Replies

Sean, that was posted yesterday. There seems to be some confusion between suitcase and backpack nukes, which, as I understand, are not the same thing.

In any event, the poster "poohbah", who claims to have some working knowledge on these nuclear devices was pinged to this thread and asked if these devices, in light of their age, would still be functional. His rather succinct answer was "no". He did indicate that they could be converted to "dirty" radioactive explosive devices.

To: Poohbah Is it even plausible that, with the proper information and necessary equipment, let's say from AQ's apparent connections to Pakistan's Khan and/or at least some of the scientist's working for Khan, that they (AQ) "could" maintain the viability of these weapons for an indefinite length of time if they were still operable at the time of purchase? If AQ knowingly bought the weapons in an inoperable state, is it plausible they could be "refurbished", for lack of a better term, with the proper guidance and materials, or would it be more likely they bought them knowing the most they could do with them is construct a "dirty bomb".

To: milkncookies

Is it even plausible that, with the proper information and necessary equipment, let's say from AQ's apparent connections to Pakistan's Khan and/or at least some of the scientist's working for Khan, that they (AQ) "could" maintain the viability of these weapons for an indefinite length of time if they were still operable at the time of purchase?

Nope. Tritium decays, plutonium decays, and Pakistan doesn't have very much of either to hand out to terrorists.

If AQ knowingly bought the weapons in an inoperable state, is it plausible they could be "refurbished", for lack of a better term, with the proper guidance and materials, or would it be more likely they bought them knowing the most they could do with them is construct a "dirty bomb".

The latter.

1,372 posted on 02/09/2004 3:37:27 PM CST by Poohbah ("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)

Some links on Atomic Demolitions Munition - which are basically man-portable devices weighing less than 75 pounds.

http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/madm.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20097

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/comments.html

My understanding, and I'll admit I'm not a nuclear physicist by any means, is that the purpose of the tritium is to boost the yield of a device. Without tritium the yield would be substantially lower. But wouldn't you still have a pretty deadly device, at least for the people who have the misfortune of being nearby?

"In any event, the poster "poohbah", who claims to have some working knowledge on these nuclear devices was pinged to this thread and asked if these devices, in light of their age, would still be functional. His rather succinct answer was "no"."

They are to my knowledge maintenance intensive to keep them operational. If OBL/al-Zawahiri secured technical support (readily available in the former-USSR and elsewhere for a price) then they could have several operational devices.