Suitcase nuclear bomb unlikely to exist

[rodeodance]

Source: ap




Suitcase nuclear bomb unlikely to exist

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer
24 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - 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.

Counterproliferation authorities do not completely rule out the possibility that these portable devices once existed. But they do not think the threat remains.

"The suitcase nuke is an exciting topic that really lends itself to movies," said Vahid Majidi, the assistant director of the FBI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. "No one has been able to truly identify the existence of these devices."


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/ap_on_go_ot/tale_of_the_suitcase_nuke;_ylt=AmTIW2YqOVv67yACd4VfA_ms0NUE

[Fresh_Start]

1. if they are out there

US government paid for them and misplaced them

[rayofreason]

2. I suspect...

...that it would weigh 50-80 lbs. Hefty suitcase.

[Telly Savalas]

44. The ones in the Sharper Image catalog are only 37 lbs.

[TomInTib]

3. Surprise, surprise, surprise.....

Gomer coulda seen this one coming.

[Lithos]

4. It would be dificult

The shielding and primary explosion devices would be fairly heavy. However, something that easily fits in a small shipping container/trunk would be very possible.

L-

[krispos42]

5. Would you need shielding?

I mean, obviously for long-term storage, yeah, but if you're going to use one of them, it seems to me that the bomber could remove the device from the shielding and travel lightly while carrying the bomb.

If he was a suicide bomber, he wouldn't care about pesky radiation, and if he wasn't, well, a few minutes or hours of exposure would not really cause that much cellular damage at all.

Might make some detectors scream pretty loud, but...

[TheMadMonk]

11. Shielding is a relatively minor problem, if...

...the primary criteria is simply minimising "dosage" received by the carrier/bystanders (obviously prior to the point of triggering). Gold plating alone is sufficient for that if the nuclear charge is plutonium since it is an alpha emitter. Hiding the tiny amounts of very distinctive (and characterisable) gamma, beta and neutron radiations that breakdown products further along the cascade towards lead, that intermediate products emit, from detectors at border crossings (and other security barriers) is a much harder ask. That takes whacking great amounts of heavy metal.

• A dimensionally constrained device that straddles the line between "dirty bomb" and the real deal, ie a "nuclear squib" is relatively simple.
  
  
• A similarly sized object that has an appreciable yield is considerably harder, but potentially doable. A good part of any "normal" nuke's mass is simply a shitload of steel, to provide a certain amount of "inertial tamping" to improve the yield, but sufficiently accurate charge shaping can provide at least a partial substitute. But it has to be accurate. Even moreso than in the difference between a working device and the "squib" North Korea "detonated".
  
  
• One that can cross borders "invisibly" and be truly man portable. "Terra! Terra! Terra!" Cold War style.

But then again, folk have lugged adult bodies halfway across the face of the planet, so I guess I have to give it a Mythbusters "plausible" if you allow sufficient shielding and give the courier a truss.

But for effect, that plausibility alone is sufficient in either direction across the Bering Straight. Which ever side mapped out that path of plausibility, only has to leak enough detail for the other to find the same path and the seed is planted. Whoever gets to the end of that path, will of course appreciate the "technical difficulty" of the task, but if you know you're second, you can't dismiss the possibility and if you think you're first with such a marvelous jape, getting a good fistful of shnoz and twisting always give much satisfaction.


Fuck it's frightening. A world run by insecure, dissipated, maladjusted, (and you can append "sexually" to the whole swag of such traits) men waving their shriveled genitalia in each other's direction in the desperate hope of being mistaken for the baboon with the biggest bluest arse. (Sorry for the mixed simile but it's an apt one.)*

* Humans have proportionately the largest genitalia of the (higher?) primates, and IIRC the greatest variation in configuration and size, so very very likely reproductive selection criteria akin to a peacock's tail. (Hmm, could be a study and both a Nobel and an ig in one there, if "desirable traits" and "sexual part configuration" could be statistically linked. (That should probably be one or the other depending on outcome) Hell's bells, there's most definitely a whacking great packet of cash to be extracted from the gullible with the right endorsement and enough pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.)

[formercia]

13. Thermal signature

Although Pu is an alpha emitter and wouldn't be detected, that class of device has a significant thermal signature that could easily be detected with inexpensive equipment.

Any attempt to insulate the device to prevent detection could raise the temperature sufficiently to ignite the explosive surrounding the pit.

[Lithos]

17. Penile showmanship aside.

The reason for the shielding is due to the gamma radiation which accompanies the decay of Uranium and/or Plutonium and the associated decay by-products. Without it, the carrier would probably have a very short lifetime measured in hours.

Also a fairly significant of explosives are needed to guarantee enough force is generated to bypass the repulsive force of the Uranium/Plutonium until critical mass is reached. It requires shaping and timing to work well (and is where the N. Koreans flubbed their bomb). I think I read somewhere long ago that the required minimum weight is on the order of 3-400 pounds which is much more than a suitcase.


A dimensionally constrained device that straddles the line between "dirty bomb" and the real deal, ie a "nuclear squib" is relatively sim

There is no such thing as a nuclear squib. You either achieve critical mass and have a nuclear bomb, or you don't. A dirty conventional bomb is just that, a conventional bomb. If what you are thinking of is the N. Korean test, what they did was either fool people with a very large conventional explosion or they failed in the geometry of optimizing the actual explosion itself which given the mechanics needs to be fairly well choreographed. Even for a dirty bomb, the shielding becomes more important as most of the good materials (Strontium, etc.) are more than alpha emitters and exposure would likely

[formercia]

18. Sorry to disprove your theory

I have picked up a live device of that type and it didn't weigh any 3-400 pounds.

I wouldn't want to carry it around all day, but it would not have been difficult for the average person to carry for an hour or so.

This is not penile showmanship.

As for sheilding, it was quite warm to the touch and didn't require any special protective equipment in order to handle it.

These weapons are a legitimate threat and should be taken seriously.

[Lithos]

27. For something that has any real city destruction capablity

The weight is most certainly as I described. Things such as the W54 (which btw, took MANY, MANY years of testing to work and outside of the capabilities of all but the major powers), have, at best, a scale of a few hundred yards of damage.

L-

[Islander Expat]

28. You're exactly right, I've seen and picked up one myself...

about 90lbs, cylindrical green rucksack.

and that was 20 years ago, if we got em' you better damn well better believe they do too.

I think a top secret the cold war ended, is that we already had a device in a safehouse in Moscow, and they already had a device in a safehouse in D.C.....both rigged and ready to blow.

[formercia]

33. Decapitation strike

The one you never see coming.

[Islander Expat]

42. Yup, both sides decided to cool it...

before on of the honchos got hurt

[formercia]

46. Congress should think about this

since they would be the obvious target in a right wing reactionary attack.

Don't bunch up and become a target. This is where telecommuting becomes more attractive every day.

[happyslug]

41. But the real issue is how long is the bomb effective?

Uranium and Plutonium both decay at a set rate (This is why they is so little U-235 in any uranium ore). You have to have ENOUGH Uranium U-235 or Plutonium for the bomb to work. From what I have read over 98% in a normal size bomb (The exact amount is classified, thus I have NEVER read or heard of what is actually needed, and if you do, you can't correct me for it is classified, one of the problems with keeping things secret). The smaller the bomb the more pure U-325 it must have to work (And given Uranium decay, the quicker the amount of U-235 in the bomb will DROP below the amount needed).

For comparison, to make sure the bombs for Hiroshima would work, it had "extra" uranium. It is estimated MOST of the Uranium (I have read 2/3s) in that bomb did NOT go supercritical, instead was spread throughout the area when the bomb went off (This is based on post-war evaluation of the blast area, it should have been larger if ALL of the Uranium 325 went supercritical). The reason the US built the first bomb so large was to make sure it went off, knowledge of decay was NOT yet fully understood when it came to actually getting a A-bomb to work. Subsequent research indicated that smaller amounts of Plutonium or Uranium was needed to get it to work. Thus after about 1950 Bombs started to get smaller. One of the side affects of smaller bombs was such bombs had to be re-built sooner (i.e. the old Uranium and Plutonium replaced with new Uranium and Plutonium on a more frequent basis). One report I read years ago was the Nuclear material in our ICBMs only had a shelf life of about 5 years and then had to be sent back to the factory to be re-built. Given that 2/3s of the Department of Energy's budget is to maintain these Nukes, it shows you that even large Nuclear Weapons have a relatively short shelf-life (Artillery shells and bullets are a lot cheaper and can be good for decades in comparison). In Suitcase size bombs this is even worse. They may have the shelf life of only a year (Probably shorter, again this is classified and as such the actual shelf life is unknown to me).

I have always said the fear of a "dirty bomb" was NOT an actually built "dirty bomb" but a suitcase bomb that was to old to be effective, but sold it to Al Queda or some other terrorist group (Or some ex-Soviet Scientist seeking US funds to stay employed spreading Rumors of an event that never happened, but effective in getting US Funds). The fear was the Suit case bomb would NOT go Nuclear. Instead the TNT used to push the Nuclear material together to start the chain reaction, would just push the Nuclear material all over the place. In both Uranium and Plutonium bombs sub-critical amounts of Uranium and Plutonium are kept apart and then TNT is used to force the sub-critical amounts into a Supercritical amount to cause the Nuclear reaction. In this scenario the amount of ALL Uranium and Plutonium in the bomb is NOT enough to go supercritical, so the mass just smash together and then dispersed into the atmosphere, having the effect of a "Dirty Bomb". This was and is the big fear, but it looks like even Al Queda has found this out and did not use the suit case bomb (This assuming the use of a Suit-case bomb/dirty bomb was not an Al Queda story to keep the CIA occupied on a non-existent threat, or a story to keep Soviet Nuclear Scientist employed).

From what I have read, for a Uranium bomb you need 30 pounds or Uranium. For a Plutonium bomb you only need about 15 pounds of Plutonium. Through the Uranium bomb is a lot simpler, all you need is two sub-critical amounts and use TNT to blast one into the other The Plutonium in a bomb can be much lighter but given that Plutonium will degrade quickly if a large amount of sub-critical Plutonium is kept together, you have to have a device that pushed up to 16 sub-critical groups of Plutonium together at the same time (A few seconds off, and the bomb will NOT work). Thus what you save in weight with Plutonium you lose with the additional TNT needed in a Plutonium bomb (Again from reading and observations, no personal knowledge). Thus I have read of BOTH Uranium and Plutonium suitcase bombs, but not from anyone who had the job of maintaining them, just soldiers who went under some sort of training on how to use them if ordered on such a mission.

Thus the key is how long do these Suitcase bombs stay effective? I do not know, and that is the critical issue, not whether is to possible to build such a weapon or to transport it to a place where it can do some damage.

[formercia]

45. Not very long.

They run hot in order to keep them small, so, depending on the device, they would have to be completely rebuilt.
Sorry if that doesn't answer your question in details.

As the article points out,officially, there are none left in the US inventory but the technology is still valid and they could be re manufactured if the need arose.

[happyslug]

48. My Question was more rhetorical than real.

As I set forth in the bulk of my Message, the issue are these things effective? Even if they still exist, I do NOT think so for the reasons I set forth in my previous message.

[formercia]

50. They are effective for the purpose

which they were intended, a surgical point strike to destroy a small target where either surprise, or the proximity to an area that was desired to keep intact. An example would be a political or military target within, or in close proximity to a large civilian population where a larger yield device would cause undesired destruction or casualties and the use of conventional explosives was incapable of doing the job.

look up Divine Strake and other Divine projects for current thought on the subject.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/divine-strake.htm

[NBachers]

6. ATTENTION:

ATTENTION: SUITCASE NUCULUR BOMBS DO NOT EXIST!

I REPEAT: SUITCASE NUCULUR BOMBS DO NOT EXIST!

THERE IS NOTHING TO BELIEVE IN HERE!

DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SUITCASE NUCULUR BOMBS EXIST!

[aquart]

9. On account of they don't.

But it's not a nuclear bomb, they mean, is it? The suitcase bomb is the dirty bomb which is a conventional bomb that distributes nuclear material in the blast. The blast would be about the area of a car bomb? And dispersal of a dollop of plutonium, I suppose, would depend on the blast and a windy day? God, that's inefficient. And they're right about the nasty problem of shielding the nuclear material. Because it's NOT a suicide bomb. It's an I'll-just-leave-it-ticking-right-here-and-get-my-delicate-ass-out-of-town bomb.

Scare tactic. Pretty much worthless as an actual device. Won't kill a hundredth of the 9/11 massacre. More likely to make people jeer than fear. "This is the best you've got? PUHLEEZ!"

[Tesha]

29. My sarcasm detector went "boink" on your reply.

But here's a rather cute little nuke that certainly
*DID* exist and certainly *COULD* be recreated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29



And, sans fins, it would sure fit in *MY* Samsonite.

Tesha

[soothsayer]

7. shocker

[killbotfactory]

8. no shit

[Xipe Totec]

10. we cannot wait for the final proof

-- the smoking joint -- that could come in the form of a mushroom bong.

[Ghost Dog]

21. That sounds more like it.

Le Zouave. Turkish delight.

[formercia]

12. They do exist

I have actually held a live one in my grubby little paws. It could easily be carried in a gym bag.
The Soviets also produced quite a few and can't account for all of them. They require periodic refitting, so if any were stolen, their reliability would be in question.

Nuclear artillery shells small enough to be converted to improvised weapons were also produced by both sides during the Cold War.

[soothsayer]

14. I guess it depends on what one means. Major nuke? Conventional bomb with dirty nuke material?

[formercia]

15. A dirty bomb would be the likely scenario.

Few countries have the capability to produce the quality of Plutonium or highly enriched Uranium required to produce a man-portable weapon.

[Andy Canuck]

16. I recall in an address to the nation by GHW Bush

after the fall of the Soviet Union he discussed a military reduction and said that he would eliminate nuclear landmines. If there are nuclear landmines, wouldn't it be easy to have a nuclear suitcase?

[rayofreason]

22. not really

A landmine can be a couple of hundred lbs., but a suitcase can't.

[CoffeeCat]

19. but....but...but...

I saw it in a movie once!

Ben Afflek was so brave and strong!

[Andy Canuck]

26. But it was Nicole Kidman bossing around George Clooney

that really saved the day.

[gulliver]

20. Like it matters if it fits in a suitcase.

We live in a world where some rogue nation is supposedly going to launch an ICBM on us. So we build NMDs for multiple billions of dollars.

Then someone points out that it would be a lot easier to just bring the nuke in a suitcase (or FedEx it or whatever). And some genius tells us not to worry because there aren't any suitcase nukes.

What is easier to build and attack with, an ICBM or a crate? People are so foolish with their money and security. So it's not a suitcase. So what? Maybe it is multiple crates assembled in a basement. Either way, it's vastly cheaper and more certain than an ICBM.

[formercia]

23. If it can fit in a shipping container, it's a problem.

I'm more concerned about some right-wing reactionary cell setting one off inside the US in an attempt to salvage their 'revolution' than I am of some Wahabi group in the mountains of northern Pakistan.

[Tesha]

31. (Psst: Container, hell, if it can fit in a cigarette machine, it's a problem.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sum_of_All_Fears_%28film%29

[PATRICK]

24. Yes and didn't

Sybil Edmonds say there had been trafficking in nules by the usual gang of suspects involved in AIPAC and other supra national dark forces?

[Pavulon]

25. Miss KS needs to hit the google

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

Man portable weapon. Assuming the russians had a similar weapon with a similar decommission time frame they would still be usable and man portable..

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

30. Ooh, quote time!

"We've just found out They Have the Bomb. We've Just Found Out They Have The Bomb, aaaand... No, No wait a second, no, no, wait a second, No. The Bomb's not... it's not there -- because they'd have to have a rocket and that shit n'they're a buncha wogs-- it's ... it's a suitcase Bomb. Ooookay. It's a suitcase bomb, and it's .... in Canada! Eh? Albanian Terrorists have placed a suitcase Bomb in Canada, in an attempt to infiltrate the bomb into the USA." -Stanley Moss, Wag the Dog.

[ChickMagic]

38. That movie was great

It was also very prescient. I watched it again recently
and my jaw dropped to the floor. It looked like Rove
followed the script to the letter.

[Zywiec]

32. Not a suitcase, but a rucksack.

The Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was a United States Navy and Marines project that was demonstrated as feasible in the mid-to-late 1960s, but was never used. The project, which involved a small nuclear weapon, was designed to allow one individual to parachute from any type of aircraft carrying the weapon package and place it in a harbor or other strategic location that could be accessed from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first to provide support as needed.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

[yellowcanine]

34. Now that the "suitcase nuclear bomb" has been debunked - watch for the "car nuclear bomb"

then the "box truck nuclear bomb" and the "shipping container nuclear bomb". Terra knows no bounds.

[yellowcanine]

35. "Steamer Trunk Nuclear Bomb" anyone?

[yellowcanine]

36. "shiffarobe nuclear bomb"?

[yellowcanine]

37. "Chest freezer nuclear bomb"? The possibilities are endless when "terra" rules.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

39. Of course it exists. But it was lost at Denver International

[maxsolomon]

40. but do snukes exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Snuke

warning: rude.

[Pavulon]

43. War on terra vs reality

There really are nuclear weapons that will fit in the trunk of a corolla. The w88 and its counterparts are portable in a car and will wipe manhattan clean. There are microbes that will kill millions of people.

There are people who will pay for this and carry this out.

The problem is we are wasting time with the wrong people.

The technology exists for nuclear weapons to be man portable. People have cited first hand knowledge ot

[bobthedrummer]

47. Yep, they not only exist but quite a few of them are unaccounted for

from the WMD inventory of the former USSR alone. People whose job it was to track them confirmed this years ago, who knows what else is out there today.

[happyslug]

49. As I said in my previous post, are these suitcase nukes still effective?

See my previous posts, where I point out (and at least one other writer confirms) the suitcase size bombs have very short shelf life, probably less than a year (And my guess shorter, but I am trying to be careful). Thus the fact the Ex-Soviet Scientist can NOT track them, does NOT mean these things will still work. If these Suitcase bombs were lost during the 1990s (when the Russian Economy was much worse then it is now and the time period most were "lost") the bombs have almost no chance of still going Nuclear today. They may be the basis of a dirty bomb, i.e. attempts to blow an old suitcase bombs will FAIL to go Nuclear, but the TNT used in the bomb will help spread the Nuclear material all over the place.

My point is the suitcase bombs that are missing are to old to go nuclear, and as such NOT the threat people are trying to make them out to be. Being used as a Dirty bomb is possible, but the amount of TNT is small and the area affected would be small (maybe no more then a City Block). In fact it might be better to take out the TNT in one of these suitcase bombs and combine it with other explosives to make an larger explosive. All told they are worse possible threats then these suitcase bombs, given the effectiveness of TNT if used extensively.