Al-Qaida Leader Says They Have Briefcase Nukes

(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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article , says...

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.

Not especially.

Even al qaeda has a sense of public relations.

Blowing up innocent civilians in Western countries is acceptable to most
of the people al qaeda are targeting as their "audience'; i.e.,
jihadists against the West.

However, a good argument could be made that use of a nuke against a
Western country would loose al qaeda the support of many currently
moderate Middle Eastern/Southwest Asia countries, and potentially hurt
their image with the typical man on (their) street.

It would also definitely change the opinion of many of the moderate
countries world-wide that are unhappy with the US and its recent
actions; it could swing world-wide opinion back similiar to that of just
after 9/11 when the US enjoyed nearly world-wide support.

In short, it could hurt their 'cause' far more than help it.

No SPAM wrote:

In article , says...

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.

Not especially.

Even al qaeda has a sense of public relations.

Blowing up innocent civilians in Western countries is acceptable to most
of the people al qaeda are targeting as their "audience'; i.e.,
jihadists against the West.

However, a good argument could be made that use of a nuke against a
Western country would loose al qaeda the support of many currently
moderate Middle Eastern/Southwest Asia countries, and potentially hurt
their image with the typical man on (their) street.

It would also definitely change the opinion of many of the moderate
countries world-wide that are unhappy with the US and its recent
actions; it could swing world-wide opinion back similiar to that of just
after 9/11 when the US enjoyed nearly world-wide support.

In short, it could hurt their 'cause' far more than help it.

Good insight! Just like 9/11. Vot?

Grantland

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.
Dave

"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

"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.

Brooks

Dave

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.






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

From: (Al Dykes)
Date: 3/22/04 2:01 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

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.
--
Al Dykes

The recoiless rifle set up was called the "davey crockett" and fired an actual
nuclear shell based on the W-54(? IIRC) warhead which weighed in at about 62
pounds or so. Do a google on it.
Dave

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 16:16:01 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Dav1936531" wrote in message
...
Truth or terrorist bluff?
Dave

SYDNEY, Australia (March 21) - Osama bin Laden's terror network claims to
have
bought ready-made nuclear weapons on the black market in central Asia, the
biographer of al-Qaida's No. 2 leader was quoted as telling an Australian
television station.

If #2 had suitcase nukes he would have used one, instead of being killed
"attempting to escape".

I am always amazed by the number of people that believe in "suitcase"
nukes. Can a physics package be small? Sure. Can one tote it around
in a suitcase? NO!!!

Al Minyard

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