Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Little Pig
First it would crap up a substantial area. No container is going to hold the force of several pounds of high explosives. Second atomic bombs are not hydrogen bombs. hydrogen bombs need much more maintenance than a simple nuke.

Now that being said - if they had one it would have gone off by now. They would not risk losing it unused.

226 posted on 07/14/2005 2:05:41 PM PDT by Nov3 ("This is the best election night in history." --DNC chair Terry McAuliffe Nov. 2,2004 8p.m.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: Nov3

See post 42 for why even fission weapons are not really a feasible man-portable weapon for anyone other than a true Nuclear Power.


229 posted on 07/14/2005 2:07:43 PM PDT by Little Pig (Is it time for "Cowboys and Muslims" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies ]

To: Nov3

You may be right about the power of any conventional explosives in the 'case, and even if it was a dud, it would amount to a dirty bomb, but that's assuming everything else inside the bomb was functioning, and as post 42 points out, the electronics are just as vulnerable to deterioration. A suitcase nuke can't live long without regular returns to a lab.


232 posted on 07/14/2005 2:09:37 PM PDT by Little Pig (Is it time for "Cowboys and Muslims" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson