Al-Qaida Leader Says They Have Briefcase Nukes

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

The SADM had a much tougher casing and was designed to be
tamper-resistant. Kicked the weight up a *lot*.

Pardon me for saying so, but have you ever been exposed to the SADM in
any
fashion?

Yep. At least, I've seen the casing and such. It's not a backpack and
an alarm clock. Think military-designed and hard to break.

Suffice it to say that an exposed physics package is not realistic
in this thread--the supposition is that AQ allegedly got its hands on a
product of some ex-Soviet device, and it will be a cased device, one
that to
the best of my knowledge will include a PAL, too (say what you will
about
the Soviets, but they reportedly took their nuclear weapons control as
seriously as we did). SADM added about a hundred pounds to the warhead
weight for a reason.

Yeah, they wanted a bomb they could stash under a bridge, set a timer,
and not have to worry about until it went off. They could also
(supposedly) leave it under water.

Actually, you are only looking at one rather minor use of the device. The
major use was in denial and barrier operations--our corps level combat
engineer battalions were tasked with supporting their emplacement by the ADM
company troops, which is why we all had to attend that "what every engineer
lieutenant needs to know about ADM's" short course program as part of our
OBC. The special operators could emplace them, but that was the exception,
not the rule.

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

Take the mechanism out of the steel artillery round, and there you go.
About four inches in diameter, and a couple of feet long. Remember that
the W-82 weight and size were ready to fire, inside a heavy steel shell.

I don't know WHAT that shell was made out of, or how thick it was---for all
I know they used a more exotic material, like titanium. Nor do we know the
actual cross sectional dimensions of the warhead itself. We do know that a
particularly thick outerwall was not *required*, and that the actual physics
package diameter could have been as high as maybe six inches, with quarter
inch thick shell walls (the need for extreme thickness is not really
evident).

They were firing it out of a *cannon*. You don't do that with very thin
shell walls, and it also suggests a large amount of ruggedization for
the warhead itself (something not needed for a hand-carried bomb).

At *worst*, you have a package that will easily fit in a golf bag. How
many ways can you think of to sneak something that size into the US?

Your device still needs its batteries, its HE component, its
high-speed detonators and associated fuzing, its initial neutron
booster--all of the components minus the actual screw in fuze and the
external casing. The apparent limit to the package itself, minus the
unnecessary accoutrements, is going to be in the 50-60 pound range. If you
have found a smaller device, by weight, that has actually been proven to
work (i.e., either tested or fielded), please explain what it is.

Why? Fifty pounds and small enough to fit in a hand-carried case is
certainly small enough. It's not like you need to fit the thing under a
coach airline seat.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

Take the mechanism out of the steel artillery round, and there you go.
About four inches in diameter, and a couple of feet long. Remember
that
the W-82 weight and size were ready to fire, inside a heavy steel
shell.

I don't know WHAT that shell was made out of, or how thick it was---for
all
I know they used a more exotic material, like titanium. Nor do we know
the
actual cross sectional dimensions of the warhead itself. We do know that
a
particularly thick outerwall was not *required*, and that the actual
physics
package diameter could have been as high as maybe six inches, with
quarter
inch thick shell walls (the need for extreme thickness is not really
evident).

They were firing it out of a *cannon*. You don't do that with very thin
shell walls, and it also suggests a large amount of ruggedization for
the warhead itself (something not needed for a hand-carried bomb).

Yes, you can--witness the use of various cargo rounds, to include RAAM/ADAM.
Thin walled structures can be very strong, especially since the force it was
designed to sustain was pretty much a pure axial kick in the seat of the
pants with the rotational force being a nonplayer. And what were the charge
restrictions on its use?


At *worst*, you have a package that will easily fit in a golf bag. How
many ways can you think of to sneak something that size into the US?

Doesn't matter--the claim by Lebed, which these folks have apparently
latched onto, was that we were talking "suitcase bombs", not arty rounds.
Sorry, but I still find it less than believable. Maybe it si the complete
and utter lack of evidence to support Lebed's claims...


Your device still needs its batteries, its HE component, its
high-speed detonators and associated fuzing, its initial neutron
booster--all of the components minus the actual screw in fuze and the
external casing. The apparent limit to the package itself, minus the
unnecessary accoutrements, is going to be in the 50-60 pound range. If
you
have found a smaller device, by weight, that has actually been proven to
work (i.e., either tested or fielded), please explain what it is.

Why? Fifty pounds and small enough to fit in a hand-carried case is
certainly small enough. It's not like you need to fit the thing under a
coach airline seat.

But you have been saying they could be even smaller--where's the beef?

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:



The dimensions and weight of the 155mm rounds did not dramatically
change (W-48 from 1963 at 6.5 inches by 33 inches and 118 pounds
versus the W-82 cancelled in 1990, at 34 inches and 95 pounds) over
the decades.


155mm is 6.10 inches,so how could a W-48 be -larger- in diameter(6.5")?
and that includes the bomb casing.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:



The dimensions and weight of the 155mm rounds did not dramatically
change (W-48 from 1963 at 6.5 inches by 33 inches and 118 pounds
versus the W-82 cancelled in 1990, at 34 inches and 95 pounds) over
the decades.


155mm is 6.10 inches,so how could a W-48 be -larger- in diameter(6.5")?
and that includes the bomb casing.



One factor overlooked in all this discussion is that nuclear weapons, in
addition to generating lots of detectable radiation, get HOT! In FBM
tests we installed heaters to simulate the heat generated by a snoutful
of physics packages.

A good terrorist would have to wrap the whole thing in a lead vessel,
adding a lot of weight and then have to try to keep it cool. I know that
DC has radiation detectors spread all over the city; I assume that NYC
and Boston would, also,

It ain't as simple as it seems!

In article

,
Orval Fairbairn wrote:

One factor overlooked in all this discussion is that nuclear weapons, in
addition to generating lots of detectable radiation, get HOT! In FBM
tests we installed heaters to simulate the heat generated by a snoutful
of physics packages.

A good terrorist would have to wrap the whole thing in a lead vessel,
adding a lot of weight and then have to try to keep it cool. I know that
DC has radiation detectors spread all over the city; I assume that NYC
and Boston would, also,

It ain't as simple as it seems!

But it also ain't hard. Once you have one, you just need to get it into
the city for a minute or so, especially since we can assume a
hand-carried and detonated device.

I wouldn't bet that someone could get one into NYC at ground level, but
there are other ways.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:



The dimensions and weight of the 155mm rounds did not dramatically
change (W-48 from 1963 at 6.5 inches by 33 inches and 118 pounds
versus the W-82 cancelled in 1990, at 34 inches and 95 pounds) over
the decades.


155mm is 6.10 inches,so how could a W-48 be -larger- in diameter(6.5")?
and that includes the bomb casing.

Gee, I am so sorry. 6.5 inches. Happy now?

Brooks




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in news:rdednadjKtlDJcLdRVn-
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:



The dimensions and weight of the 155mm rounds did not dramatically
change (W-48 from 1963 at 6.5 inches by 33 inches and 118 pounds
versus the W-82 cancelled in 1990, at 34 inches and 95 pounds) over
the decades.


155mm is 6.10 inches,so how could a W-48 be -larger- in diameter(6.5")?
and that includes the bomb casing.

Gee, I am so sorry. 6.5 inches. Happy now?

Brooks




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net




My point was that the 155mm bomb -casing- is ~6 inches diameter,but the
physics package inside is going to be quite a bit smaller.
For a "suitcase" nuke,say 5 inches by something less than 33 inches.Of
course,the electronics part no longer needs to be in-line with the physics
pkg;in a suitcase,it could be next to it.No problem fitting it in a
suitcase.(especially the ones women always seem to have their entire
wardrobe packed into on trips. ;-) )

Then,118 lbs. includes the bomb casing,too,so I suspect a substantial
amount of weight could be cut from that number.

So,it would seem that a suitcase nuke is possible,but not a briefcase-size
nuke.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article ,
Jim Yanik writes:
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in news:rdednadjKtlDJcLdRVn-
:

My point was that the 155mm bomb -casing- is ~6 inches diameter,but the
physics package inside is going to be quite a bit smaller.
For a "suitcase" nuke,say 5 inches by something less than 33 inches.Of
course,the electronics part no longer needs to be in-line with the physics
pkg;in a suitcase,it could be next to it.No problem fitting it in a
suitcase.(especially the ones women always seem to have their entire
wardrobe packed into on trips. ;-) )

Then,118 lbs. includes the bomb casing,too,so I suspect a substantial
amount of weight could be cut from that number.

So,it would seem that a suitcase nuke is possible,but not a briefcase-size
nuke.

Jim, that's true, but it really is rather arrelevant. If it fits into
a Shipping Container or Conex Box, it's probably small enough to get
into any port in the world. The thing is, though, and my point from
before, is that it doesn't matter. If one is detonated, we'll know
who the source was before the fallout has finished, well, falling
out. We really are that good, and the different refinement processes
and plants all leave their own signatures. Whoever sold or "lost" it
is going to have a lot of explaining to do.
But not much time to do it in.

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