Al-Qaida Leader Says They Have Briefcase Nukes

"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

(Peter Stickney) wrote in
:

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.


The smaller the nuke,the easier it is to smuggle it into the US.
You have more options for the method of entry.Even a small boat like they
use for smuggling drugs into the US.A backpack-sized nuke of 80 lbs could
be walked into the US from Mexico or Canada,by a small team of terrorists.

And what if Russia had some renegade officer sell a nuke to terrorists who
used it on a US city? That would not mean the US is going to nuke Russia in
return.Same for China or N.Korea. I suspect the US would take some time
investigating,and find that the terrorists had disappeared,if they managed
to find out who the nuke had been sold to,and no nuclear retaliation
launched at all. That's the worst part about WMD in non-State hands;there's
no ready target to retaliate against;the terrorists can scattter and hide
in other countries,where it's politically impossible to apply nuclear
retaliation.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
(Peter Stickney) wrote in
:

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.


The smaller the nuke,the easier it is to smuggle it into the US.
You have more options for the method of entry.Even a small boat like they
use for smuggling drugs into the US.A backpack-sized nuke of 80 lbs could
be walked into the US from Mexico or Canada,by a small team of terrorists.

That same boat could haul one that weighs 300 pounds or more, too. As could
any number of moving vans, pick up trucks, etc.


And what if Russia had some renegade officer sell a nuke to terrorists who
used it on a US city? That would not mean the US is going to nuke Russia
in
return.

Big "if". The Russians would be doing everything in their power, to include
letting us know what was afoot, to prevent that, as it would palce them in
the worst possible situation diplomatically for many years thereafter, at
the very minimum. Thus far, the Lebed claims have been pretty much
discredited. The Russians have plenty of problems/faults with their current
military situation, but they have always been rather tight in terms of
controlling their nuclear weapons, just as we have been. "A" Russian officer
is not going to make this scenario realistic--and the more you have in the
cabal, the greater the chance the conspiracy is detected.

Same for China

Ditto the above comments in regards to China.

or N.Korea.

Now that would be the wild card. But then again, there is absolutely no way
in hell that the DPRK has gotten to the point of manufacturing very small
tactical nuclear weapons of the type you are fixating upon; you are back to
a pretty good sized first-generation device (or, give them some credit for
taking advantage of other's efforts and credit them with the ability to
deploy a five or six hundred pound device, but that would likely be a
stretch).

I suspect the US would take some time
investigating,and find that the terrorists had disappeared,if they managed
to find out who the nuke had been sold to,and no nuclear retaliation
launched at all. That's the worst part about WMD in non-State
hands;there's
no ready target to retaliate against;the terrorists can scattter and hide
in other countries,where it's politically impossible to apply nuclear
retaliation.

Most large terrorist organizations are dependent upon national support, or
at least tacit agreement to "look in the other direction", on the part of
some nation or nations. AQ used Sudan (until they wore out their welcome
there)and Yemen (ditto), and then Afghanistan. Hamas has been linked to
Syria and Iran, etc. Linkage between a group perpetrating such an attack
would likely be a quick ticket for the supporting nations to undergo some
very unpleasant responsive measures.

Brooks


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net