TERROR OF BIN LADEN'S 20 BACKPACK NUKES developing

Drudgereport.com ^ | drudge

[stationkeeper]

Yes.....the armed forces controlled the launchers but the KGB controlled the warheads.

[dinodino]

We've had nuclear artillery shells in our inventory. Do you believe that every 53 days we sent these shells in for service?

[NukeMan]

Most modern weapons use a neutron pulse tube which accelerate tiny amounts of Tritium or Deuterium into each other, producing a fusion reaction (yup, fusion) which then yields neutrons. The electronic pulse can be exactly controlled (probably to nansecond or smaller accuracy) to intitiate the chain reaction. For the Polonium-Beryllium initiators used in early weapons, the limiting factor is the half-life of Polonium-210 which is ~138 days. You do not need to replace after one half life, but a good rule of thumb is that after 5 half-lives the isotope needs replenishing. That would be about 700 days or ~2 years. Perhaps more frequently than that, as I don't know offhand the strength required. Polonium-210 is an alpha emitter, not neutron emitter. You don't want neutrons emitted until the actual time of initiation. Po-210 reacts with Be-9 to produce neutrons, but both isotopes are kept apart by a foil to avoid premature initiation.

On the other hand, Pu-239 (and Pu-240 which is unavoidably in the isotope mix) produces boatloads of neutrons via spontaneus fission, and any competent terrorist should be able to detect them to see if he is getting the real goods. U-235 is not nearly so bad (about 2 neutrons per second per kilogram of U-235) but still detectable, if you think to look for it.

[steve-b]

Based on the material taken from Al-Queda's R&D facility in Afghanistan, their sophistication was a cut below the Mr. Wizard science show.

Weren't these the guys who had a Journal of Irreproducible Results spoof in their nuclear files?

While it's possible that somebody who does understand scientific concepts more sophisticated than the ignition of a camel-dung fire sold them some nasty stuff, it seems more likely that they saw 'em coming a mile away and sold them a bunch of worthless crap.

[steve-b]

Yes, but honest-to-God backpack nukes do exist, though a bit heavy.

True, but as previously noted they have the shelf life of a Bill Clinton promise.

[Poohbah]

Suvorov's book about Spetsnaz was so full of inaccuracies and outright falsehoods that I wouldn't use it as a reference. He was cheerfully savaged by the professional Spetsnaz-watchers of the intel and special ops communities when the book came out.

[steve-b]

You do not need to replace after one half life, but a good rule of thumb is that after 5 half-lives the isotope needs replenishing.

That depends on the nature of the decay product. For instance, tritium needs to be replaced much sooner than a single half-life (12 yr), because its decay product (He3) soaks up neutrons like a sponge and muffles the chain reaction.

[NukeMan]

Correct.

[steve-b]

Oh, World Nut Daily is a really credible source < /SARCASM>.

[mikhailovich]

Yep. No more active than the Israeli spies in America. Oh, let me guess, that's different....sorry.

[mikhailovich]

KGB men, like Robert Hanssen? Maybe he supplied them.

OHHH MY GOSH, I'm sorry, I just realized he's an American........now that couldn't be. So sorry....wheeeew!

[mikhailovich]

post 158. Everybody read it. And thanks for saving me the time.

Amazes me how many delusional fantasies pervade these boards.

[mikhailovich]

Smart countries spy on one another, friend or foe. What's your feeling on British spies in North America? Or Israeli spies in D.C.?

How about the Israeli spies recently with their butts kicked out of the United States, proven and documented by ABC, not some mickey mouse tabloid coming out of Great Britain!

[hflynn]

The error of your assumption is in assuming that they think like you do. They do not. You think that a massive hit with everything that they have is the only strategy that could possibly "work." You may very well be right. But they might be thinking that hitting us with one thing at a time, slowly building up the level of terror, and disabling one piece of our economy after the other, is the best way to go.

The error of your assumption is in assuming that I think like they do. I do not.

You are also in error when you assume the use of 1 nuke "is a massive hit with everything that they have". A single nuke is 5% of their capability according to the article. The impact on the world economy if one of these weapons was used against the oil fields of an OPEC nation would be immediate and, depending on how dirty the bomb, possibly irreversible for at least a generation. You also are in error in assuming they prefer a Chinese water torture approach to destroying western economies. I contend that if they had the weapons they would use them and they would, as Jihadist, welcome our reponse.

[EternalHope]

I am NOT mistaken. Apparently you got your information from publicly available information on bomb design as of 60 years ago.

Plutonium and U-235 are both neutron emitters, although at a low level relative to other substances with much shorter half lives. However, each of these can be induced to start a chain reaction simply by putting enough of the material close together.

The problem is how to get enough of it close enough together to explode. Left on its own, it will simply heat up, melt, and self disperse. Any "explosion" will be relatively minor, and result mainly in the dispersal of the radioactive material.

The solution is VERY precise manufacturing, and VERY, VERY precise control of the high explosive (especially the electronic detonators) used to compress the fissile material together. The implosion wave front has to be perfect, which means perfect timing, shape, and placement is mandatory.

Hence the tight controls on international export of the components that are precise enough to be used in this way.

If you can do the above, NO initiator is needed AT ALL. I doubt Iraq, Pakistan, or North Korea could make a reliable small nuke. But Russia certainly can, and so can the U.S.

I should mention that design of very SMALL nuclear weapons requires much HIGHER technology. The reason is that larger weapons have the luxury of over design, including total fissile material well in excess of critical mass. If you use enough excess material, you can make up for a few minor mistakes.

It is also worth mentioning the extra complexity needed for fusion weapons (H bombs), as compared to fission weapons (A bombs). A fusion weapon is vastly more complex, and makes a much bigger bang. The suitcase nukes are fission weapons.

To repeat: NO initiator is needed, AT ALL, for fission weapons if you have precise enough control of the manufacturing. The service life of these weapons is measured in years, based solely on the reliability of the electronic components. The electronics will degrade over time, but the half life of the fissile material is so long that it is simply not an issue.

Since your second response did not contain the flame your first response did, I will simply echo your own words: YOU are mistaken.

[Southack]

Take a look at post #203 and #207, since they aren't from me they may carry more credibility with you.

You made a comment above such that using "excess material" (presumably meaning excess U-235 or Plutonium would make up for poor manufacturing).

That's incorrect.

Placing "excess" fissionable matter in close proximity will result in a merely a radioactive "fizzle".

Moreover, the reason that an initiator/trigger is used is because the critical spherical shape doesn't last very long during the conventional explosive phase. There is a critical moment where the mass is still in the correct configuration, and at that moment the initiator does its deed, but both the gun-type as well as the implosion-type designs fail to maintain their perfect shape for very long during the detonation of whatever conventional explosives are used for the first phase.

Thus, without the preciseness of the initiator, you'll probably just get the above-mentioned fizzle.

Further, it is unquestionable that the material used in the trigger/initiator deteriorates. Radioactive decay is precisely what the trigger requires, but such decay limits the half-life of the isotope.

These triggers have a precise size, shape, and chemical purity that must usually be tailored to a precise core/pit configuration. Thus, replacing a trigger is a non-trivial exercise. Even using a more modern neutron tube trigger requires precise electrical circuits tailored for the type of conventional explosives used, tailored again for the size/shape of the pit/core used (and that is further based upon the chemical purity and size/shape of the fissionable components involved), et al.

The electronics involved also need some very specialized maintenance, as the radiation degrades the circuitry over time.

In short, even if a fully functional weapon (and its arming codes) were GIVEN to Joe Jihadist, he's got a very limited time in which he could detonate it. The longer he waits, the less chance he has that the device will still function.

[Southack]

"We've had nuclear artillery shells in our inventory. Do you believe that every 53 days we sent these shells in for service?"

Of course not, but I also doubt that you ever saw a live trigger for any of those shells in the field, either.

[SteveTuck]

Based on the material taken from Al-Queda's R&D facility in Afghanistan, their sophistication was a cut below the Mr. Wizard science show.

LOL

[EternalHope]

To repeat: It is possible to build a fission bomb WITHOUT a "trigger" of any kind. Such a weapon would have a shelf life of several years without maintenance. It would NEVER need the radioactive material replaced (at least in our lifetimes). It would need the electronics replaced at predictable intervals.

You can CERTAINLY add extra fissionable material, and almost every bomb ever made does. The minimum needed to sustain a chain reaction is dependent on the specifics of the bomb design, but the amount used is always more than the theoretical minimum. A stupid designer might design the bomb with the fissionable material too close together for the shielding used, but I doubt we are that lucky. We are talking about Russia, not Iraq or Al Qaida, here.

Basically, there is flat out no question that it can be done. You might debate whether or not it actually WAS done (the Russians say it was), but not the fact that it CAN be done.

You are completely right about the fail safe mechanisms. I am personally quite familiar with the way a U.S. nuke is protected, and I can assure you they are completely impossible to set off without the proper codes. Details about Russia's weapons are unknown to me, but my hope is that they ALL have similar protections. Unfortunately, the claim is that the suitcase nukes were built with less protection. Let's hope that claim is false.

Bottom line: There is absolutely no doubt that a nuke can be built without a trigger. Such a weapon would need periodic electronic maintenance, but not replacement of the fissionable material. It could go for years without being touched. The Russians say they built some. Some Russian leaders say some are missing, some say they are not.

Let's hope none are missing. Or if they are, they are protected and the bad guys do not know the code.

But let's NOT bury our heads in the sand and say they can't be set off because they need to be refreshed every 60 days. That is flat out untrue. Likewise, let's not say the smallest they could be is the size of a steamer trunk. That is also flat out untrue. While we're at it, let's not think we can track these things by satellite. Another flat out untruth.

There is a lot of wishful thinking out there. The facts are that we face a potentially major threat, and not just from nukes either. Biological weapons could be even more deadly.

BTW: The bang from a suitcase nuke is estimated to destroy everything within a 3 block radius. Published reports indicate a yield considerably smaller than what we dropped on Japan, possibly as low as 1 kiloton. It would be bad, but not what most people expect from a nuke.

BTW2: The U.S. never built a suitcase bomb, but we DID build nuclear underwater mines. They were designed to be attached magnetically by scuba divers. I do not know the details of these weapons, but I have seen pictures. They were not very large. Likewise, the nukes designed to be fired from artillery were small.

BTW3: I AM familiar with the warheads used on aircraft bombs and missiles, and with the warheads used on ICBMs. They are fusion weapons and much more complex than a suitcase nuke would be, but they are MUCH smaller than you would expect. They make a much bigger bang than a suitcase nuke would, too.