[standingfirm]

Have been re-reading Bill Gertz's book "Betrayal", how the Clinton administration underminded American security. I was shocked to learn that 100 of these suitcase nukes disappeared from Russia. In the body of this article, it notes that Bin Laden says that he has nukes. I never heard that before.

[Star Traveler]

You said -- "In the body of this article, it notes that Bin Laden says that he has nukes. I never heard that before."

The reason why you may not have heard it is that it's being "suppressed", as far as the MSM is concerned -- along with other "naysayers". However, that information has been "out" for a while.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[LS]

Minitier's book, "Misinformation," blows apart the notion of true "suitcase nukes" being easily smuggled, or used, anywhere. These are much larger than believed, and take incredible arming and operational know-how. However, a "dirty bomb" is quite easy to make, and use, and I'm surprised it hasn't been used yet.

[dirtboy]

Heroshima

What is that, a Japanese hoagie?

[Mr. Jeeves]

Most analysts think that while Al Qaeda may have enough material from old weapons to create a dirty bomb, they don't actually have a working nuclear device.

Of course, most analysts thought 9/11 was impossible, too...

[etcetera]

"The report claims Al-Qaeda has already obtained a large number of nuclear weapons currently being maintained by Pakistani and Russian scientists."

Maintained how? Where would they get the "spares"?

And if they have the correct components to perform "maintenance", then are the weapons in Pakistan or Russia and not in the U.S.?

Sounds pretty bogus...

[wastedyears]

He detonates those over here and he could kiss his world good-bye. I wish we weren't so censored on here so I could use a more 'colorful' language.

[Schweinhund]

In 2001, BBC reported about Bin Laden saying in some Pakistani newspaper interview that he had nukes amd would use them if the US would use chemical or nuclear weapons first. Of course there are translation difficulties again.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1648572.stm

Anyway, I think it is improbable that Al Quaeda uses Nukes or chemical weapons. I thinks this kind of weaponry would cost him too many sympathies in the Muslim world and an organisation like his is too heavily reliant on the support.

[VOA]

I'd never say OBL won't be able to set off a real nuke inside the USA.
But as for the Russian suitcases, I think likelihood is low as many
professionals have talked about how these things are limited lifetime
in terms of usefulness.

I really do think theft modest amounts of really hot (short half-life)
redioisotopes from quite a few medical facilities...then aggregated and
set off as a dirty bomb in the worst-possible place is much more likely.

[Hound of the Baskervilles]

From the article: ALL of Osama's grievances against the West are related to crimes against the Muslim people, EXCEPT for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He and other Al-Qaeda operatives have said this is something we need to be punished for, and has cited it as one of our atrocities."

I have always thought it made no sense for Osama to be madder at us for Hiroshima than the Japanese people are. (As if he really cared about the Japanese.) Japan is our ally now. It all makes sense that he is using this to justify his own plan to use nuclear weapons against us as a first strike with the rationale that we were the first to use them and he is just meting out our long awaited punishment.

[SamAdams76]

Trust me, if the terrorists had nukes, they'd have used them by now.

They have been getting their clocks cleaned over there for five years now. Pretty soon, there won't be very many of them left.

[DBrow]

A working nuke in the hands of a terrorist would be a fantastically hot commodity.

Any other terrorist who learned of the thing would start an operation to get it for themselves, to use on their own target, plus every intel agency on Earth would be looking for it.

Restoring and maintaining a nuke requires access to certain things- not available at Radio Shack- that would make opsec a nightmare.

What I'm leaning towards here is a use-it-or-lose-it imperative that would preclude hanging onto a nuke for as long as there have been rumors of them, which is at least ten years.

The most likely scenario is for a nation-state to produce a working nuke suitable for clandestine use, pass it off to an operating terror cell, and that cell would use it within the week before the horde of seekers could sniff it out.

I find it highly unlikely that a terror org could keep even one nuke on the shelf for more than a few days.

[RightWhale]

The possibility has been public knowledge for five years at least. The Russian suitcase bombs have been public knowledge for a decade. The existence of the possibility of the A-bomb has been public knowledge for sixty years. We still have callouses on our elbows from diving under our desks during 'duck and cover' exercises in school in the fifties. We are not impressed with OBL nukes.

[Ben Mugged]

According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm,

First, the probability that any portable nuclear devices were lost prior to or after the breakup of the Soviet Union appears low; the scenarios of loss offered by the special commission in 1996 are actually the least plausible among other possible scenarios. This does not mean that the threat does not exist, but rather that at this moment, it is probably not the most immediate threat to the home security of the United States or to U.S. armed forces abroad.

Second, even if any devices were lost, their effectiveness should be very low or maybe even non-existent, especially if the loss occurred during the period of the greatest risk, in the early 1990s. Without scheduled maintenance, these devices apparently can produce only minimal yield and eventually possibly no yield at all, and can only serve as a source of small amounts of weapons-grade fissile materials.

[sauropod]

review

[COEXERJ145]

The so called "suitcase" nuke threat has pretty much been debunked a long time ago. It is mostly resurrected by people wanted to fear monger and sell books.

The smaller a nuclear device is, the most maintenance intensive it becomes. These nuclear devices (which I will not call suitcase/briefcase bombs because that is not what they are) have not been maintained in over 10 years. It is highly likely that they, if they even exist, no longer function.

[MNJohnnie]

If Binny had nukes he would of used them. Just more internet rumor and fearmongering. It gives the drama queens in the Junk Media something to have today's case of the vapors over.

[Jack Black]

Someone pointed out a while ago that suitcase nukes, like all nukes, have a half-life. The person (who seemed what they seemed to know what they were talking about) said tha the smaller the nuke the shorter the half life and that the so-called suitcase nukes were liklely to be useless (as nukes) at this poing.

I am not a Nuclear Weapons Engineer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn express recently.

[The_Reader_David]

The thing about 'suitcase nukes' is that since they use subcritical masses of plutonium, then depend on a neutron source, which degrades rapidly.

Unless AQ can replace the neutron sources, or remachine the plutonium into a larger critical-mass bomb (which requires correctly designed shaped charges to compress even a critical mass, since otherwise the initial chain reaction blows it apart before substantial yield is achived--a plutonium 'gun bomb' is infeasible), stolen 'suitcase nukes' are useful only for making dirty bombs.

[MD_Willington_1976]

A lot of info here on older smaller nukes, these are American made.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html