Osama Bin Laden About to Attack the U.S., Says Terrorism Expert [suitcase nukes]

US Newswire ^ | 9/22/2006 | Dr. Hugh Cort

[GOPJ]

Christianne Amanpour in the CNN special on bin Laden that aired a few weeks ago, "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden" made the point that before 9/11 bin Laden got a fatwa saying it was okay to kill civilians. Then he did 9/11. Now, she pointed out, he has gotten a fatwa, or religious order, saying it is OK to kill 10 million Americans with nuclear weapons. Guess what is going to happen next?

It's OK - I stopped and talked to the local "homeless" minister on the street today and asked him if it was OK to kill all the Muslims in the world if they attacked us - he said "fine with him" so, I guess the games are on, as they say....

UBL doesn't even have to go to a top religious man - just any local Iman will do... it really is the same as if any nut in the US walked up to any minister of any faith and could get "permission" to kill millions of people. Wonder if Jim Jones would OK kool aid? Or nukes? Bet on it. What a nutty religion.

[GOPJ]

If you can't get hold of any POTASSIUM IODIDE pills, get yourself a small bottle of plain old iodine but, DO NOT TAKE LIQUID IODINE internally as it is POISON - just smear on a large circle of liquid iodine on your abdomen or inside your upper arm - refreshing it as it absorbs into the skin for several days in the event of a nuclear explosion.

Where did you get this information?

[RobRoy]

>>Umm.... okay...<<

Holy cow man, you ripped those words right out of my mouth!

[Cheburashka]

The U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan all have nukes for deterrence, they hope never to use them. Al-Qaeda only has a nuke to use it, it has no deterrence value for them. For Al-Qaeda the risk of not using a bomb that they have today is the risk that they will never get to use it. Which is totally unacceptable considering how much they must have paid for it.

Every day they do not use their bomb is another day they risk that a commando unit will show up at their bomb storage site and poof, now they don't have a bomb any more.

Use it or lose it. Now. Five year plans be d***ed.

[mad_as_he$$]

Yes, there is a x-Soviet General that says it is small tactical nukes that are "missing". They were suppose to be for SpecOps use behind enemy lines. My theory is that those are to small to get the impact AQ wants and the the whole thing is made up by the General (or his managers)to not scare the West with - some of our high yield devices are missing. If I was going to the trouble I would want at least a Hiroshima size bomb (30 or so kT). Especially if it was a ground initiation. I have heard constant rumors over the years of Soviet medium yield devices for sale. I never inquired further since that seemed to be a fast way to jail since I am white and over 50. The people offering were also some of the worst scum bags in the supply business so I don't trust them. I can get you a great deal on a Soviet Kilo sub if you want.

[COEXERJ145]

Those small nukes (if they ever existed which most experts doubt) would be inert by now as they require a lot of maintenance.

Oh, and Hiroshima was 12.5 kilotons.

[Twinkie]

From that article "How To Survive A Nuclear Attack". They also recommended Betadine as another source of iodine to smear on the inside of the upper arm. I suppose if that was all one had at a time of emergency, and they didn't choose to order potassium iodide pills, the liquid iodine sources for topical use would beat using nothing. Either thing would still not eliminate the necessity of staying indoors in any event.

We have set up a concrete storm cellar as a fallout shelter (as shown in the referenced article). So, we wouldn't hesitate to use it for that purpose as well as for a shelter in the event of a tornado warning.

[EternalHope]

You had some good questions about nukes. Here's the short version answer.

First: All of the following is unclassified information, easily available to those who take the time to learn about it.

You asked about heat: You don't start generating enough heat to matter until you get near a critical mass. To keep this from happening, you divide your fissionable material into at least two masses, separated by enough distance/shielding that a chain reaction cannot start. It is when you bring them together (rapidly!) that you reach critical mass and it blows up.

The suitcase nuke diagrams released by Congress were the simple "gun" type weapon (unclassified material). One mass is in the shape of a donut. The other is the shape of the "hole" in the donut. The "hole" is inside a tube ("gun") with an explosive charge at the end of the tube. When the explosive is fired the "hole" goes into the "donut", critical mass is reached, and it blows up.

Amazingly enough, the Internet used to have enough detailed information to build one of these. I don't know if it still does, but I checked once a few years ago and found everything I would have needed to know.

The trick is to get as much of the fissionable material to actually split as possible before the heat drives the critical mass apart. THAT little tidbit takes a lot of math plus precision explosives. If you don't get it right you will have a very "inefficient" bomb.

Unfortunately, lots of people have the required knowledge. And, even if the device turns out to be very inefficient, the odds are you will still get at least a small nuclear explosion. Worst case: It blows itself apart too soon and "all" you get is a dirty bomb. The psychological effect would still be huge.

[Iris7]

It is irritating that Americans, in my experience, are uninterested or concerned about nuclear weapons. The strange and foolish people we live amongst.

Using my old Fletcher circular slide rule,

One kiloton:

Optimum air burst, 3 psi overpressure at 1,000 yards.
Ground burst, 3 psi overpressure at 670 yards.
Initial radiation 100 REM at 1,200 yards.

No thermal skin burn that means anything farther than 1,500 yards to exposed skin.

These numbers are for a person in line of sight of the fireball. Ten inches of masonry reduces initial radiation to 100 REM at 340 yards.

Manhattan remains the most attractive target for nuclear weapons in the United States with an average population, it is said, of 67,000 people per square mile. (I suspect this is the 24 hours per day population.) Using the 67,000 persons per square mile number on gets, in a 600 yard radius circle, just less than twenty thousand people. This is less than the number of people born in the United States in two hours or the number of people in the USA dying of heart disease in seven weeks.

[Iris7]

See my #169. I have used the standard formulas.

[1curiousmind]

His Hughness wrote: "Please help me and Dr. Paul Williams stop these horrible attacks. Please get us some press coverage and some help from our Congressmen and Senators and FBI and CIA and NSA before it's too late."

I can't help but ask...who are you Dr Cort? And just how are YOU going to stop anything? All that any of us can do is be vigilant, be on the lookout for El Shukrijumah and other wanted terrorists, and pray.

I take this warning very seriously, but not at all because some unknown Dr. whatever has a messianic complex. In fact, such self-serving hype just muddies the water and makes the real threat of a possible nuclear attack seem like a big joke...it is not.

[1curiousmind]

I must add that although I share the concern of Cort and Williams, something just hits me as wrong that Cort seems to be making this into a political platform so that if indeed something happens he can spriingboard into the spotlight as the guy who tried to warn everyone. This smells of political opportunism and not a genuine concern for our citizens.

[Jim Noble]

Well, that was my point.

America could arguably be "destroyed" by a Soviet first strike of 5000 weapons with an average yield of 500kT-1mT.

Anything AQ could conceiveably possess or deploy would just piss us off.

[Awgie]

I hate to say it but NY and DC are sort of a win/win for us. The folks AQ will kill mostly support them or at least want to "understand why they hate us" and the next election cycle will produce a US govt. that will crush radical muslims.

Sorry, but the scenario of a nuked NY or DC is not something to joke about...assuming you're joking. Hopefully it was only a joke.

[Iris7]

I am sorry but the physics are simple and the political ramifications predictable. An event of the sort spoken about here has been inevitable for decades. That it hasn't happened yet is due only the quiet effort of many fine men and women over the years. Many such have died willingly defending us from what we all know is inevitable. Eventually the fingers in the dike will not be enough.

I am not being cold or heartless, much less "despicable". The world is as it is and people are as they are.

The President's current operations are going very well indeed. If we proceed on the course he has set for us I do not think we will have any serious nuclear terrorism problems. If an "anti-war" congress and administration come to power then we will.

I have a list of stuff to take and of people to ask to come with me if or when it comes time to help. It is better for those of us of mature years to do this sort of work than to ask the young to do it. I am determined and know enough to dread the necessity.

You might like my #161. It is a hard boiled analysis. War is too important to let emotion cloud understanding and hinder correct action.

[irishjuggler]

I hate to say it but NY and DC are sort of a win/win for us.

This is one of the most despicable posts that I've ever read here. The deaths of millions of Americans would be an unspeakable tragedy--not a "win/win." Shame on you.

[_Jim]

Unfortunately, lots of people have the required knowledge. And, even if the device turns out to be very inefficient,

Yes, "inefficient"; without necessarily intending to you hit the nail on the head. This is a good portion of the crux of the issue.

Next, speaking of "unclassified information, easily available to those who take the time to learn about it we find that the nearest thing in our arsenal were devices called "SADM", short for Small Atomic Demolition Munition such as the Mk-54, which was a deriviative of the "W-54" (see Ref. 1 below). The the total weight W-54 was 68 kg with the actual warhead portion weighing 27 kg.

Now, let's get back to yield strenghts on so-called suitcase nukes.

Low.

As low as 10-20 tons.

That is conventional class explosives - Ryder Truck class even.

Now, admittedlty, that's the low end; changes in design, additional amounts of fissionable material, somewhat more than a critical mass, such as a mere 1.2 critical mass can produce explosive yield of 100 tons, and 1.35 critical mass can reach 250 tons.

But, age plays a part too.

Age, as in some of those criitcal trace elements used to boost yield only have half-lives of a few months.

Age in that some of the trace compounds used to enhance yield (beyond just gross aditional amounts of the base material), such as certain short-life isotopes used to enhance the neutron flux at the point of implosion age (have short half lives) in short order. U-235 and U-238, and their plutonium cousins, don't always create enough high-speed neutrons to ensure fission you see (see Ref. 2 below).

Reference 1:

www.milnet.com/nukeweap/suitbomb.htm

Reference 2:

ww.donaldsensing.com/index.php/2005/10/31/the-suitcase-nuke-myth/, comment 6

[Iris7]

Modern nuclear weapons use tritium as an augmenting neutron source. Tritium has a half life of 12 years. Nuclear weapons are maintained on a strict schedule.

What would happen if an ex-Soviet "backpack" nuclear weapon built in 1980 were triggered today is predictable only by an expert.

[brwnsuga]

guess I'll have to go out and buy batteries, water and canned goods again

[Iris7]

Doesn't work like that. The plutonium core of a nuclear weapon, I read, is not even warm to the touch. (They were just noticeably warm back in the old days, but people were a little nuts in 1945.) Just a ball of metal, you can pick it up with one hand in perfect safety unless you drop it on your foot.