This is one of those things we should not lose sleep over. A truck or shipboard container, possibly.
Critical Mass is a non-negotiable figure, as are the well-known public details of implosion device assembly.
Just try to carry such a "briefcase".
Nope, I am going to worry about more immediate things.
Besides, our "No First Use" doctrine would be totally out the window if someone were to do this, and it would give us a blank check to do whatever we wanted. *WE* are not the ones who should be losing sleep over this.
We have one warhead for each WTC victim. Fact.
To use one, or even fifty against us would be the same thing as taking a knife to a gunfight.
Also..... Later in the above article they say they need 110kg (220 lbs) of material - confusing the reader by mixing english/metric units.
In both cases, there has not been any credible information released that shows an attack of this type imminent or even possible by the terrorist organizations that wish to harm us.
Spreading fear on false threats is not the only horrible tactic of big-media. They are also down-playing real threats toward the United States and trying to undercut all preparations for such a threat. The most striking exampleof this is a National Missile Defense System against the growing threat of missile attack from China or North Korea. China and North Korea have been sending strong signals in recent years of their intention to challenge America's military. A couple of the most striking examples was North Korea's missile test in the Pacific and China's threat to nuke Los Angeles in any conflict over Taiwan. These threats are real and are backed-up an incresingly threating military and hard-line attitude toward the United States.
Big-Media's response has been that the system is too expensive, won't work, and would upset other countries.
It would certainly be more expensive to lose Los Angeles or even the entire West Coast. Regardless of the effectiveness of the NMD system, it would be at least as effective as not building any system at all. As for upsetting other countries, I have no doubt that making America stronger would upset our enemies.......who cares!!!?
In conclusion, I rate America's Big-Media coverage of the national security threats against America as a D-. It's really a shame their reporting is so out-of-step with reality.
DISCLAIMER: cheap joke based on a stereotype which DOES NOT apply to my wife -- who is a more judicious packer than I!
Dan
1- They have the money. You can buy anything if you have the money. You don't have to have skill.
2- They may not care about massive retaliation. They may even hope to provoke it. They don't think like we do.
Well I am not going to lose much sleep over it but I did get myself a CD survey meter and some potassium iodate. Just in case.
" 02 October 2000
Secretary of Defense Cohen (remember him?) Cites Russia, China, Weapons of Mass Destruction as Top Foreign Policy and Defense Challenges Link to discussion of terrorism
Addressing an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) October 2, Defense Secretary Cohen: "With regard to weapons of mass destruction, we are now seeing at least 20, 24 countries let's call it two dozen countries who either have developed or are in the process of developing weapons of mass destruction. That's a word that doesn't mean a lot, I suppose, to most people who hear it.
And that's the reason why, when I went on television a couple of years ago, I held up that five-pound bag of sugar, because it loses its meaning when you use that phraseology.
If you take a five-pound bag of sugar and you say, assuming this were filled with, let's say, anthrax instead of sugar and you spread that with the right kind of temperatures and right kind of wind over a city the size of Washington DC, you could wipe out almost 70 percent of the population just with five pounds.
There are tons of anthrax in existence. There are tons that have been manufactured. And so this is just one element that we have to contend with for the future. How do we gain control over these weapons of mass destruction, which are proliferating and will continue to proliferate?" (Then Poet Cohen just had to lapse into girlie-man gobbledeegook )"If you recall the words of the poet Auden, he talked about a "man clutching a little case who walks out briskly to infect a city whose terrible future may have just arrived."
The Israelis recently intercepted one individual carrying such a device in a backpack trying to enter Jerusalem via Ramallah.
Shouldn't the failed faux intruders have died? Do the defenders use mock defenses? Mock bullets?
They said a suitcase bomb like this could cause as much damage as the nuclear bomb in Hiroshima. Also that the bombs could be carried in a back pack.
Suitcase nukes require a LOT of maintenance on a very frequent basis in order to work.
Therefore, if Osama HAD a suitcase nuke in 1998, as Yousef Bodansky was claiming, then he has a somewhat radioactive pile of junk today.
If Osama has a suitcase bomb NOW, we will know about it in the very near future, because he doesn't have a lot of time to use it.