Replies

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.

"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."

No doubt that the fissionable material lasts long-enough to not fit into the time-frames that I have mentioned so far in this thread, however, lets not confuse "fissionable materials" with that of the radioactive materials used to build the triggers/initiators.

Even a casual perusal of the periodic table of elements will confirm that Polonium and most isotopes of Beryllium have relatively short half-lives (days). In fact, I've posted both onto this thread (or one of the copycats) already.

Likewise, the booster component tritium has a half-life that takes normal amounts of time into consideration. Its slightly longer half-life of 12 years begins to jeopardize the nuclear chain reaction after little more than 8 years of deterioration into He3.

Yes, the cores/pits of nuclear devices last much longer than all of the above, but lets not confuse cores/pits with triggers and boosters.

Lets also not try to say that building a bomb WITHOUT a trigger is simpler than using a trigger; it isn't.

One more thought: why am I the only one of the two of us posting sources? Surely you can post some reputable sources to back up your claims, right?

Unfortunately, the claim is that the suitcase nukes were built with less protection. Let's hope that claim is false.

It is quite unlikely that any rational power (and the Soviets, though evil, were rational enough) would build and deploy nukes without the best possible safeguards, for obvious reasons.

Admittedly, this begs the question of what "best possible safeguards" Soviet tech was up to building. On the other hand, "suitcase nukes" would be inherently limited by the lifetimes of their neutron initiators, even without any additional safety mechanisms.