Al-Qaida Leader Says They Have Briefcase Nukes

If AQ had them for some time, they'd have used them by now. And would not
have been wasting their time trying to foment "dirty bomb" plots. AFAIK,
the
smallest Soviet device would have been a 152mm warhead for artillery
use--but that would undoubtedly have been a gun-type or linear implosion
device, so it would be kind of long, not to mention heavy (more than 100
pounds IIRC based upon US 155mm warheads)--and of a rather small yield.
Color me (very) dubious on this whole "suitcase nukes are lying around
everywhere" hysteria that periodically arises (this ain't the first time).

An ideal target would be a Presidential Political convention. Decapitation
and the destruction of a substantial part of NYC would be a possible result
of exploding a SADM at the republican convention. But you have to consider
the democratic convention in Boston as a target since Bush is such an
effective recruiter for AQ


Brooks


Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.
Dave

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


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

In article ,
(Dav1936531) writes:
From: (BUFDRVR)


There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of
Soviet suitcase
nukes having disappeared from their inventory.

What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet
nuclear
scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there
were never any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat
Ledbed (is that his name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely
for scaring the crap out of western nations.
BUFDRVR

We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only
fair to assume that the Soviets had/have them too.

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.
If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would
be a good way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any
liability for negligent management of their armaments should the
new owners use one in a terror attack.

Which wouldn't work worth a damn if they were ever used. Over the
last 6 decades, we've become very, very, good at puling radioactive
particles out of the air, and figuring out their provenance. We
can identify the parts of teh bombs that that dust was, originally.
We can identify the origin of the pit by assaying the various
levels of impurities and such that were part of teh original metal.
I wouldn't be a damned bit surprised if we could tell what
production batch the bomb pit was from.

Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.

Even the Russians don't do bombast quite like the Arabs.


If a nuclear bomb can be made to fit into a 155mm projectile,surely
one could fit into a suitcase? And since 155's are loaded into some
artillery by 'hand',they would not weigh more than what a person
could lift.

You make it 155mm or so in diameter, you have to make it *long*. And
they usually have a crew loading 155mm guns; even the regular HE
rounds are sort of heavy for one man to handle getting into position.

Brooks


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net




How long is a 155mm projectile?
(not the entire cartridge,if that's whats used)
I doubt the nuclear ones are any longer than a standard 155mm projectile.
(how long is one of those?)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"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!

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


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

In article ,
(Dav1936531) writes:
From: (BUFDRVR)


There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of
Soviet suitcase
nukes having disappeared from their inventory.

What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet
nuclear
scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there
were never any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat
Ledbed (is that his name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely
for scaring the crap out of western nations.
BUFDRVR

We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only
fair to assume that the Soviets had/have them too.

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.
If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would
be a good way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any
liability for negligent management of their armaments should the
new owners use one in a terror attack.

Which wouldn't work worth a damn if they were ever used. Over the
last 6 decades, we've become very, very, good at puling radioactive
particles out of the air, and figuring out their provenance. We
can identify the parts of teh bombs that that dust was, originally.
We can identify the origin of the pit by assaying the various
levels of impurities and such that were part of teh original metal.
I wouldn't be a damned bit surprised if we could tell what
production batch the bomb pit was from.

Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.

Even the Russians don't do bombast quite like the Arabs.


If a nuclear bomb can be made to fit into a 155mm projectile,surely
one could fit into a suitcase? And since 155's are loaded into some
artillery by 'hand',they would not weigh more than what a person
could lift.

You make it 155mm or so in diameter, you have to make it *long*. And
they usually have a crew loading 155mm guns; even the regular HE
rounds are sort of heavy for one man to handle getting into position.

Brooks


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net




How long is a 155mm projectile?
(not the entire cartridge,if that's whats used)
I doubt the nuclear ones are any longer than a standard 155mm projectile.
(how long is one of those?)

The nuclear 155mm projectiles we fielded (they have all since been retired)
were around 41 inches long, IIRC (which is a bit longer than a standard HE
projectile, again IIRC--and not as long as the Copperhead CLGP). And since
you are talking about a 155mm system, that is the projectile only--those
kind of guns use seperate propellent charges. Weight of the nuclear round
was given as 118 pounds.

Brooks


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

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


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

In article ,
(Dav1936531) writes:
From: (BUFDRVR)


There were reports some years ago (never confirmed AFAIK) of
Soviet suitcase
nukes having disappeared from their inventory.

What "inventory"? I've seen several reports where both ex-Soviet
nuclear
scientists and ex-Soviet military officials repeatedly claim there
were never any suitcase nukes in the first place. This turn coat
Ledbed (is that his name?) seems to have been rewarded hansomely
for scaring the crap out of western nations.
BUFDRVR

We had/have "suitcase" nuke demolition charges.....it seems only
fair to assume that the Soviets had/have them too.

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.
If they have lost control of them, denying they ever existed would
be a good way to attempt to save face and to try to avoid any
liability for negligent management of their armaments should the
new owners use one in a terror attack.

Which wouldn't work worth a damn if they were ever used. Over the
last 6 decades, we've become very, very, good at puling radioactive
particles out of the air, and figuring out their provenance. We
can identify the parts of teh bombs that that dust was, originally.
We can identify the origin of the pit by assaying the various
levels of impurities and such that were part of teh original metal.
I wouldn't be a damned bit surprised if we could tell what
production batch the bomb pit was from.

Let's hope Al-Qaeda is blowing smoke.

Even the Russians don't do bombast quite like the Arabs.


If a nuclear bomb can be made to fit into a 155mm projectile,surely
one could fit into a suitcase? And since 155's are loaded into some
artillery by 'hand',they would not weigh more than what a person
could lift.

You make it 155mm or so in diameter, you have to make it *long*. And
they usually have a crew loading 155mm guns; even the regular HE
rounds are sort of heavy for one man to handle getting into position.

Brooks


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net




How long is a 155mm projectile?
(not the entire cartridge,if that's whats used)
I doubt the nuclear ones are any longer than a standard 155mm
projectile.
(how long is one of those?)

The nuclear 155mm projectiles we fielded (they have all since been
retired)
were around 41 inches long, IIRC (which is a bit longer than a standard HE
projectile, again IIRC--and not as long as the Copperhead CLGP). And since
you are talking about a 155mm system, that is the projectile only--those
kind of guns use seperate propellent charges. Weight of the nuclear round
was given as 118 pounds.

My bad. Length was actually 33 inches, weight between 118 and 128 pounds.

Brooks


Brooks


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"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

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

You mean W-78, right? I was referring to the Mk-12 W-68 warhead, not
the -12A. The W-68 "package" was only about 20 inches in diameter and
about 40 inches long. Slightly bigger in volume than a golf club bag.

Mea culpa--I wrote 79 instead of 78. But you need to check that data; the
W-78 *was* the weapon included in the Mk 12 RV. The W-68 was a much smaller
device (40-50 Kt yield) and was used on Poseidon SLBM, not on the Minuteman.
The dimensions I gave for the W-78 are apparently correct.

Shoot. You messed up one number, so did I. The *W-62* was what I was
using for weights.

Warhead/RV: 700-800 lb;
Warhead: 253 lb
170 Kt

--
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...

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.

--
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.