Suitcase Bombs

Yes it's scaremongering. I don't think the average guy is or even well organised small country or terrorist organisation is going to be able to make a nulear bomb..never mind one in a suitcase.

Maybe if my Junk Yard Battery comes up with something good, this could be the next challenge?... I think not...

Del is right, but....

It really depends on what you define as a nuclear device....

A chain reaction bomb in a briefcase is unlikely, however 10 pounds of radio active material with a regular explosive to make a radio active mess of a city center is doable and much more likely, a so called "dirty bomb."

My former maths lecturer's friend used to work in the nuclear program (U.S I guess, it never came up but I am guessing it wasn't the Australian program), anyway he decided to leave the program when they decided to try and build a suitcase nuke. The active word is TRY. As far as I am aware, due to the very nature of the way the device needs to operate and the physical limitations involved, you just cannot miniaturise it enough to make it easily portable. It certainly won't get thru customs.

Wouldn't it get a bit heavy... like this ?

Well, yes and no. Yes it is feasible. The US made a small artillery shell called the Davy Crocket that weighed about 23 kg. it was about 40 cm long and 28 cm wide. They call them tactical nukes with a yield of 10 tons and up.

The problem is a technological one. It takes some very good engineering to build a nuclear weapon and that doesn't come easily. You need the money and resources of a government to make one successful. At least not today. However, at some point someone will build one.

The US tested a small artillery shell in the 1950s, which was about 13 cm by 60 cm long. It weighed weighed about 45 kg. But technology has gone a long way since then.

The minimum mass of U233 or PU239 would be about 12 kg. That would yield about 10 tons. However, add a few more kg and the yield goes up quickly. At 15-20 kg you can add fusion to the yield and get over the 1 kiloton yield.

Possible, but not easy by any stretch of the imagination. Imagine trying to smuggle 15 kg of PU239 around. Then there is the shielding. Thank god for its mass!

I agree with you, possible but hard to achieve. I doubt in a business suitcase... I do scuba diving and my roller gear bag (Akona) can carry this kind weight and big enough to a whole bunch of stuff... Anything less would be hard.

It would be easier to hide a nuke bomb in a 130 ft3 double cylinder for example shielding included.

Like you said 15 kg of U 233 is not something you can buy at any harware store or any gangster around the corner; and even in the case you can buy a bomb from another nuclear country dismantling one in part, not an easy task.

A lot more easier and more accessible with biochemical or chemical agent... and probably doing a lot more dammage... only with fear.... there is a bunch of sicko out there unfortunately for us....

Actually, that's not quite true. Chemical / Bio agents are really hard to preserve and ever harder to disperse. To be effective, they have to be aerosolized in many cases - that is not easy. A dirty bomb would be easier, and true nuke, really difficult.

It's mostly scaremongering.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/857060/posts

the neutron source to help make it small decays quickly and cannot be stoed, new must be made in large reactors to replace it in 2-3 years. So any old ones from the USSR = useless now.

That's good to know.

Interesting article here.

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

The large bombs have shelf lives of 30-50 years.

The suitcase type small ones have a tritium core and this has a half life of 12.3 years. long before one half life had gone by it would have decayed to a very small or zero yield.

WRONG !

The half like is 12 odd years for it to decay to half its strength, it needs another 12 years to decay to half of that (a quarter of the original) and a further 12 years to decay to half of that etc etc etc......

At what point it is no more dangerous, I personally cannot say.....

Yep!! Thats the way the half life for radioactive ma terials is defined.

Not, not wrong. Devil is in the details. I state half life is 12 odd years. That is for the tritium to be half decayed.

The tritium is a neutron source to create a critical mass with a lot less plutonium, when compressed. In essence you 'fool' the plutionium.

when the tritium has lost ~25% of it's acivity the small bomb goes from ~1 kiloton to 100 pounds, or some such. This problem can be offset by adding more tritium at the start, but you can only go so far in that direction due to high cost of tritium and the comcommitant need to shield it(defeating the purpose) to prevent spontaneous fission.

Some reads.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=tritium+%2Bbooster+%2Bdecay&btnG=Search&meta=

Surprised nobody has mentioned - the Americans used to say in the 50s that there was no danger the Soviet Union would produce a suitcase nuclear bomb because they couldn't make a suitcase!

Cheers....Codey

The likelihood of a working atom bomb in a suitcase is to my mind fairly unlikely as you would need to have fantastic strength even to pick it up. The size would not be much of a problem I feel, the suitcase would need to be thicker than usual, thats all....and very strongly made!! But heavy man, real heavy.

But as someone else mentioned, a dirty bomb could be any size(weight) from about 10 lbs upwards, it would make a lot of Manhattan uninhabitable for 1000s of years without a long drawn out cleaning program....

That is probably the single most dangerous act for a terrorist team, who would all die anyway as the bomb would be emitting heavy radioactivity as they would not be able to afford (weight wise) the necessary shielding. This alone might kill (radiate, they would die later) a lot of others too BEFORE the explosion.....

Moving it would be a problem as most cities have sensitive detectors to warn of any radioactive material movement.

End result, I would be surprised if such a bomb ever got made and used without prior detection....

People do not realize the immense damage just one nuke can inflict. Such a device need not be imported but just hit any shore where most of our population is concentrated. The suitcase bomb is a diversion from the real problem Kamikaze style delivery.

It would not require such a large craft, on or under the water with suicide (Jihad) delivery - no missile or bomber needed. With lead shielding the strategy would be nearly impossible to defend against. We can't even control our southern border.

And the worst part - we will not know where the shooter is to stop further attcks.

People do not realize the immense damage just one nuke can inflict.

Yeh..a band aid just won't help

I think we have all seen what happened at the end of WWII ...

It seems that the actual explosive power of the dirty bombs would be fairly limited (10 Tons - I assume that means equivalent to 10 tons of TNT) compared to the scale of the bombs dropped in 1940's. The real danger appears then to be the subsequent nuclear contamination of the area for 1000's of years.

How much worse of a contamination problem would it be than the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl? Any thoughts?

The contamination is here, it is called fear. Unfortunately, people are terrorized by this fact everyday...

If they wanted maximum short term damage from contamination they would choose a short half life radionucleotide = very radioactive = also easy to detect and hard to shield.

Pure uranium, with it's many millions of years half life has very low radioactivity, so shock effect, little real danger. A volatile item like tritium would quickly dissipate into he air and diluttion would make is harmless.

You will not find a created elements for the purpose. You will find the first removed rods from reqctors the largest volume to find and they are in pools all over th world to let their initiAL HIGH levels decay for a few years, then into long term storage.

So if someone stole 2000 pounds of fresh used rods and milled them into fine 1000 mesh dust and then packed them around 1000 pounds of ammonium nitrate +fuel oil (ANFO = a commong mining explosive) and set it off, he would create a large plume of dust that would contaminate a mile or so. This could be cleaned by men in lead suits with power washers as long as they trapped the washings and filtered out the 1000 mesh dust. It would mean a painstaking wash of all surfaces and the removal of all earth upon which the dust fell.

Danger? APart from the 1000 pound bang, the damage would be the denial of access to the dusted area, and this could include rivers and watersheds etc.

Unless these goofs took care, they would soon dies from the radiation.

This bomb would be easy to detect if not shielded and would need many tons of lead to shield

Hi,

why are you confident that there will be only a limited explosive yield?

Most of the technology of the first two atomic bombs is known - being publisher here and there early.

With 5kg (density is near 20g/ccm) U235 you can get 20kilotons!

If these lunatics that pose such a threat do use "only" the materials that are used in nuclear weapons then the contamination may be much less than in Chernobyl as a typical inventory in a nuclear reactor is near 15 times the fissile material that was used in a basic nuclear bomb.

But you cannot guess what materials will be tried in such an attempt. So there may be a lot more radioactive contamination than known from previous experiments with open explosions. And with open explosions there are very different experiences depending on the distance to ground of the explosion and the composition of the natural ground and artefacts there.

So there will be the prime necessity to let the intelligence agencies get into these activities and get enough information to counteract efficiently.

Good luck and successful work to them!

RHABE

I think you are mistaking something here, a dirty Bombs power is exactly the same as the amount of explosive used, 10 lbs = 10 lbs....no nuclear explosion.

But it distributes the radioactive material as a fine dust over quite large distances, helped by the prevailing winds.....breathe in one dust particle and it WILL kill you, slowly but surely.....over several weeks, if not longer.....

The Threat:

1. Was it ever made?

2. Who made it?

For example: if a rogue element of an industrialized nation made the threat it would be very real indeed. If a rogue element of an industrialized nation decided to use ALQ for a patsy, it would also be a very real threat. Study the 93 WTC bombing, especially the transcripts of the trial. You wll find one A. Asalem (sp). He was a former Egyptian Army officer who worked for the FBI. You can find recordings he made when talking to his FBI handling about expense reports that had been filed for E X P L O S I V E S.

Why would the FBI want him to buy REAL explosives? He was confused about this, according to his testimony.

So, in '93 you get a blind cleric and a couple of morons and make them believe they are bomb experts. The only real bomb experts where at FBI, coaching Ahmaad Salem. Maybe FBI just wanted a whole heaping pile of evidence, to insure a conviction ... maybe.

So, I argue a bit of misdirection may be operating in the PD article; more than just fear mongering.

So the threat may be very real, just not from the source you have been made to anticipate.

It seems to me there are a bunch of nutcases out there, that spend their days and dollars figuring out how to make nukes; in ever more variety and lethality; I just don't know of any from a group called ALQ.

Who spends more money on armament than the rest of the world combined?

Who is continuing to design more advanced nukes?

Who has used nukes in war?

Who has thousands ready to be fired within minutes at any time?

Who has the most nukes?

Who has military installations in more than 90 countries?

Who has had the greatest number of military actions per year for the last 100 years?

Ask yourself these questions, they are more likely to yield an answer that is useful.

Who is the greatest threat to world peace?

You sound like that greatest threat to world peace.

Those who want peace...prepare for war.

Those that want to be conquered....disarm...

Perfectly put.

For anyone who does not believe him, please read "The Second World war" by Winston Churchill, book I only......the other 5 books are also fantastic, but in the context of this Blog, you only need to read Book I....

Hitler was made Great(?) by the stupid allies between 1919 and 1939....not following their own rules!!!!! He made a laughing stock of all the "peace lovers".....

Winston Knew.....!!

Aurizon too!!!

Who said this?

"I am not one of those who see such a war coming and start whining about it. I have said and done all that I could; I have made proposal after proposal to Britain; likewise to France. These proposals were always ridiculed - rejected with scorn. However, when I saw that the other side intended to fight, I naturally did that which as a National Socialist of the early days, I did once before: I forged a powerful weapon of defense."

That's right, A. Hitler.

Here are the observations of a German Ambassador.

Ambassador Abetz who was very critical of Hitler, wrote in his book Das offene Problem:

"This was also the time of that particular one of Hitler's public speeches that first shook my distrust of him and convinced me of the sincerity of his professed love of peace. 'A medium-sized modern shell,' he set out before a large assembly, 'costs 3,500 Mark. A small single-family home for a working-class family also costs 3,500 Mark. To arm my country, I would need at least 10 million shells. These will then lie in storage in the arsenals, and no-one will thank me for them. But if I build 10 million homes for working-class families, I will have the gratitude of the greatest part of my nation. So how could I not want the others to disarm, that I may save myself arming in turn? But at the heart of a Europe armed to the teeth, Germany cannot be the only one to remain unarmed.' - I must admit that the simplicity and logic of this argument impressed me deeply. I began to believe Hitler's claim that he desired to put all the means at his disposal at the service of the social cause, and to achieve Germany's reconstruction through works of peace."

So, I reiterate: who is armed to the teeth, with installations all over the globe? Pax Romanus was just another phrase for domination under threat of arms.

I see you have a slanted agenda, Sainted Hitler , LOL.

I would prefer to have a strong USA far more than I would have liked a global USSR in charge, as I KNOW how the USSR would act...badly.

I prefer a strong and lawful USA, a strong and subverted USA is a threat to the world and of course, to the citizen's of the USA.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither and will lose both.

You simply cannot keep citing defense as the motive for having more arms than the rest of the world combined.

At some point, you're just a gun-nut, itching for a fight. At some juncture, you are just a bully.

And here is the point, if you can grasp it, you will eventually create enough enemies with such an arrogant policy, that you will be overwhelmed by the sheer number and lack of alternative to active resistance. Any wise leader will not go around blatantly subjugating people ... for long.

Every single one that has ever tried has failed. Heed the words of General George Washington in his farewell address: "Avoid foreign entanglements".

Heed the warning from a five star general and US president: Beware the military industrial complex.

Can I invoke these warrior-presidents on Veterans day? Or is it your purview alone to wave the flag today?

Real Love, is Tough Love

hopefully Clinton will clean out some dead wood when she gets in.

I prefer a strong and lawful USA, a strong and subverted USA is a threat to the world and of course, to the citizen's of the USA.

And who's laws are you talking about? The U.N's?

You simply cannot keep citing defense as the motive for having more arms than the rest of the world combined.

Old saying..... "The best defense is a good offense".

At some point, you're just a gun-nut, itching for a fight. At some juncture, you are just a bully.

gun-nut??? yep thats me. Itching for a fight? No but ready too if need be and have.

Every single one that has ever tried has failed. Heed the words of General George Washington in his farewell address: "Avoid foreign entanglements".

If the Japs, Hitler and a few others would have stayed in their borders we would have.

Heed the warning from a five star general and US president: Beware the military industrial complex.

We have and do which is why civilians control the U.S by free elections and without bloodshed.

Can I invoke these warrior-presidents on Veterans day? Or is it your purview alone to wave the flag today?

Yes you can, the question is though are you being insightful or trying to be an ***?

YUP BIG TIME!!

I think you are misguided.

No nation has done more to free others than the USA. No country is perfect nor every human being, but millions and millions of humans are free today because of the sacrifices made by the USA. Today is Veteran's Day here and I am very thankful and proud of the sacrifices they have made.

Consider the number of "actions" per year the US has made and how many of them have been conquered? We are not impearlists, as some might suggest. Then take a look at the nations that call us such and you will find a rich history of imperialism there.

Ok, who is free as a result of US intervention? Who is free to go their own way, absent US involvement?

The Nicaraguans?

The El Salvadorians?

The Hondurans?

The Panamanians?

The Filipinos?

The Timorese?

The Indonesians?

The South Koreans?

The Mexicans?

The Canadians?

The Israelis?

The Egyptians?

The Granadians?

The Puerto Ricans?

The Virgin Islands?

Who?

Read "Thy Kingdom Come"

Read "The Wretched of The Earth"

Read something factual and not a bunch of propagandistic claptrap.

The sacrifices of our armed service persons is quite apart from the POLICIES behind their sacrifices. Don't believe me? Ask Smedley Butler, USMC. ("War is a Racket")

And ... Don't tell me love it or leave it, unless you feel the same way about a leaky roof on your house, or engine malfunction in your auto.

I say: "If you love your country, heal it"

It is quite apparent that you have an agenda from others, and are unable to speak your mind

What is apparent is your resort to ad hominem. I simply cited authoritative sources. I love my country, possibly more than you. My devotion to my country does not however blind me to the actions of some who, from lofty positions, subvert the vision they hold out to others.

The essence of propaganda.

Wrap yourself in the flag, so they won't suspect you are tearing it to shreds.

I am not attacking you, just those who you represent who would have us unarmed against the foe.

I do not like Bush, but he acted against what he saw as an enemy, now he tries to disengage, but he wants to set up a system. I suspect you would prefer the terrorists take over Iraq and Afghanistan.

How long before we would have a nuclear war by Islamic terrorists if they took over Iran/Iraq/and syria?

You can not deal well with people who start of saying, we want you dead, then we will talk...

That is NOT how 'they' started. They started with its' our country and therefore our oil.

Look up Mossadech and get a better idea of how we ended up here.

I have seen the end result of these fundos in Iarela and other places. Islam has never had a reformation as it is built to resist reformation, even as it has become a useless practice religion.

You recall how the Moslens were leading in math and science and astronomy? Well, Islam ended that. The best a brightest were streamed into koranic studies = a total waste of time.

At least the christains shook of most of this relgious mumbo jumbo...not all though.

I know for a fact that Panamanians are living much happier and wealthier and freer than they did before American intervention. Both times, when they gained independence from Columbia, and when Noriega was disposed. I know for a fact because I have chosen to live in Panama after finding life in the US too opressive...

This blog has become uninteresting because of the raving nut cases and slanted politics, I'm gone.....

Did none of you watch 24. They had suitcase nukes. You know it must be true. Heck it was on TV. Yeesh. <VBG>

On the ranting about how bad us Amercians are: Sadly the foreigners only see what is on the news and by that know that all Amercans are war mongerers. Living in their own countries, don't they realize that they have no control over how their government operates? How could they believe it is any different in the US? As much as I hate how we interfere in the affairs of other countries; how the oil/big business is driving what path our government takes; and that we are surely being bankrupted by our current administration; there is no place else on earth I would rather live. God bless America with apologies to the rest of the world.

A. Not a foreigner.

B. I will not confuse patriotism with sycophancy.

C. I will place a quiet the truth over a loud lie and that makes me a member of a very tiny minority.

D. I don't need affirmation from any of you.

Suitcase sized nuclear bombs are years away from now if intended to be made in that size , weapons of mass destructions will not solve the very purpose if designed , i wonder what destruction it will cause compared to other explosives of same size it surely will be greater and time it will take to destroy further due to radioactivity in that region , these will surely interest terrorist outfits for there perposes and not any government or nation , so we needn`t worry as this technology is above par to get developed by these gangs and also unlikely some rogue nation to sell them and train them.....