Dangerous Cessna evacuates govt again

They cant? Gee.. I guess this guy listed below was lying. So, why cant
they exist? Only need a few pounds of fissionable material and some
shielding. Dont need a LOT of shielding, since the guy delivering it is
on a suicide mission and not really worried about radiation sickness.
But Im not a nuclear physicist.. I just play one on TV :P.

Dave

http://armageddononline.tripod.com/nuclear.htm

Why are suitcase bombs such a great risk?
Russia created around 250 suitcase bombs - nuclear weapons the size of
suitcases. According to a Soviet defector called Aleksander Lebed it has
lost track of more than 100 - each of which could kill more than 100,000
people. Many of these bombs were distributed and hidden in hostile
countries. Possibly the worst effect of a terrorist nuclear device would
be that it could trigger a nuclear war. If America thought Russia had
used nuclear weapons against it, it would not hesitate to retaliate; so
one small nuclear device could kill billions.
x-ray wrote:

"Sport Pilot" wrote:

Not when its possible for a C150 to carry a small A bomb in a suitcase.



Apparently you do not understand nuclear weapons.

1) You can NOT put "A bomb" in a suitcase.
2) Considering the weight of such "suitcase" it would take 4 people to carry
it.
3) You need explosives to compress the plutonium to approx 3 times normal
density, not to mention the weight of the shielding you need, unless you
want to be a martyr.
4) By skipping 3) the device would be enough radioactive to harm the one who
is carrying it - they would be dead before they got to target!
5) Oh, by the way, by skipping 3) radiation sensors around various areas
would go ape ****.

In short, "A bomb" suitcase is nothing but paranoia (but that's already
mentioned in thread, so i won't go into it again).

On 5/11/05 3:12 PM, in article , "x-ray"
wrote:

"Sport Pilot" wrote:

Not when its possible for a C150 to carry a small A bomb in a suitcase.


Apparently you do not understand nuclear weapons.

1) You can NOT put "A bomb" in a suitcase.
2) Considering the weight of such "suitcase" it would take 4 people to carry
it.
3) You need explosives to compress the plutonium to approx 3 times normal
density, not to mention the weight of the shielding you need, unless you
want to be a martyr.
4) By skipping 3) the device would be enough radioactive to harm the one who
is carrying it - they would be dead before they got to target!
5) Oh, by the way, by skipping 3) radiation sensors around various areas
would go ape ****.

In short, "A bomb" suitcase is nothing but paranoia (but that's already
mentioned in thread, so i won't go into it again).



The W-48 155mm nuclear artillery round is 34" long and weighs about 110 lbs.
It could fit diagonally in a large suitcase, especially if you removed the
fusing and other unnecessary parts of the case. Yield is about 70 tons of
TNT. It would probably kill everyone within 400 yards of it, mostly with
radiation. However, all of these weapons are accounted for.

The Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition) was a man-carried bomb
developed by the US. It was a variant of the W-48, but was a cylinder 40cm X
60cm and it weighed 68kg. An interesting weapon, to be sure, but I think
they have all been decommissioned.

The Soviets claimed to have built prototype suitcase weapons 20cm thick. A
linear triggered device (as opposed to the implosion types most people seem
to be thinking of) can theoretically be made 5cm thick, but it would take a
special development effort well beyond the capabilities of anyone but an
extremely advanced nuclear power such as the US, and it appears that we have
never been interested in such a weapon. The smallest weapon ever tested by
the US was the UCRL Swift device in 1956. It had a diameter of 5", was 24.5"
long, and weighed 96 lbs. It had a yield of 190 tons. It was supposed to be
a trigger for a fusion bomb, but it might have been a step along the way to
the W-48.

So yes, suitcase bombs are possible and some may have even been developed.
They would have explosive power in the range of a few hundred tons of TNT
instead of the kilotons that we usually think of when talking about nuclear
weapons. A terrorist would be extremely unlikely to get his hands on such a
device and even less likely be able to credibly build one. Not that it would
be impossible. China, for example, might consider a terrorist nuclear attack
on the US to be a useful way of distracting our attention from Taiwan. A
rather scary thought.

Plutonium is poisonous, radioactive, and explosive (even at less than
critical mass), but that does not mean an unshielded bomb would kill a
terrorist before he got a chance to deliver it to his target. After all,
plutonium is even used in pacemakers.

Christopher Campbell wrote:
The W-48 155mm nuclear artillery round is 34" long and weighs about 110 lbs.
It could fit diagonally in a large suitcase,

errrr no it woudldn't. Typical size of a suitcase (and the one claimed by
Lebed) is 24x16x8". And it would take two-three people to carry such
suitcase (depending on the required distance). And that's an every day sight
on the street or airport, right? Three people carying ONE briefcase - it
really doesn't look suspicus at all! By omitting the shielding, your device
will trigger the most cheapest toy radiation sensor (not to mention the
sophisticated ones that would detect you long before you even get into
plane).

The relatively short halflife of Pu239 means that a large amount of energy
is emitted through radioactive decay. The Pu239 produces about 2 watt/kg.
That's why a piece of Pu239 is warm. If you would use "Lebed's suitcase"
design with only Pu and explosive, the temperature of suitcase would rise
from room temperature to the boiling point of water in less than two hours.
(And to the alpha-beta transition point soon after). I guess they deliver
you "Lebed's refrigerator" for FREE of charge when you buy "Lebed's suitcase
nuke". Or maybe the suitcase has a built *large* cooler and a fan on the
outside, making it look like a large scale model of a cpu with intel sticker
on it - while 3 people carry it around the airport.

The Soviets claimed to have built prototype suitcase weapons 20cm thick. A

Do you have some relevant document/reference that proves this? It's getting
pretty annoying with stroies of "suitcase nukes", "aliens in area 51" and
"We were not on the Moon" conspiracies. (No hard feelings)

In article , Christopher Campbell wrote:
never been interested in such a weapon. The smallest weapon ever tested by
the US was the UCRL Swift device in 1956.

I think the Davy Crockett round they tested in the early 60s was
actually smaller than that, I think it had a yield of around 20t (but I
could be wrong).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , x-ray wrote:
Apparently you do not understand nuclear weapons.

1) You can NOT put "A bomb" in a suitcase.

The US manufactured (and tested) the Davy Crockett nuclear bazooka. It
certainly qualifies as a suitcase-sized nuclear weapon. It was a pure
fission implosion design, with a maximum yield of around 250t TNT. It
was also pretty close to the smallest theoretical size for a nuclear
weapon.

It weighed about 76lbs and was man-portable. They were actually deployed
in the field without the soldiers dying of radiation sickness. There are
photographs of them being tested in the Nevada desert.

They were designed to destroy advancing Russian tank columns, but it
would have been a last ditch suicide mission for the soldiers to use
them - at the range they would probably have had to set the fuse, the
prompt ionizing radiation would also have killed the soldiers using them
even at the lowest yield settings.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Sport Pilot wrote:
Yes, it's silly for the gov't to scatter like hens when a Cessna

approaches,

but that's not the point.


Not when its possible for a C150 to carry a small A bomb in a suitcase.



With all this talk of A-bombs, I would like to say hello to all the
government agents who are now reading this thread.

HI GUYS!

We're all good Americans here!

("Jimmy B." wrote)
With all this talk of A-bombs, I would like to say hello to all the
government agents who are now reading this thread.

HI GUYS!

We're all good Americans here!


I thought it was decided that we weren't .. I mean all good Americans ...I
mean we weren't all Americans here on the newsgroups.

"Knock, knock, knock." - Oh crap!!

So your plan was to drop your suitcase bomb last Monday?
Yes, but the weather wouldn't cooperate - low ceilings all day.

What about last Wednesday? What happened to that plan?
Wheel shimmy and a locking brake. That plane will be ready in 3 weeks.

And this past weekend?
Couldn't get a plane. Weather was great, all the planes were rented.

And yesterday?
Only thing available was the Lance. We're not checked out in the Lance.


Montblack
Loathing terrorists (and gang-bangers)
Fearing American Gulags

Love it! Montblack!

Flyingmonk

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Jimmy B." wrote)
With all this talk of A-bombs, I would like to say hello to all the
government agents who are now reading this thread.

HI GUYS!

We're all good Americans here!


I thought it was decided that we weren't .. I mean all good Americans ...I
mean we weren't all Americans here on the newsgroups.

"Knock, knock, knock." - Oh crap!!

So your plan was to drop your suitcase bomb last Monday?
Yes, but the weather wouldn't cooperate - low ceilings all day.

What about last Wednesday? What happened to that plan?
Wheel shimmy and a locking brake. That plane will be ready in 3 weeks.

And this past weekend?
Couldn't get a plane. Weather was great, all the planes were rented.

And yesterday?
Only thing available was the Lance. We're not checked out in the Lance.


Montblack
Loathing terrorists (and gang-bangers)
Fearing American Gulags

Thanks for the Renter's Guide to Domestic Sedition... Chuckle

Jay B

Montblack wrote:
("Jimmy B." wrote)

With all this talk of A-bombs, I would like to say hello to all the
government agents who are now reading this thread.

HI GUYS!

We're all good Americans here!



I thought it was decided that we weren't .. I mean all good Americans
...I mean we weren't all Americans here on the newsgroups.

Yeah, I know there are other nationalities on the newsgroups, but I
assumed that only Americans would be silly enough to discuss the
feasibility of carrying an A-bomb on an open connection. Especially
considering how paranoid the government has become.

I sincerely hope I did not offend any non-Americans on the newsgroups.



"Knock, knock, knock." - Oh crap!!

So your plan was to drop your suitcase bomb last Monday?
Yes, but the weather wouldn't cooperate - low ceilings all day.

What about last Wednesday? What happened to that plan?
Wheel shimmy and a locking brake. That plane will be ready in 3 weeks.

And this past weekend?
Couldn't get a plane. Weather was great, all the planes were rented.

And yesterday?
Only thing available was the Lance. We're not checked out in the Lance.


Montblack
Loathing terrorists (and gang-bangers)
Fearing American Gulags