that bulbous bomb-like contraption sticking out
of the end. The same warhead was the basis for the SADM.

Brooks







--
Al Dykes
-----------

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" writes:

What's the range of a 105 RR ?

Well, the Davey Crockett wasn't a 105 RCL. It came in 2 flavors - a
120mm bore tube with a range band of between 300m and 200m, and a
155mm tube with a range band of between 200m and 4000m.
Warhead yield was dialable in a range of 20t to 250t. (.02 KT - ,25
KT). (It was a muzzleloader, btw)


Of course it was an artist's sketch.

The same artists are now working on sketches of nuc bunker busters.
Another bad idea IMHO.

And a very old idea. The first nuclear penetrating bomb was the Navy's
Mk 8, from teh very early 1950s.

You are referring to the Davey Crockett, which was indeed fielded. It used
the W-54 warhead, the smallest spherical implosion device ever fielded by
the US, mounted on what was basically a "spigot" which was inserted into the
tube, with the warhead being that bulbous bomb-like contraption sticking out
of the end. The same warhead was the basis for the SADM.

Yeah, Basically, it was an Atomic Bottle Rocket. It was technically
feasible, but when you consider that it was still a Nuke, with all the
security, accountability, and authorization requirements that a Great
Big Nuke has, I don't think any of the very few Infantry units that
got them really liked teh idea. After all, what's the point of a
Jeep-portable Atomic Gun when you need another Jeep and trailer to
hold all the paperwork?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote in
news
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" writes:

What's the range of a 105 RR ?

Well, the Davey Crockett wasn't a 105 RCL. It came in 2 flavors - a
120mm bore tube with a range band of between 300m and 200m, and a
155mm tube with a range band of between 200m and 4000m.
Warhead yield was dialable in a range of 20t to 250t. (.02 KT - ,25
KT). (It was a muzzleloader, btw)


Of course it was an artist's sketch.

The same artists are now working on sketches of nuc bunker busters.
Another bad idea IMHO.

And a very old idea. The first nuclear penetrating bomb was the Navy's
Mk 8, from teh very early 1950s.

You are referring to the Davey Crockett, which was indeed fielded. It
used the W-54 warhead, the smallest spherical implosion device ever
fielded by the US, mounted on what was basically a "spigot" which was
inserted into the tube, with the warhead being that bulbous bomb-like
contraption sticking out of the end. The same warhead was the basis
for the SADM.

Yeah, Basically, it was an Atomic Bottle Rocket. It was technically
feasible, but when you consider that it was still a Nuke, with all the
security, accountability, and authorization requirements that a Great
Big Nuke has, I don't think any of the very few Infantry units that
got them really liked teh idea. After all, what's the point of a
Jeep-portable Atomic Gun when you need another Jeep and trailer to
hold all the paperwork?


And don't forget the Guard detachment.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" writes:

What's the range of a 105 RR ?

Peter, please watch how yo do your snippage--all of these were not my
comments/questions.


Well, the Davey Crockett wasn't a 105 RCL. It came in 2 flavors - a
120mm bore tube with a range band of between 300m and 200m, and a
155mm tube with a range band of between 200m and 4000m.
Warhead yield was dialable in a range of 20t to 250t. (.02 KT - ,25
KT). (It was a muzzleloader, btw)

One presumes you meant "2000" meters...


Of course it was an artist's sketch.

The same artists are now working on sketches of nuc bunker busters.
Another bad idea IMHO.

And a very old idea. The first nuclear penetrating bomb was the Navy's
Mk 8, from teh very early 1950s.

A bit different concept these days. The idea then was to have a weapon that
could penetrate some depth to create a big crater. The idea now is to
penetrate much deeper with a very small yield device that minimizes venting
of radioactive debris to the surface.


You are referring to the Davey Crockett, which was indeed fielded. It
used
the W-54 warhead, the smallest spherical implosion device ever fielded
by
the US, mounted on what was basically a "spigot" which was inserted into
the
tube, with the warhead being that bulbous bomb-like contraption sticking
out
of the end. The same warhead was the basis for the SADM.

Yeah, Basically, it was an Atomic Bottle Rocket. It was technically
feasible, but when you consider that it was still a Nuke, with all the
security, accountability, and authorization requirements that a Great
Big Nuke has, I don't think any of the very few Infantry units that
got them really liked teh idea. After all, what's the point of a
Jeep-portable Atomic Gun when you need another Jeep and trailer to
hold all the paperwork?

One of the oft-mentioned concerns raised was supposedly the reluctance to
give some E-5 the power to unleash a nuclear strike. But that really could
nopt have been much of a concern; firstly, odds are that an LT or CPT would
have been detailed to control the firing party, and we were already letting
1LT's loose with real live nuclear weapons under thier wings in F-84's and
the like at that time. I doubt any of the lower level firing units were too
concerned about excessive paperwork, either; the weapons' custodians had
that share of the formula to worry about, and IIRC this would have probably
been before the PRP (Personnel Reliability Program) for nuclear armed units
got into full swing. The availability of the W-48 155mm tac nuke round
probably had more to do with retiring the critter early than anything else.

Brooks


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Al Dykes) wrote in message ...

ISTR some 60's promotional literature from Picatinny Arsenal showing a
jeep-mounted recoilless rifle with a crew of two. It was pointed to
the horizon and there was a mushroom cloud. I think they talked about
yields down to 1Kt. It reminds me of the proverbial nulcear handgrenade.

What's the range of a 105 RR ?

IIRC, the range was less than the danger zone radius. Bad idea.

(Al Dykes) wrote:

ISTR some 60's promotional literature from Picatinny Arsenal showing a
jeep-mounted recoilless rifle with a crew of two. It was pointed to
the horizon and there was a mushroom cloud. I think they talked about
yields down to 1Kt. It reminds me of the proverbial nulcear handgrenade.

Is the Davy Crockett what you're looking for?
http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/coldwar.cfm

I recently visited the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque. (Info from
the web site and the tour.) The Davy Crockett was designed as an anti-tank
weapon, but wasn't terribly successful. It couldn't penetrate the armor of
contemporary tanks on a direct hit, and a tank 50 feet away would still be
standing.

/------------------------------------------------------------\
| George Ruch |
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" |
\------------------------------------------------------------/

Kevin Brooks wrote:

snip





No, the term "suitcase nuke" became a common (and misunderstood) term when
Alexander Lebed came out with his since-discredited claims that the GRU/KGB
had built numerous very small devices that could supposedly fit into a
briefcase/suitase size satchel and of which some number were supposedly
unaccounted for. One congressional committee even saw an extraordinary
"mockup" of this fantastic "weapon". None of this has ever panned out as
being based in real fact.

Brooks

Given the old Soviet propensity of duplicating, or attempting to
duplicate, so many Western weapons systems, if only on the principle
that if we had it they'd better have it too because even if they
couldn't immediately see the utility of the system in question, no need
to take chances (i.e., they couldn't afford to foster a "suitcase gap")
-- how likely is it that they _wouldn't_ have developed such a device?

David Windhorst

"David Windhorst" wrote in message
...


Kevin Brooks wrote:

snip





No, the term "suitcase nuke" became a common (and misunderstood) term
when
Alexander Lebed came out with his since-discredited claims that the
GRU/KGB
had built numerous very small devices that could supposedly fit into a
briefcase/suitase size satchel and of which some number were supposedly
unaccounted for. One congressional committee even saw an extraordinary
"mockup" of this fantastic "weapon". None of this has ever panned out as
being based in real fact.

Brooks

Given the old Soviet propensity of duplicating, or attempting to
duplicate, so many Western weapons systems, if only on the principle
that if we had it they'd better have it too because even if they
couldn't immediately see the utility of the system in question, no need
to take chances (i.e., they couldn't afford to foster a "suitcase gap")
-- how likely is it that they _wouldn't_ have developed such a device?

Being as we have seen no cridible evidence that they did (and we have seen
photos, accounts, etc., of their nuclear weapons developments since the fall
of the Soviet Union), and knowing that they did indeed have some problem
providing the materiel for all of the warheads they *did* want, the burden
of proof is on those who are claiming they did have these things. So far,
Lebed and his followers have been long on talk, short on proof.

Brooks


David Windhorst