It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Al-Qaida Has Nuclear Weapons Inside U.S.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   
OK here are some links I did on these issues for ATSNN

Suitcase Nukes, an overview
Is the stage being set?I&II

I gave some information to what and where the suitcase nukes have originated from.

In my OP/ED piece Is the Stage... I looked at the security in the US Before 9-11. Also as I have stated in this thread, they are indeed inside the US, pre 9-11. They were easy to conceal, and since no one figured these types o f things would happen in the US were clearly mistaken.

I'm sure NightStalker can back me up on this:
If your going into "Battle", or planning an attack, You would have Plan A, B, C and so on. One would not rely on one plan alone.

These "Plans" have been "In the Works" since 1995-96. I wish people would stop arguing as to who is claiming these things, what "Political" advantage it may have, and freakin realize that It Doesn't Matter, The threat Is real, and we the citizens are the ones who will suffer, regardless of who or what you may think is behind it.




posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockerDom
but don't you think we'd have seen something of this before now if some of these nukes were sold?
.

There is a TON of information on this going back years, It just was not as previlant as it is today.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   
While George W. Bush had us fight a war in Iraq for WMDs that didn't exist, he has done virtually nothing to round up, secure and aquire nuclear matterials. This is a failure of leadership, how blind can people be? While we were being kept hysterical about terrorism the terrorists were methodically aquiring suitcase bombs. We are inifintly worse off against terrorists with this president. If you want to be safer from terrorists you need a president who is at least as smart as the terrorists.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Ok, well, I already posted on the original Statements from Alexander Lebed that began this story, and his credibility and reasons for saying such things. I also gave statements from a former government worker that said even if any weapons were in the U.S., we would be able to track them with ease, but all of this has, apparently, been ignored, so I will address the actual possibility of building a weapon like Mr. Lebed claimed the USSR had created.

I failed to extrapolate fully on the last link in my former post that delt with this, so I will do so here. It is an article written by Carey Sublette. I'll do my best to simplify the physics for you.

Link: nuclearweaponarchive.org...

The dimensions given by Mr. Lebed for the weapons were 60 x 40 x 20 centimenters, so let's imagine this space. We will use this as our base, and add in each component one at a time.



The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions. An unreflected spherical alpha-phase critical mass of Pu-239 weighs 10.5 kg and is 10.1 cm across.


This is the absolute smallest we can go with plutonium and still achieve the reaction needed for an explosion. 10.1 cm is pretty small, yet note that the weight of only this component puts our bomb at 10.5 kg. That's not too heavy, of course, but still rather hefty for such a small comonent. However, it now sits within our briefcase. However, there is one small problem:



A single critical mass cannot cause an explosion however since it does not cause fission multiplication, somewhat more than a critical mass is required for that. But it does not take much more than a single critical mass to cause significant explosions. As little an excess as 10% (1.1 critical masses) can produce explosions of 10-20 tons. This low yield seems trivial compared to weapons with yields in the kilotons or megatons, but it is actually far more dangerous than conventional explosives of equivalent yield due to the intense radiation emitted.


So we have to make our piece of plutonium slightly larger than we first had. No problem, there is certainly enough laying around.



A mere 1.2 critical masses can produce explosive yield of 100 tons, and 1.35 critical masses can reach 250 tons. At this point a nation with sophisticated weapons technology can employ fusion boosting to raise the yield well into the kiloton range without requiring additional fissile material.

The amount of fissile material that constitutes a "critical mass" varies with the material density and the type of neutron reflector present (if any). A high explosive implosion can compress fissile material to greater than normal density, thus reducing the critical mass. A neutron reflector reduces neutron loss and reduces the critical mass at a constant density. However generally speaking, adding explosives or neutron reflectors to a core adds considerably more mass to the whole system than it saves.


So, since we are dealing with such small components in our suitcase, we have to be careful because all of these pieces are incredibly dense and add lots and lots of mass very quickly, and therefore would not fit into our package.



A limited exception to this is that a thin beryllium reflector (thickness no more than the core radius) can actually reduce the total mass of the system, although it increases its overall diameter. For beryllium thicknesses of a few centimeters, the radius of a plutonium core is reduced by 40-60% of the reflector thickness. Since the density difference between these materials is on the order of 10:1, substantial mass savings (a couple of kilograms) can be achieved. At some point though increasing the thickness of the reflector begins to add more mass than it saves since volume increases with the cube of the radius. This marks the point of minimum total mass for the reflector/core system.


So, there are ways around it, ways that can even lesses the weight of this weapon, but because of the nature of nuclear reactions, but the reflector increases in size exponentially. Either way we go, we either add weight very quickly, or add mass quickly. However, we have to use the absolute minimum size needed to fit into our suitcase.



A low yield minimum mass or minimum volume weapon would thus use an efficient fissile material (plutonium or U-233), a limited amount of high explosives (sufficient only to assembly the core, not to compress it to greater than normal density), and a thin beryllium reflector.


We must have these components in our suitcase. There is no way getting around it. They are absolutely essential to any nuclear bomb, no matter what the size. So, let's figure out our current weight.



We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is probably closer to 15 than 11).


So, we are at about 15 kg. Still not too terribly heavy. That's about 33 pounds. When we add in the packaging and other needed components, the entire package only weighs in at about 18 to 19 kg, or about 40-45 pounds. Hefty, but not too terribly heavy. We only have one more roadblock.

All nuclear devices need two things: constant upkeep, and a constant energy supply, usually an electric generator. This adds more to our problem: we need someone who not only needs to know how to keep up with a nuclear device, but how to keep up with this nuclear device. Let's say the generator is small enough to fit in a pocket, and that someone from the former Soviet Union, who knows these devices inside and out defects to the Taliban (incredibly unlikely, given Russia and Afghanistan's past; remember, we hired Osama to fight the Russians in the first place). Well, then everything is in place, right?



This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead. This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages) and had yields ranging from 10 tons up to 1 Kt in various versions. The warhead was basically egg-shaped with the minor axis of 27.3 cm and a major axis of 40 cm. The test devices for this design fired in Hardtack Phase II (shots Hamilton and Humboldt on 15 October and 29 October 1958) weighed only 16 kg, impressively close to the minimum mass estimated above. These devices were 28 cm by 30 cm.


Just a little too big for our suitcase, though. There are several other possibilities, though:




The W-54 nuclear package is certainly light enough by itself to be used in a "suitcase bomb" but the closest equivalent to such a device that US has ever deployed was a man-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition)...It was a cylinder 40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg...


Wow! 68kg is almost 150 pounds. That one is ruled out.




Nuclear artillery shell designs with diameters as small as 105 mm have been studied. Packaging a nuclear artillery shell in a suitcase is an obvious route for creating a compact man-portable device.

The US has developed several nuclear artillery shells in the 155 mm caliber. The only one to be deployed was the W-48 nuclear warhead developed by UCRL, packaged in the M-45 AFAP (artillery fired atomic projectile) shell. The W-48 nuclear warhead measured 86 cm (34") long and weighed 53.5-58 kg (118-128 lbs).


Well, 86cm is too long, and 120 pounds is extremely heavy for long-term logistics missions. This one is ruled out, too. Next.



The smallest diameter US test device publicly known was the UCRL Swift device fired in the Redwing Yuma shot on 28 May 1956 . It had a 5" (12.7 cm) diameter, a length of 62.2 cm (24.5 inches) and weighed 43.5 kg (96 lb). The test had a yield of 190 tons, but was intended to be fusion boosted (and thus would probably have had a yield in the kiloton range) but its yield was insufficient to ignite the fusion reaction and it failed to boost in this test.


Well, it's just barely too long, but the weight is manageable again. However, the weapon couldn't detonate. Not enough room to ignite the fusion reaction. We need more mass than that.



Later and lighter 155 mm designs were also developed -- the W74 (canceled early in development), and the W-82/XM-785 shell. The W82 had a yield of up to 2 kilotons and weighed 43 kg (95 lb), but included a number of sophisticated additional features within this weight...capable of being fielded with a "neutron bomb" (enhanced radiation) option, which is intrinsically more complex than a basic nuclear warhead...the actual minimum nuclear package was substantially lighter than the weight of the complete round. Its overall length was 86 cm (34").


Well, good weight for our bomb, but way too long.



Compact nuclear artillery shells (208 mm and under) are based on a design approach called linear implosion.

It is quite likely, that should the suitcase bombs described by Lebed actually exist, that they would use this technology. It is clear that any of the 155 mm artillery shells, if shortened by omitting the non-essential conical ogive and fuze would fit diagonally in the package that Lebed describes, and the Swift device would fit easily. If the yield is as much as 10 kilotons, then the device would have to be fusion boosted.


Well, then we come back to the problem that we had a device larger than this that we had to fusion boost, but there simply was not enough room for an ignition of the fusion reaction. Another dead-end it seems.

Unfortunately, the possibility of this venture becomes more and more remote the more I research it. Every article I find in support of it is full of conjecture on possibilities, but the debunking articles are full of facts. At a certain point a nuclear weapon cannot function. Remember, the plutonium must be detonated by an outside explosion, and then contained long enough for a fusion reaction to happen.

After researching this, I simply cannot believe that these weapons exist, or that they could exist. There just isn't evidence to support it.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   

RockerDom wrote

Unfortunately, the possibility of this venture becomes more and more remote the more I research it. Every article I find in support of it is full of conjecture on possibilities, but the debunking articles are full of facts. At a certain point a nuclear weapon cannot function. Remember, the plutonium must be detonated by an outside explosion, and then contained long enough for a fusion reaction to happen.

After researching this, I simply cannot believe that these weapons exist, or that they could exist. There just isn't evidence to support it.


Interesting stuff. Thanks.

But shouldn't that read "fortunately" rather than "unfortunately"?



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Well, I said unfortunately because everyone seemed highly enamoured with this subject. I agree, the idea is pretty cool for an 80's kid like me, but the actual possibility of the idea just doesn't seem to pan out. However, your edit is noted, and will be added to all future releases.

Thanks for the compliment. I am glad you were able to slog through it all



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   
eVERYONE KNOWS THAT aLQUEDA IS NOT HERE. George Bush has completely overblown the threat and is using it as justification to cancell the elections.

The only place they could have got a small nuke was from Russia. Ther smallest was 1 kt about the size of a steamer trunk.\

By the way the U.S. version is called the SADAM. Ironic for a country that was peace loving and had no WMD



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:12 PM
link   
The weapons exist. There are numerous articles supporting that, do a google search. Read further and some people(experts) will say that they have deteriorated to a point where they cannot be used, meaning hte batteries or the explosives to detonate. However, these were created years back, and there is now technology that I am sure cna retrofit to a suitcase nuke. I hope only that they are no bieng manufactured on a farm in Mississippi, and then you load them on "trucks" and transport. The suitcase nuke NUke does not mean that the terrorist has to carry it somewhere, so that takes away the weight issue. The could put it in a van, roll into the downtown of a major metropolis and the lights go out on Braodway.

Deniability that these exist is another way not to throw the country in a panic. The antrhax scare caused people to seal there homes with tape and a few died. What kind of hysteria would be created if the Defense Secratary had a press conferenc and said "We can comfirm 17 Nuclear devices in the US, but don't know where"

It is a matter of time, not a matter of will it happen. My best guess is before the end of the year. Kinda sucks because football season is almost here



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Did you read any of my research esdad? I'm not attacking you, or anything, but the original claims come from someone who's crediblity and motives have been called into question numerous times. The weigh is not even the major problem, but the mass required to obtain a nuclear explosion. It is simply too small of a device to actually work.

The smallest device known that would actually work that terrorists may have would be something the size of a steamer trunk. The problem with these is that all are accounted for, and it takes a team of men to keep up with and detonate, plus a renewable, constant power supply. Even if terrorists had one, it would cost them over half a million dollars a week to keep up with, and a team of 5 or 6 men, plus incredibly logistics problems.

This is simply not a real threat.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
This may have been addressed as I did not read every post in this. But as you know drugs run across our boarders all the time. It would not be that hard to get a bomb of some kind in on somthing as small as a speed boat, or even a good sized rubber raft. Weapons and bombs could also be moved in with small aircraft just like drugs are. It only takes one lucky shot.

The terrorists are not limited to suit case bombs by no means. It could as easily be in a Van, pick up truck, a garage a town house etc... Even a Pinto...

If the nukes were avaialble after Soviets colapsed, there is nothing preventing them from getting into our country. Not only that but Norht Korea and other nuke capable enemies would happily supply them to our enemies.. It is bound to be attempted some time in history. If not in the US some western nation.

Terrorists are not limited by weight or size.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I am not attacking anyone, I am giving you some more material to research. I read everything you posted. If you choose to believe that it is not possbile, I am not going to preach and say "live in denial"
, I am simply stating that it is something that can be accomplished.


However, did you read anything i wrote? Check out this link, just to show the effect of one of these if detonated and how to deliver....
www.lewrockwell.com...
(I do not endorse whatthe sites owner talk of, this is only for hte effect of the nuke..thanks)

Do you truly beleive there are no more than 10 terrosits in the US? That they are not already here, waiting. So they find the martyrs to create 15 5-man teams to transport. It is also not Easy to "locate" a nuclear device. There are hand-held devices that are in play, however you can use lead to shield from them, right?
. So now you have something that weighs 3 or 400 lbs, a yeild of a few kilotons.Load her up, pray to Allah and ride into the sunset. 45 people could truly deliever death to over a million citizens in a blink. And if 3 of the vans are caught, 12 get through.. I am not a end of the world wea re all gonna die guy. I do not wnat to believe this, but everything I have ever read or researched points to it.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I was under the impression that the US gov placed a few satellites over the North America last year to track radioactive hot spots in the US and to test ships at sea before going to port.

I do remember a story last fall of a ship held off of the east coast because it set off alarms via satellite, the ship was searched off shore and deemed ok to enter port.

I beleive that the US has the ability to track radioactive products and that suitecase weapons would set off alarms, hopefully.

john



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Let me first say, es, that it's nice to have someone who is willing to discuss a subject with me instead of simply attacking and throwing monkey poo around. I'm glad you're here.

I completely believe there are current terrorists within the U.S. Of that I have no doubt. I could even concede that one of the steamer trunk weapons could be brought across the border in speed-boat, or tanker truck, even an 18-wheeler. Let me give you an excerpt from one of the first articles I have.

www.rense.com...



A series of satellites planned to begin deployment in 1989 (temporarily delayed by the Shuttle explosion) are now aloft (2nd phase of the MILSTAR Program) They carry special sensor devices (Developed by SAIC) that can detect high-velocity spin-off particles from enriched uranium (necessary for nuclear devices). Due to the small size and velocity of these particles, no amount of shielding can block them: not lead, not earth (sub-terrainian). Radiation hazards from these particles are minimal due to limited quantity. Our satellites are fool-proof in detecting and pin-pointing the locations of enriched uranium throughout the world.


This is how we know about "suspected" stockpiles around the word. And it's why North Korea took the cameras out of their power plant. We can "see" the uranium, but the cameras gave us a view as to what they were doing with it. The satellites just know where it is.



The nuclear verification process employed in monitoring Iraq and other nations via NATO and the United Nations uses these satellite joint detection systems (the NSA controls and tracks the data). Many articles concerning these satellites have already been written in specialty magazines (Defense Science and Electronics-for one). Any attempt to bring a nuclear device into our country would be instantly detected (not to mention the track of its mobile transport).


The problem for the Taliban is not willing operators, it's actually two-fold: the incredible amounts of money it takes to keep a nuclear weapon operational, and people who are trained in their use. Thank god Rumsfeld only trained them how to use assault rifles and anti-tank guns, and never gave them any NBC training. Then we would be really @#$%ed.

I will concede to you that there are always advances in technology, but the most recent article I could find from a nuclear expert says that fusion reactions simply can't happen on a small-scale like Lebed intially reported. There just isn't enough mass present to create an explosion.

This topic is good to kind of sit back and contemplate what-if's, but the feasibility of it's reality is far too slim to take seriously.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   
One question. If they have these satellites, where are the WMD's in Iraq?


Seriously, I have read about these, but I was under the impression it was for mainly maritime monitoring. However, the seas are so vast that it is almost impossible to cover the entire ocean. There have been a few "stopped a freighter in the Medi" or off the coastof the US articles that may have used this technology from the sky to prevent attacks.


As far as them being trained to handle,complete and maintain, think back to college or drive by a campus and look at all the Arabengineering students. Also, money corrupts, and American is a hotbed of corruption and scientists.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockerDom
Did you read any of my research esdad? I'm not attacking you, or anything, but the original claims come from someone who's crediblity and motives have been called into question numerous times. The weigh is not even the major problem, but the mass required to obtain a nuclear explosion. It is simply too small of a device to actually work.

The smallest device known that would actually work that terrorists may have would be something the size of a steamer trunk. The problem with these is that all are accounted for, and it takes a team of men to keep up with and detonate, plus a renewable, constant power supply. Even if terrorists had one, it would cost them over half a million dollars a week to keep up with, and a team of 5 or 6 men, plus incredibly logistics problems.

This is simply not a real threat.


Again, what I say is not in any way classified. The information has been public for a long time. Read some real books, do some research and use some critical thinking to make your own decision.

I, myself, do not care if you think it is a real threat or not. I KNOW IT IS. I have seen them and trained on their use.

In trying to debunk the reality of a threat of this type. You have been making my point.

I stated that they are usually the size of a steamer trunk. It takes a two or more man lift to move them. They are made to be placed for later use.

It does not take a constant power supply. They have an internal battery system that keeps critical systems operating. If they need a continous power supply, they can be hooked into the power grid without anyone noticing any type of power drain [thats how little power they require].

They are designed to be left in place for long periods of time. They do not require a team or personnel to service them. They were designed as a sabatoge device. In a very short period of time "Joe Six-Pack" can be trained in their use.

The picture of the 'mock up' device you previously posted is almost the exact size of the smaller of the devices. It's yield is in the kilo-ton range.
The arty community has had 105 and larger shells available for a long time (1979 was the first time I saw one).

If someone is posting that all of the Soviet devises have been accounted for, they are wrong. Do some research into why the NEST teams have been training on finding this exact type of device. Do some research in the Cold War archives for KGB/GRU plans in support of a US/Soviet nuke exchange. Do some research into the interviews with KGB and Soviet nuke techs after the breakup. You will fine enough evidence that I am correct.

Just because some people do not want to see the evidence does not make it any less real.

Hope that those of you that do not take the threat of the use of these devices seriously have a very good friend that will treat you for the effects of the aftermath. ME, I have a very secure place to go, have had one for years. Not that I want to use it.

Hope the Feds get the rest of these 'off the market' soon and before they prove me correct and one gets used.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Night, I have done research. As I already stated the very first mention of these weapons comes from a statement made in 1997 by a man named Alexander Lebed. Lebed lost the Russian Presidential race to Yeltsin in a very humiliating landslide. He was angry, and went to the States with a story about small, portable nuclear arms that were apparently on the loose.

Many former KGB agents immediately stepped up, with documents, saying that not only were there none of these unaccounted for, but that they were never even designed. There was no money to make them, and no people to make them. I have done the research, and put some of it on page two of this thread.

Trust me, when I first heard of this, it scared the hell out of me, and I did research on them to find out exactly where they were, and found more info against them than I did in support of them. The info supporting them is full of conjecture and hearsay, whereas the evidence against them is backed up with official reports, official documents, etc.

I do not doubt that the steamer trunk-sized weapons are real, but the possibility of them being in this country is incredibly remote. The logistics of moving them creates monumental problems:

1. The weapon must remain in an environment that is highly stable to prevent mechanical parts from being disrupted.

2. Upkeep is absolutely essential. Even a fractional misalignment of the core, the reflector, or the fusion booster renders the weapon completely inoperable, or so highly radioactive as to kill it's operators very quickly.

3. The weapons weigh in at several tons. Not something that can be transported cheaply and without notice.

4. The 105mm weapon you mention was built and even tested. It did not contain enough mass to create a nuclear explosion, and even if it did, would only have enough power to destroy a 6 to 8 story office building, with a range of radioactive area of about half a city-block. Highly disruptive, yes, but only the U.S. was able to gather enough resources to build any, and all of ours are accounted for.

5. In all of the research I have done, I have never come across any mention of a "battery-pack". All of my research indicated that the energy drain was somewhat high, about the same that a 3-person household uses.

Everything I have mentioned is in the links I have already posted. Feel free to read over them. I would be more than interested in any links you could provide for me.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   


The closest the U.S. is known to have come to a "suitcase" or hand-carried weapon was a variation of the W-54 called, interestingly enough, the SADM (small atomic demolition munition). This device -- officially the Mk-54 -- would have required a mighty big suitcase. It was a fat cylinder, 15 inches (diameter) by 24 inches, not unlike one of those big plastic buckets you can buy bulk paint in at Home Depot, and it weighed 150 pounds.

Of course a nuclear weapon gives off a significant signature in the form of both gamma rays and neutrons. A huge effort is being made to employ a variety of gamma and neutron spectrometry devices at ports of entry and the perimeters of potential targets. But these devices (and more sophisticated ones are now being worked on at the national laboratories) are not foolproof. Distance, shielding of various types (tungsten, lead, steel of a given thickness) and the problem of false positives and false negatives are some of the challenges now being wrestled with by detection experts.



In the end, an atomic bomb in a suitcase is really just a metaphor, not only for the portability of nuclear weapons but for the new and ominous possibility of who might be carrying them. The fictional tweedy professor who terrorized London in "Seven Days to Noon" was a misguided idealist with a bomb in a satchel. Those who now seek to terrorize the West and particularly the United States are hate-filled killers who have glorified suicide as a virtue and are bending every effort to secure and use "the bomb," be it in a suitcase, a packing crate, a car or whatever will surreptitiously deliver it to target. "If" is not the question. Where and when are.




www.techcentralstation.com... link to the quote...

Check it out. Verifies alot that we ahve both said.





[edit on 16-7-2004 by esdad71]

[edit on 16-7-2004 by esdad71]



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Thanks for the link, esdad, it is a very interesting read.

Some quotes from esdad's article:



The infamous Soviet-made suitcase bombs that supposedly disappeared from inventory sometime after the break-up of the Soviet Union have been the subject of numerous investigations and much fevered speculation. It is known that the Soviets, like the United States, developed small nuclear munitions, small enough to be fired in artillery shells or to be hand-carried (by one or more soldiers) as a demolition device. If they designed and built one that could actually fit in a large brief case, one of them has not shown up anywhere, nor has an official photograph or blueprint of it.

The ones described by Soviet General Alexander Lebed, in sensational Congressional hearings back in 1997, were supposedly in suitcases approximately 24 x 16 x 8 inches. A mock-up of such a bomb, using the warhead of an American nuclear artillery shell, was constructed and, indeed, all the necessary items -- neutron generators, batteries, arming mechanism etc. -- were successfully stuffed in around the cylindrical device itself.


And another:



The starting point would be a critical mass of plutonium or U-233. This would be a sphere about 4 or 5 inches in diameter and weighing roughly 28 to 30 pounds. Since the carriers of the weapon would presumably be in close quarters with it for some period of time, the critical mass would have to be of "supergrade" plutonium, which would be relatively safe to handle because it gives off lower neutron emissions. Beyond that, design variations (neutron reflector, high explosive, trigger type etc.) and the packaging for the device would add to size and weight depending on materials used, ingenuity of layout and other factors.





The smallest one the U.S. ever deployed in its arsenal was the M-45, which could be fired from a 155 mm cannon. It was 6.1 inches in diameter (caliber) and 34 inches long. It weighed up to 128 pounds. Remove the conical tip and fuse from one of those and you reduce the length enough to barely fit diagonally in the Soviet-sized suitcase.

But, hey, why not a larger suitcase? Or a crate, or a strong cardboard box? How about the trunk of a car? The possibilities for concealing or disguising a nuclear weapon are endless. Take a look, for instance, at one of those high-capacity air compressors you can buy in any Sears hardware department.


Maybe Lebed just got the dimensions of his weapon wrong, maybe it's a little bigger than he said. Or, as some sites have said, the dimensions he gave were the area of the inside of the suitcase. Anyway, the article goes on to discuss shelf-life issues:


The big question is the shelf-life and availability of nuclear artillery shells. The U.S. shells are apparently accounted for and secure. Whether all the Soviet era mini-warheads can be accounted for is another story.

The shelf-life issue is important. If there is a nuclear munition or more than one "out there," its condition could be in question. A nuclear weapon involves the melding of a variety of materials in close proximity -- metals, plastics, ceramics, exotic high explosives and, of course plutonium and uranium. Things happen inside a nuclear weapon even when it is just sitting.

The plutonium core gives off quite a bit of heat. This will warm the other parts of the weapon up to as much as 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Uranium "rusts" in much the same manner as steel when exposed to the air. And even though warheads are sealed in airtight metal containers, the materials inside -- the explosives and plastic, for instance -- give off trace amounts of oxygen, hydrogen and water vapor that can eventually cause oxidation and corrosion, both of which are abetted by the weapon's intrinsic heat. The high explosives in the detonating "lenses" of a weapon also have been known to deteriorate.


As I stated earlier, these weapons need constant servicing by trained professionals that understand all of this. "Joe six-pack" is simply not going to know all of the essential information needed.



In the end, an atomic bomb in a suitcase is really just a metaphor, not only for the portability of nuclear weapons but for the new and ominous possibility of who might be carrying them. The fictional tweedy professor who terrorized London in "Seven Days to Noon" was a misguided idealist with a bomb in a satchel. Those who now seek to terrorize the West and particularly the United States are hate-filled killers who have glorified suicide as a virtue and are bending every effort to secure and use "the bomb," be it in a suitcase, a packing crate, a car or whatever will surreptitiously deliver it to target. "If" is not the question. Where and when are.


Exactly. I do not doubt that at some point these weapons will be created, and probably even used. But they do not currectly exist, Russia didn't produce them, they aren't in America. I'm sorry, but that's the same conclusion I keep finding.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by IMMORTAL
I believe that the United State already has and produces nuclear weapons. Now, what's to stop agents of the U.S Government from selling these on the Black Market to terrorists already in the United States? They already admit they're waiting to strike within U.S.A. The only nukes that would be possibly used are those made by the USA, with a made in the USA stamp.


Are you really this stupid? Nukes going off in the US spells chaos every where else. Or did you think the US would just suck it up?
It's called MAD for a reason. I'm sick of all"the have nots" wishing and hoping for SICK SICK things to happen.

Once nukes are used the RULES change. Once the genie is out IT'S OUT.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
this has been an interesting thread to read.

Nightstalker is right - it would have been very easy for terrorists
to obtain nukes on the black market after the wall came down in europe.
That was a highly chaotic time for people in russia.

I personally think they have them. You must remember they don't always
go for casualities; their goal is to drain us financially and *then* strike us hard. My feeling is they are responsible for the widespread forest fires
taking place these past 3 years. Do some research on them, guys - it's worth looking into.

I think they are responsible for many of the power outages in airports, too.
Check them out as well. No, not every power outage is due to terrorism
but trust me if you look into outages which have taken place this year
you'll see a disturbing pattern.

So...they drain us (without our recognizing it) by destroying forests
and causing our airlines to lose business. This continues, unnoticed, by the general US population. THEN, after they've reached a desired stage
they bring out the "big guns."

These people are smart, remember. They want to destroy America, not just hobble us with the occassional grisly hit. One cannot accomplish that goal by simply leveling the Twin Towers. First they have to weaken us, then they hit us in a big way. Since forest fires and power outages aren't viewed by the public as being "terrorist activity" I bet they'll continue causing them for atleast another year. Then they'll strike us hard.

We are very easy prey because we don't pay attention to what's going on in other parts of the country. The west has had horrendous forest fires since 9/11 but sadly our media doesn't offer that region any support
by alerting us to their plight. And who comes home every night and looks into power outages??



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join