Al-Qaida Leader Says They Have Briefcase Nukes

"Al Dykes" wrote in message
...
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.

You are referring to the Davey Crockett, which was indeed fielded. It used
the W-54 warhead, the smallest spherical implosion device ever fielded by
the US, mounted on what was basically a "spigot" which was inserted into the
tube, with the warhead being that bulbous bomb-like contraption sticking out
of the end. The same warhead was the basis for the SADM.

Brooks







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

"David Windhorst" wrote in message
...


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?

Being as we have seen no cridible evidence that they did (and we have seen
photos, accounts, etc., of their nuclear weapons developments since the fall
of the Soviet Union), and knowing that they did indeed have some problem
providing the materiel for all of the warheads they *did* want, the burden
of proof is on those who are claiming they did have these things. So far,
Lebed and his followers have been long on talk, short on proof.

Brooks


David Windhorst

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

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!!!

The "physics package" of a Minuteman III/Mk-12 is about 250 pounds once
you take it out of the reentry vehicle, and has a yield of 170 kilotons
or so.

It's small enough to fit into one of my suitcases, and weighs less than
some things I've shipped airfreight during road shows. For example, it
weighs about half that of a professional video projector in a road case,
and is about three times the bulk.

The W-44 ASW warhead was about 170 pounds, and was certainly small
enough to fit into a suitcase or trunk (less than 1 foot diameter), with
a yield of 10 kilotons or so.

The W-25 warhead for the Genie AAM was about 220 pounds, and gave a
yield of about 1.7 kilotons.

Any of these could be considered a "suitcase" nuke, but not a
"briefcase" one.

But you also have to consider that the actual "pit" is very small
(grapefruit or thermos sized, according to the design), with explosives
wrapped around it (not that much, actually) and triggered with some
high-precision electronics. The problem in the past was that the
electronics and power supply were a major weight addition to the weapon,
and that we've had a half-century of electronics advance to make that
part pretty small.

The whole apparatus would have to be no larger than a couple of
footballs (or a basketball plus a laptop computer), and less than 50
pounds, for a yield of a kiloton or so.

And a thousand tons of explosives, plus radiation effects? Pretty hard
to ignore.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:09:44 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

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!!!

The "physics package" of a Minuteman III/Mk-12 is about 250 pounds once
you take it out of the reentry vehicle, and has a yield of 170 kilotons
or so.

It's small enough to fit into one of my suitcases, and weighs less than
some things I've shipped airfreight during road shows. For example, it
weighs about half that of a professional video projector in a road case,
and is about three times the bulk.

The W-44 ASW warhead was about 170 pounds, and was certainly small
enough to fit into a suitcase or trunk (less than 1 foot diameter), with
a yield of 10 kilotons or so.

The W-25 warhead for the Genie AAM was about 220 pounds, and gave a
yield of about 1.7 kilotons.

Any of these could be considered a "suitcase" nuke, but not a
"briefcase" one.

But you also have to consider that the actual "pit" is very small
(grapefruit or thermos sized, according to the design), with explosives
wrapped around it (not that much, actually) and triggered with some
high-precision electronics. The problem in the past was that the
electronics and power supply were a major weight addition to the weapon,
and that we've had a half-century of electronics advance to make that
part pretty small.

The whole apparatus would have to be no larger than a couple of
footballs (or a basketball plus a laptop computer), and less than 50
pounds, for a yield of a kiloton or so.

And a thousand tons of explosives, plus radiation effects? Pretty hard
to ignore.

It is a "definitional" thing :-) I am aware of the devices that you mention. I also
know that none of them are the sort of thing you would casually walk into a
hotel with. Nor would sending the device "air freight" be such a bright idea.

Al Minyard

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

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!!!

The "physics package" of a Minuteman III/Mk-12 is about 250 pounds once
you take it out of the reentry vehicle, and has a yield of 170 kilotons
or so.

Only if you disregard the HE required to get it to go boom; the W-79 was a
fairly good sized warhed all-up, with a diameter of around 21 inches and a
length of a bit over five feet. And I doubt any 250 pound "physics package"
has a yield of 170 Kt. If that were the case, the freefall bombs like the
the B-61, which did not need all of the protection an RV has to have, would
have weighed in at less than the 700 pounds or so that they do.


It's small enough to fit into one of my suitcases, and weighs less than
some things I've shipped airfreight during road shows. For example, it
weighs about half that of a professional video projector in a road case,
and is about three times the bulk.

The W-44 ASW warhead was about 170 pounds, and was certainly small
enough to fit into a suitcase or trunk (less than 1 foot diameter), with
a yield of 10 kilotons or so.

No, the W-44 was about 14 inches in diameter, and over 25 inches long. See:
http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/W.../Allbombs.html


The W-25 warhead for the Genie AAM was about 220 pounds, and gave a
yield of about 1.7 kilotons.

Any of these could be considered a "suitcase" nuke, but not a
"briefcase" one.

The smallest warhead we ever fielded was the W-54, at around sixty or so
pounds and a diameter of around 12 inches. When configured into your
"suitcase" (hate that term) mode as SADM, the weight went up a bit, to a bit
over 100 pounds.


But you also have to consider that the actual "pit" is very small
(grapefruit or thermos sized, according to the design), with explosives
wrapped around it (not that much, actually) and triggered with some
high-precision electronics. The problem in the past was that the
electronics and power supply were a major weight addition to the weapon,
and that we've had a half-century of electronics advance to make that
part pretty small.

But in fact the miniturization has not advanced all that much since the days
of the earlier devices like the W-54. You are stuck with a 12 plus inch
dimension any way you go aout it for a spherical device; you can go lower
with linear implosion, but then your length increases. 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.


The whole apparatus would have to be no larger than a couple of
footballs (or a basketball plus a laptop computer), and less than 50
pounds, for a yield of a kiloton or so.

Less than 50 pounds? I doubt that. W-54 remains king of lilliputs as of now,
and it was 59 pounds, with a maximum yield of around a quarter of a kiloton.

Brooks


And a thousand tons of explosives, plus radiation effects? Pretty hard
to ignore.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Alan Minyard" wrote...

It is a "definitional" thing :-) I am aware of the devices that you mention. I
also
know that none of them are the sort of thing you would casually walk into a
hotel with. Nor would sending the device "air freight" be such a bright idea.

Well...

Check out the W48: http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/155mm.htm or
http://www.twilight2000.net/t2k/nuclear.shtml

I have a rolling "computer briefcase" that I'm almost positive would accommodate
the W48 device, even if not the entire M454 shell...

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:09:44 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Any of these could be considered a "suitcase" nuke, but not a
"briefcase" one.

It is a "definitional" thing :-) I am aware of the devices that you
mention. I also know that none of them are the sort of thing you
would casually walk into a hotel with.

Actually, it's *exactly* the sort of thing I've walked into hotels with.
Much smaller and lighter, actually. Put it in a road case with wheels,
and it'll fit quite nicely on an elevator ("it's medical equipment").
I've brought multi-hundred-pound radiation therapy machines into hotel
rooms for shows with no comment.

Nor would sending the device "air freight" be such a bright idea.

Why not? I've drop-shipped thousand-pound boxes of stuff with nobody
blinking an eye. Hell, we had them fly a 1200 pound road case full of
steel plates from Orlando to Las Vegas. Not all airports have explosive
detectors or x-ray machines for airfreight. And if you're really
worried about that part, ship it by bus or train.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

(Al Dykes) wrote in message ...

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 ?

IIRC, the range was less than the danger zone radius. Bad idea.

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

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!!!

The "physics package" of a Minuteman III/Mk-12 is about 250 pounds once
you take it out of the reentry vehicle, and has a yield of 170 kilotons
or so.

Only if you disregard the HE required to get it to go boom;

Nope. The 250 pounds *is* with explosives included. You don't need a
lot more mass to increase a small nuke to make a much bigger bang. If
you double the mass of the fissionables, you get a *lot* more than twice
the yield, and don't need much more explosives, either. Efficiency for
very small weapons is pretty pathetic, actually.

the W-79 was a fairly good sized warhed all-up, with a diameter of
around 21 inches and a length of a bit over five feet.

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.

And I doubt any 250 pound "physics package"
has a yield of 170 Kt.

Well, you'd be wrong, according to your own source:

http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

If that were the case, the freefall bombs like the
the B-61, which did not need all of the protection an RV has to have, would
have weighed in at less than the 700 pounds or so that they do.

Not so much. The airframe and fuzing mechanisms for any airdropped bomb
are, by themselves, moderately heavy. You don't design that sort of
thing for lightness, you design it for reliability. You don't want a
bird strike to wipe out your multimillion dollar nuke. The B-61
airframes I've seen were *definitely* not lightweight constructions.

The W-44 ASW warhead was about 170 pounds, and was certainly small
enough to fit into a suitcase or trunk (less than 1 foot diameter), with
a yield of 10 kilotons or so.

No, the W-44 was about 14 inches in diameter, and over 25 inches long. See:
http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/W.../Allbombs.html

The W-44, *inside its ASW casing*, was about that big. It takes a good
bit of metal to handle slamming into the water at a good clip.

You should note, that unless otherwise mentioned, the specs for the
weapons on that page are inside their casings, ready to fire or drop.

The W-25 warhead for the Genie AAM was about 220 pounds, and gave a
yield of about 1.7 kilotons.

Any of these could be considered a "suitcase" nuke, but not a
"briefcase" one.

The smallest warhead we ever fielded was the W-54, at around sixty or so
pounds and a diameter of around 12 inches. When configured into your
"suitcase" (hate that term) mode as SADM, the weight went up a bit, to a bit
over 100 pounds.

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

The W-54 was about 51 pounds all by itself, and could easily fit into a
large suitcase or small trunk.

But in fact the miniturization has not advanced all that much since the days
of the earlier devices like the W-54. You are stuck with a 12 plus inch
dimension any way you go aout it for a spherical device; you can go lower
with linear implosion, but then your length increases.

Which means that, instead of a basketball and a laptop, you have two
footballs and a laptop.

Not a briefcase, but certainly man-portable.

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.

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.

The whole apparatus would have to be no larger than a couple of
footballs (or a basketball plus a laptop computer), and less than 50
pounds, for a yield of a kiloton or so.

Less than 50 pounds? I doubt that. W-54 remains king of lilliputs as of now,
and it was 59 pounds, with a maximum yield of around a quarter of a kiloton.

....and a lot of that weight was 1960s-era electronics, with a mechanical
PAL lock.

Knock ten pounds off least for a modern design.

And, in an operational situation, if the gadget weighed as much as 200
pounds, you'd put it on wheels and roll it around. Look at any transit
location and notice the large number of people with wheeled cases.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

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!!!

The "physics package" of a Minuteman III/Mk-12 is about 250 pounds
once
you take it out of the reentry vehicle, and has a yield of 170
kilotons
or so.

Only if you disregard the HE required to get it to go boom;

Nope. The 250 pounds *is* with explosives included. You don't need a
lot more mass to increase a small nuke to make a much bigger bang. If
you double the mass of the fissionables, you get a *lot* more than twice
the yield, and don't need much more explosives, either. Efficiency for
very small weapons is pretty pathetic, actually.

It appears you are mixing your weapons up a bit...


the W-79 was a fairly good sized warhed all-up, with a diameter of
around 21 inches and a length of a bit over five feet.

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.


And I doubt any 250 pound "physics package"
has a yield of 170 Kt.

Well, you'd be wrong, according to your own source:

http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html

Uhmmm...he indicates the W-78 had a yield in the 300 plus Kt range. Your
"much smaller" W-68 had only about a third of the yield you are ascribing to
it. The W-69, as mounted on the SRAM, did have a 170 Kt tield, at about 275
pounds, so I will acknowledge that the 250 pound class weapon is apparently
indeed capable of much higher yeilds than I thought [possible--but your
examples did not do much to get me to that conclusion. :-)


If that were the case, the freefall bombs like the
the B-61, which did not need all of the protection an RV has to have,
would
have weighed in at less than the 700 pounds or so that they do.

Not so much. The airframe and fuzing mechanisms for any airdropped bomb
are, by themselves, moderately heavy. You don't design that sort of
thing for lightness, you design it for reliability. You don't want a
bird strike to wipe out your multimillion dollar nuke. The B-61
airframes I've seen were *definitely* not lightweight constructions.

Likewise, you don't create a "suitcase bomb" that gets turned into at best a
fizle yield source when some bellboy bangs it into the luggage cart. SADM
weighed in at over 100 pounds--I doubt anyone has done any better in that
regard since then.


The W-44 ASW warhead was about 170 pounds, and was certainly small
enough to fit into a suitcase or trunk (less than 1 foot diameter),
with
a yield of 10 kilotons or so.

No, the W-44 was about 14 inches in diameter, and over 25 inches long.
See:
http://gawain.membrane.com/hew/Usa/W.../Allbombs.html

The W-44, *inside its ASW casing*, was about that big. It takes a good
bit of metal to handle slamming into the water at a good clip.

You should note, that unless otherwise mentioned, the specs for the
weapons on that page are inside their casings, ready to fire or drop.

The W-25 warhead for the Genie AAM was about 220 pounds, and gave a
yield of about 1.7 kilotons.

Any of these could be considered a "suitcase" nuke, but not a
"briefcase" one.

The smallest warhead we ever fielded was the W-54, at around sixty or so
pounds and a diameter of around 12 inches. When configured into your
"suitcase" (hate that term) mode as SADM, the weight went up a bit, to a
bit
over 100 pounds.

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? 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.


The W-54 was about 51 pounds all by itself, and could easily fit into a
large suitcase or small trunk.

Debatable as to the actual weight; many sources indicate that the actual
weight was 59 pounds. The truth of the matter is that we don't *know* the
exact weight (they did not even tell us that in the ADM short course).


But in fact the miniturization has not advanced all that much since the
days
of the earlier devices like the W-54. You are stuck with a 12 plus inch
dimension any way you go aout it for a spherical device; you can go
lower
with linear implosion, but then your length increases.

Which means that, instead of a basketball and a laptop, you have two
footballs and a laptop.

Big footballs you have there.


Not a briefcase, but certainly man-portable.

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.

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). 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.


The whole apparatus would have to be no larger than a couple of
footballs (or a basketball plus a laptop computer), and less than 50
pounds, for a yield of a kiloton or so.

Less than 50 pounds? I doubt that. W-54 remains king of lilliputs as of
now,
and it was 59 pounds, with a maximum yield of around a quarter of a
kiloton.

...and a lot of that weight was 1960s-era electronics, with a mechanical
PAL lock.

Knock ten pounds off least for a modern design.

Not sure about that. Using the W-48 to W-82 as a ratio, we have devices
about 80% of the previous weight. How much of that weight savings is in a
new, higher-strength, lighter weight casing design? And, you have to
remember that the devices in question are supposedly OLD Soviet designs, so
your whole they-could-be-much-smaller-because-they-are-newer argument kind
of goes right out the window; if anything, the Soviet weapons were MORE
bulky and weighed more than our own. AQ does not have a weapons lab at its
disposal churning out state-of-the-art nuclear weapons; even the Pakis and
Indians have undoubtedly not gotten down to the size capabilities we
developed (I don't believe either has developed arty capable packages as of
yet).

This whole thing sounds like more Lebed-like musings to me.

Brooks


And, in an operational situation, if the gadget weighed as much as 200
pounds, you'd put it on wheels and roll it around. Look at any transit
location and notice the large number of people with wheeled cases.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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