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

Skip to comments.

Suitcase Nukes Said Unlikely To Exist
AP via Yahoo! ^ | 11/10/2007 | Katherine Shrader

Posted on 11/10/2007 1:01:10 PM PST by zencat

Members of Congress have warned about the dangers of suitcase nuclear weapons. Hollywood has made television shows and movies about them. Even the Federal Emergency Management Agency has alerted Americans to a threat — information the White House includes on its Web site. But government experts and intelligence officials say such a threat gets vastly more attention than it deserves. These officials said a true suitcase nuke would be highly complex to produce, require significant upkeep and cost a small fortune.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Russia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 24; nukes; suitcase; suitcasenukes; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 last
To: zencat

I should have said “deployed”. 25 MT was the largest weapon the USA has ever deployed. In testing however, there were much bigger yields.


81 posted on 11/10/2007 5:00:22 PM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: TChad

Absolutely. As I said, that chevy truck wouldn’t be the best delivery system. A tall building or plane would give max damage and dispersion of a small dirty nuke, which is the most likely type of device Islamowacko’s would use.


82 posted on 11/10/2007 5:10:56 PM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I don't know what they decided was best. I think higher detonations are "cleaner"while still causing widespread damage. Not sure about that though. here's a shot of a "small" 14.9 kt nuke, 20 inches in diameter, 55 inches long weighing 2106 lbs. Detonated from a 300ft tower. Redwing erie "clean" bomb.

Example

83 posted on 11/10/2007 5:23:40 PM PST by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: dadgum
don’t these devices have a limited shelf life?

They do. This little fact escapes many who talk about their use. There are many drawbacks to the handling and use of nuclear weapons. They require constant maintenance and testing by highly trained individuals to ensure they are safe. Bear in mind that these are devices, sort of like a car. Lots of complex moving parts, batteries, fuel.

Stick either one in your garage and leave it alone for 3 years, and it probably won't work. Leave it there for a decade, and it definitely won't work.

84 posted on 11/10/2007 6:22:40 PM PST by Mr. Quarterpanel (I am not an actor, but I play one on TV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
I think the novel by Dave Barry I had in mind is called Big Trouble.
85 posted on 11/10/2007 6:43:30 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary; Squantos; archy
The point is, there are plenty of small artillary shell nukes and small bombs that can be stuck in a suit case and detonated that WE make.

Are you familiar with the arming system requirements of arty shells? Do you really believe that they can just be stuck in a suitcase and detonated, like on "24?" Do you really think they have a decades-long shelf life, and can simply be taken from some ancient cold-war bunker, and exploded?

86 posted on 11/10/2007 7:22:05 PM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Quarterpanel

Thank you for your sanity on this subject.


87 posted on 11/10/2007 7:23:20 PM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: jpl
The thing about nukes is that nowadays, they're almost impossible to conceal for any significant length of time unless they're way underground.

Even way underground doesn't stop the emission of detectable particles, such as neutrinos.

88 posted on 11/10/2007 7:25:51 PM PST by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jpl

Build a boat with a huge lead keel like a private yacht, conceal the nuke in the keel as its being built.


89 posted on 11/10/2007 7:31:00 PM PST by Eye of Unk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Rodents of unusual size?

I don’t think that they exist.


90 posted on 11/10/2007 7:34:24 PM PST by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; zencat
The stupid thing is that small, independent battlefield-capable nukes have existed for years: the USN’s SUBROC nuke bomb fits on the end of a 22” diameter torpedo-rocket: the warhead section is only about 36 inch long by only 10-14” diameter. Many other nuke bombs are not much larger.

Sure, it’s NOT a “suitcase nuke” the way this writer is trying to pretend - but two men can carry it in a single case. Or mount it in the back of a VW or small aircraft easy enough. Or put it in a backpack and pack horse over the border ....

91 posted on 11/10/2007 7:55:42 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Shhhh...we have overcome the terrors of the fire-swamp.


92 posted on 11/10/2007 7:57:42 PM PST by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: zencat; Billthedrill

Billthedrill beat me to it. The Davy Crockett is now 50 year old tchnology. It had a yield of 20 tons of TNT, and the warhead by itself weighed 51 lbs. I think the missle used something like a 106mm recoiless rifle tube and could be mounted on a jeep.


93 posted on 11/10/2007 8:28:16 PM PST by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpl
The thing about nukes is that nowadays, they're almost impossible to conceal for any significant length of time unless they're way underground.

Do you have a link to more information about that?

94 posted on 11/10/2007 10:36:58 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: zencat
Go online and search "neutron bomb"..........this from one of the sites (http://www.manuelsweb.com/sam_cohen.htm)

"Most frightening for Cohen is the relative ease by which neutron bombs can be created with a substance called red mercury. Red mercury is a compound containing mercury that has undergone massive irradiation. When exploded, it creates tremendous heat and pressure - the same type needed to trigger a fusion device such as a mini-neutron bomb.

Before, an obstacle to creating a nuclear bomb was the need for plutonium, which when exploded could create a fusion reaction in hydrogen atoms. But red mercury has changed that. The cheap substance has been produced in Russia, Cohen said, and shipped on the black market throughout the world.

Cohen said that when U.N. inspectors went to Iraq to examine the Iraqis' nuclear weapons capabilities, the U.N. team found documents showing that they had purchased quantities of red mercury. The material means a neutron bomb can be built "the size of baseball" but able to kill everyone within several square blocks."

Cohen, the father of the neutron bomb, has stated that such a bomb could fit inside a lunch box and upon detonation kill everyone above ground level within several hundred yards. The timer, battery and other initiating devices would probably take up more room than the actual bomb.....................

Of course, the neutron bomb is a very efficient EMP weapon............it has many applications........

Cohen advocated using tactical neutron bombs in Vietnam to win the war and save American lives.............the radiation (tritium) is short lived and kills the enemy quickly, how quickly depends upon how close to the detonation the enemy is............

95 posted on 11/10/2007 11:28:39 PM PST by AwesomePossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AwesomePossum
the radiation (tritium) is short lived and kills the enemy quickly, how quickly depends upon how close to the detonation the enemy is............

should read......the radiation (tritium) of a pure fusion bomb is short lived and kills the enemy quickly, how quickly depends upon how close to the detonation the enemy is............during Vietnam we may have only had fission triggers, making it politically damaging to use the neutron bomb then..........

96 posted on 11/11/2007 12:34:30 AM PST by AwesomePossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Probably in this enviro age they would consider the cleaner blast as better.


97 posted on 11/11/2007 9:23:37 AM PST by RightWhale (anti-razors are pro-life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: jpl
The thing about nukes is that nowadays, they're almost impossible to conceal for any significant length of time unless they're way underground.

I don't think this is correct. I think that lead shielding is adequate to conceal any radiation produced by nuclear devices that is likely to be detected. I have heard about neutrino detectors, but so far as I know such detectors are huge and immobile.

I hope that I am wrong about this. If anyone has better information please respond.

98 posted on 11/11/2007 4:02:20 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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