Skip to comments.
Tiny Nukes-- the backpack threat
Posted on 09/14/2001 6:30:05 AM PDT by backhoe
In light of what has happened, I present this for everyone to mull over. Kindly note that this info is readily available to anyone with a search engine & a little patience; nothing confidential is revealed here:
SUITCASE NUCLEAR DEVICES
... the US "two-man rule," the weapon required two commandos to fire it. The "backpack
nuke" was designed to be positioned and detonated behind enemy lines by the ...
... John McPhee. It's about the physicist Ted Taylor, he's the fellow who designed the
backpack nuke I was talking about, if fact he was the chief designer of the ...
Russia's "Lost" Luggage Could Be Deadly - November 1, 1998
... equivalent to 1,000 tons of TNT. A single suitcase nuke, placed in an urban
area, could kill up to 100,000 people and cause enormous physical damage. ...
Russia: US Fears of Hidden "Suitcase" Bombs [Free Republic]
... To: The Chid. Nor, with a "suitcase nuke", would it be an air burst. 12 Posted on
11/11/1999 13:02:26 PST by okie01 [ Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | Top | Last ...
... to Bin Laden facilitated by Clinton cronies; the drive by terrorists to create
the perfect suitcase nuke for use against US cities; and much much more. ...
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
posted on 09/14/2001 6:30:05 AM PDT
These "backpack" nukes are very heavy and larger than you think. If I remember correctly, they are more like mines. And the mechanisms have to be maintained on a regular schedule.
posted on 09/14/2001 6:34:16 AM PDT
It doesn't have to be in a backpack. It could be as large as a washing machine and be transported in any old ship into New York harbor. Smuggling it into an interior city would be somewhat more difficult.
Yes, they are more a demolition device- what I'm familiar with is about 2 feet square, 3 feet long, and takes a strong
man to handle... and 2 to trigger. And yes, they need regular maintenence to be reliable.
There was a lot of talk about this in my pre-web days, on talk radio-- I was curious as to what, if any, new news there was on the subject.
posted on 09/14/2001 6:49:17 AM PDT
I would like to suggest a different danger. Instead of having to smuggle large, heavy, clunky devices around, what of the possibility of a quart of Anthrax being placed in a water system, or smallpox germs being dumped into an air conditioning system, or any of a thousand biological and chemical compounds which would act just as quickly and much more deadly. How would you feel if you did not know if the water coming from your kitchen faucet was poison or if that cool (or heated at this time of year) air blowing over your desk was going to drop you in your tracks? The dangers in this war are much, much more insidious than bombs or suicide missions.
That's what people don't realize. You can put a warhead in a Ryder truck and do the same thing. Only they leak after a while. My understanding is they are easy to find with detectors.
posted on 09/14/2001 6:55:54 AM PDT
What percentage of Americans are vaccinated for smallpox?
You know what I think? I think we know who there people are but we haven't busted them for fear of being called "anti-Arab".
posted on 09/14/2001 6:57:25 AM PDT
One non-explodable plutonium warhead. One sack of ammonium nitrate. Grind finely. One spark. A lot of smoke. And most of NY will be uninhabitable for the next 30000 years. Note: no nuking, just chemistry...
posted on 09/14/2001 7:03:50 AM PDT
by Old Ivan
"I would like to suggest a different danger. Instead of having to smuggle large, heavy, clunky devices around, what of the possibility of a quart of Anthrax being placed in a water system, or smallpox germs being dumped into an air conditioning system"
That's what I thought was going to be "first". The danger from smuggled nukes certainly is real. And didn't Lunev mention some buried radio-controlled nukes placed in the U.S. at strategic locations by our good friends in Russia?
posted on 09/14/2001 7:04:08 AM PDT
To: boris, all -- SUSPICIOUS PACKAGE AT METRO STATION
Hey, how come that thread about the Washington Metro being evacuated was deleted? I just heard on WTOP news radio that a suspicious package was found outside a Metro station near the White House, and that Metro exits near the White House have been shut.
posted on 09/14/2001 7:08:06 AM PDT
they could've taken a hi-jacked plane and rammed it into a nuclear plant
posted on 09/14/2001 7:14:23 AM PDT
"A suitcase nuke attached to a drum of anthrax or botulism would be a hellish terror weapon,..."
The heat from the detonation would destroy the bio agent.
posted on 09/15/2001 3:07:51 PM PDT
What percentage of Americans are vaccinated for smallpox?
Except for a few researchers, NONE. The vaccinations we got as children in the 50's have worn out.
Smallpox is highly contagious, but does not live long outside the warmth and moisture of the human body. Therefore, the ideal "delivery device" is a martyr. Infect a person, put him/her in a crowded place and you've just started an epidemic.
posted on 09/15/2001 3:43:40 PM PDT
posted on 09/16/2001 11:40:50 AM PDT
A large portion are not. Smallpox vaccines ceased being given as a matter of course in 1977. That was the year I was born, so I'll be going in to the doc's to get a Dryvox (the trademark name of the vaccine) injection this week. It'll be pretty hard going after a possible smallpox attack, too, since there is very little Dryvox in reserves.
posted on 09/26/2001 7:28:20 AM PDT
---more info, re: blast & thermal effect---
15 Posted on 09/28/2001 00:53:15 PDT by Dan Day
And how much damage (radius in miles) could a suitcase nuke deliver?
Max yield of a "suitcase nuke" is about 1 kiloton That's 1/15th the yield of the (relatively small) a-bomb we dropped on Hiroshima.
The smallest US nukes ever made had yields on the order of 0.02 kilotons:
That's about 5 times the power of the OKC bomb, so you could pretty much wipe out any single building or close-spaced cluster of buildings, but you couldn't wipe out all of DC with it. Total damage wouldn't be any greater than that already achieved in lower Manhattan right now.
Something up into the 1 kiloton range would destroy a few city blocks and wreak havoc a lot farther, but still wouldn't wipe out the whole city. You could probably set one on the steps of the Capitol and the White House would be somewhat worse for wear, but easily still standing
It would cause third-degree burns from the direct thermal effects out to about .40 miles, cause a 5psi overpressure out to about .43 miles, and give a 500 rem radiation dose out to about .84 miles. Each of those amounts (third-degree burns / 5psi / 500 rem) represent the "you're screwed" threshhold, basically. So beyond about 1 mile for a 1kt blast, things start looking up considerably.
The "little" nukes are less powerful than most people assume.
posted on 09/28/2001 2:49:20 AM PDT
posted on 09/28/2001 4:14:49 PM PDT
posted on 10/20/2001 4:14:40 AM PDT
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator
Comment #22 Removed by Moderator
Thanks- well, the warhead on "Davy Crockett" would fit under a seat, wouldn't it? Nasty little bugger....
posted on 10/20/2001 5:16:38 AM PDT
Comment #24 Removed by Moderator
Anything that goes "bang!" can be rigged to detonate by remote control....
posted on 10/20/2001 6:24:33 AM PDT
Comment #26 Removed by Moderator
Comment #27 Removed by Moderator
Any ex-soviet tactical nuclear artillery shell could be converted into a "backpack nuke".
Stripped down to the physics package, they could be as small as 8"D x 30"long and weigh under 50#.
To: Travis McGee
Any ex-soviet tactical nuclear artillery shell could be converted into a "backpack nuke"
posted on 10/30/2001 3:41:27 PM PST
Well, I'll tell you one thing. These can be transported from one end of the U.S. to the other by car, Grey Hound Bus or even Amtrak. There's virtually no security, though I know for a fact people wrote to Tom Ridge about Grey Hound and Amtrak's lack of security. For victory & freedom!!!
To: Saundra Duffy
posted on 12/21/2001 6:26:52 AM PST
The "Davey Crockett" ( W-54 ) Tactical Nuclear Warhead
The W-54 probably represents a near minimum size for a spherical implosion device (the U.S. has conducted tests of a 25.4 cm implosion system however). The W-54 is certainly light enough by itself to be used in a "suit case bomb" but the closest equivalent to such a device that U.S. has ever deployed was a man-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition). This used a version of the W-54, but the whole package was much larger and heavier. It was a cylinder 40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed only 27 kg). Although the Mk-54 SADM has itself been called a "suitcase bomb" it is more like a "steamer trunk" bomb, especially considering its weight
20 posted on 4/24/02 1:07 AM Eastern by krogers58
posted on 04/24/2002 1:40:10 AM PDT
the U.S.A. fielded the W-54 Davy Crocket
variable yield nuclear weapon from 1961-1971. Its warhead weighted 51lb.
posted on 01/28/2006 1:48:43 AM PST
The Davy Crockett could also be launched from specially equipped jeeps.
Sources: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project; Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, Milton M. Hoenig, U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities, Volume I, Nuclear Weapons Databook (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1984), pp. 60, 311; Robert Standish Norris and Thomas B. Cochran, "United States Nuclear Tests: July 1945 to 31 December 1992," (Washington, D.C.: Natural Resources Defense Council, 1 February 1994), NWD-94-1, p. 35; Chuck Hansen, U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History (New York: Orion Books, 1988), pp. 197-198; Ted Nicholas and Rita Rossi, U.S. Historical Military Aircraft and Missile Data Book (Fountain Valley, California: Data Search Associates, 1991), pp. 3-95, 3-101; U.S. Department of Energy.
Credit: National Archives
posted on 01/28/2006 1:52:16 AM PST
I tend to discount all these "back pack" nuke stories, 'cause if Osama had them, he's have used them on us bu now...
posted on 01/28/2006 1:59:45 AM PST
(Read the first three chapters of my Science Fiction novel)
Suitcase Nukes Said Unlikely To Exist
--U.S. backpack nukes:
Mk-54 SADM- Atomic Demolition Munition (ADM) weight 54 lbs (bomb only) 16 in. X24 in. Yield: Variable, 10 T - 1 Kt.
Artillery Shell 8in.x44 in. wieght:200 lbs. Yield: Variable - 100 T to 1.1 Kt (Mod 0), 0.8 Kt (Mod 1)
It takes serious design work to make them small, but it can be done.
This one weighed at under 100 pounds. Sub-kiloton yield. It's name was the Davy Crockett.
posted on 11/13/2007 5:46:49 AM PST
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson