Skip to comments.
Tiny Nukes-- the backpack threat
various websites
| 09-14-01
| backhoe
Posted on 09/14/2001 6:30:05 AM PDT by backhoe
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
1
posted on
09/14/2001 6:30:05 AM PDT
by
backhoe
To: backhoe
These "backpack" nukes are very heavy and larger than you think. If I remember correctly, they are more like mines. And the mechanisms have to be maintained on a regular schedule.
2
posted on
09/14/2001 6:34:16 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
To: AppyPappy
It doesn't have to be in a backpack. It could be as large as a washing machine and be transported in any old ship into New York harbor. Smuggling it into an interior city would be somewhat more difficult.
To: AppyPappy
Yes, they are more a demolition device- what I'm familiar with is about 2 feet square, 3 feet long, and takes a
strong man to handle... and 2 to trigger. And yes, they need regular maintenence to be reliable.
There was a lot of talk about this in my pre-web days, on talk radio-- I was curious as to what, if any, new news there was on the subject.
4
posted on
09/14/2001 6:49:17 AM PDT
by
backhoe
To: VeritatisSplendor
I would like to suggest a different danger. Instead of having to smuggle large, heavy, clunky devices around, what of the possibility of a quart of Anthrax being placed in a water system, or smallpox germs being dumped into an air conditioning system, or any of a thousand biological and chemical compounds which would act just as quickly and much more deadly. How would you feel if you did not know if the water coming from your kitchen faucet was poison or if that cool (or heated at this time of year) air blowing over your desk was going to drop you in your tracks? The dangers in this war are much, much more insidious than bombs or suicide missions.
To: VeritatisSplendor
That's what people don't realize. You can put a warhead in a Ryder truck and do the same thing. Only they leak after a while. My understanding is they are easy to find with detectors.
6
posted on
09/14/2001 6:55:54 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
To: ProudFossil
What percentage of Americans are vaccinated for smallpox?
You know what I think? I think we know who there people are but we haven't busted them for fear of being called "anti-Arab".
7
posted on
09/14/2001 6:57:25 AM PDT
by
AppyPappy
To: AppyPappy
One non-explodable plutonium warhead. One sack of ammonium nitrate. Grind finely. One spark. A lot of smoke. And most of NY will be uninhabitable for the next 30000 years. Note: no nuking, just chemistry...
8
posted on
09/14/2001 7:03:50 AM PDT
by
Old Ivan
To: ProudFossil
"I would like to suggest a different danger. Instead of having to smuggle large, heavy, clunky devices around, what of the possibility of a quart of Anthrax being placed in a water system, or smallpox germs being dumped into an air conditioning system" That's what I thought was going to be "first". The danger from smuggled nukes certainly is real. And didn't Lunev mention some buried radio-controlled nukes placed in the U.S. at strategic locations by our good friends in Russia?
--Boris
9
posted on
09/14/2001 7:04:08 AM PDT
by
boris
To: boris, all -- SUSPICIOUS PACKAGE AT METRO STATION
Hey, how come that thread about the Washington Metro being evacuated was deleted? I just heard on WTOP news radio that a suspicious package was found outside a Metro station near the White House, and that Metro exits near the White House have been shut.
10
posted on
09/14/2001 7:08:06 AM PDT
by
aristeides
(demosthenes@olg.com)
To: backhoe
they could've taken a hi-jacked plane and rammed it into a nuclear plant
11
posted on
09/14/2001 7:14:23 AM PDT
by
arielb
To: backhoe
"A suitcase nuke attached to a drum of anthrax or botulism would be a hellish terror weapon,..."
The heat from the detonation would destroy the bio agent.
12
posted on
09/15/2001 3:07:51 PM PDT
by
JimRed
To: AppyPappy
What percentage of Americans are vaccinated for smallpox? Except for a few researchers, NONE. The vaccinations we got as children in the 50's have worn out.
Smallpox is highly contagious, but does not live long outside the warmth and moisture of the human body. Therefore, the ideal "delivery device" is a martyr. Infect a person, put him/her in a crowded place and you've just started an epidemic.
13
posted on
09/15/2001 3:43:40 PM PDT
by
Arleigh
To: boris
14
posted on
09/16/2001 11:40:50 AM PDT
by
backhoe
To: AppyPappy
A large portion are not. Smallpox vaccines ceased being given as a matter of course in 1977. That was the year I was born, so I'll be going in to the doc's to get a Dryvox (the trademark name of the vaccine) injection this week. It'll be pretty hard going after a possible smallpox attack, too, since there is very little Dryvox in reserves.
To: AppyPappy
16
posted on
09/26/2001 7:28:20 AM PDT
by
backhoe
To: backhoe
---more info, re: blast & thermal effect---
To: Yaelle
And how much damage (radius in miles) could a suitcase nuke deliver?
Max yield of a "suitcase nuke" is about 1 kiloton That's 1/15th the yield of the (relatively small) a-bomb we dropped on Hiroshima.
The smallest US nukes ever made had yields on the order of 0.02 kilotons:
That's about 5 times the power of the OKC bomb, so you could pretty much wipe out any single building or close-spaced cluster of buildings, but you couldn't wipe out all of DC with it. Total damage wouldn't be any greater than that already achieved in lower Manhattan right now.
Something up into the 1 kiloton range would destroy a few city blocks and wreak havoc a lot farther, but still wouldn't wipe out the whole city. You could probably set one on the steps of the Capitol and the White House would be somewhat worse for wear, but easily still standing
It would cause third-degree burns from the direct thermal effects out to about .40 miles, cause a 5psi overpressure out to about .43 miles, and give a 500 rem radiation dose out to about .84 miles. Each of those amounts (third-degree burns / 5psi / 500 rem) represent the "you're screwed" threshhold, basically. So beyond about 1 mile for a 1kt blast, things start looking up considerably.
The "little" nukes are less powerful than most people assume.
15 Posted on 09/28/2001 00:53:15 PDT by Dan Day
17
posted on
09/28/2001 2:49:20 AM PDT
by
backhoe
To: smolensk
18
posted on
09/28/2001 4:14:49 PM PDT
by
backhoe
To: backhoe
19
posted on
10/20/2001 4:14:40 AM PDT
by
backhoe
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson