NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you know about these so called "suitcase nukes" that thse terrorism experts are always talking about? From what I have heard was that back in the good old Soviet days the Russians built a bunch of nuclear bombs small enough to fit into a suitcase which would then be smuggled into American cities and used as part of a first strike in the event of a nuclear war. Supposely they can't account for all of them now and some people think Al-Quaeda has one of is trying very hard to aquire one.

I am not too worried about them personally, I can't imagine a bomb small enough to fit into a suit case could pack much of a punch but it would certainly suck to be within a kilometer or two of one of these suitcases when they go off. I really know very little about them though.

The people within a kilometer of the bomb would be the lucky ones. Being instantly vaporized>dying a slow death from radiation in my opinion

It is not neccicarily the massive destruction to be the intent. Look at 9/11 for example, just 2 buildings coming down no big deal in a city point of veiw (no need to offend any1 i myself feel very annoyed about this day and what was perpatrated and hope all are involved bought to justice) however the selection of the building bought the ENTIRE world economy to a standstill for +24 hours of which we are still recovering from 3 nearly 4 years later

i belive in their existence but the myth of the collapse of the soviet union with the gross loss of national assests has been greatly overrated. And the question remains were the terrorists would get them from.

But as a resident of a major US city, I have to wonder about it all the same.

I refer you to "The Fourth Protocol" by fredrick Forncyth(sp)

What do you know about these so called "suitcase nukes" that thse terrorism experts are always talking about? From what I have heard was that back in the good old Soviet days the Russians built a bunch of nuclear bombs small enough to fit into a suitcase which would then be smuggled into American cities and used as part of a first strike in the event of a nuclear war. Supposely they can't account for all of them now and some people think Al-Quaeda has one of is trying very hard to aquire one.

I am not too worried about them personally, I can't imagine a bomb small enough to fit into a suit case could pack much of a punch but it would certainly suck to be within a kilometer or two of one of these suitcases when they go off. I really know very little about them though.

Easy there, Tom Clancy.

1 Kiloton detonated in a populace around the size of New York would annihalate all of the citys people if there was not immediate action taken. Gamma rays, alpha and beta radiation would be given off in all directions giving most a instantly lethal dose of radiation within around 4-5 km The fallout (depending on ground burst or air burst) would be large killing and causing illness to millions more. With favourably (in the terrorists point of veiw) weather conditions, fast winds blowing in land the radioactive fallout with elements such as strontium-90 and the radioactive form of calcium would poison food supplys grass on which cattle feed water supplies. and after all this the entire city would be a NO-GO zone for 50-100 years, look at chernobyl for all wanting very good infomation on the effects of nuclear bombs being dropped/detonated read: The Fate Of The Earth very good and informative.

i belive in their existence but the myth of the collapse of the soviet union with the gross loss of national assests has been greatly overrated. And the question remains were the terrorists would get them from.

But as a resident of a major US city, I have to wonder about it all the same.

I refer you to "The Fourth Protocol" by fredrick Forncyth(sp)

However you do know that the russians were sloppy in there storage of things while the U.S.S.R collapsed, the americans found the russian top secret space boosters in a barn in rural russia!! (by the way i might add that they found out also that the engines were alot better designs than the NASA equivelent) :D

However you do know that the russians were sloppy in there storage of things while the U.S.S.R collapsed, the americans found the russian top secret space boosters in a barn in rural russia!! (by the way i might add that they found out also that the engines were alot better designs than the NASA equivelent) :D
Who would have looked for them in a barn? Sounds quite secret to me :)

Who would have looked for them in a barn? Sounds quite secret to me :)


agreed but all these affairs are very tom clancy as stated above.

I am not too worried about them personally, I can't imagine a bomb small enough to fit into a suit case could pack much of a punch but it would certainly suck to be within a kilometer or two of one of these suitcases when they go off.
Just so you know, fission bombs do a lot more damage than it would appear at first. They're pretty small for the amount of power they release, and the long term effects are typically worse than the immediate blast and ensuing intense radiation. And if you want to know how sucky it is to be near a nuclear explosion, read the non-fictional Hiroshima by John Hersey. It sucks bad. But the book doesn't.

They're called 'dirty' bombs because although their range is comparitively limited, they suck up all kinds of shit into the air and it's radiactive.Depending on the wind direction, it could make large areas of cities uninhabitable for decades. It's a real possibility and here, Brit poiticians take it very seiously indeed. We've had quite a few 'test runs' on what we'd do if say, one went up in Trafalgar square.

The question is more properly directed towards the "dirty bomb" theory....
The materials in question are more or less excess nuclear or atomic waste used to "dirty" up conventional explosives and do not need to be used in large quantities to effect a large area or population. This is dangerous due to the fact that you could fill a rental truck with fertilizer and diesel fuel and throw a few pounds of burned out uranium into the mix blow up a water tower and no one would really be any wiser until people started showing up at the local hospital with cases of unexplained hair loss and vomiting...I do not perceive the "suitcase bomb" as a viable threat due to the fact that a unit even the size of a suitcase would have to contain enough yellow cake uranium to set off a radition senser in a abondoned hospital from 1931...Hope that helps....

They're called 'dirty' bombs because although their range is comparitively limited, they suck up all kinds of shit into the air and it's radiactive.Depending on the wind direction, it could make large areas of cities uninhabitable for decades. It's a real possibility and here, Brit poiticians take it very seiously indeed. We've had quite a few 'test runs' on what we'd do if say, one went up in Trafalgar square.
There is a huge difference between a suitcase bomb and a dirty bomb... :)

Uh... to begin, the suposed "Suitcase Nukes" or "Breifcase Nukes" arn't very small. the smallest ones in reality are about the size of full sized travel luggage. Basicly, if you wanted to transport it by car, unless your rear seats folded down, or you had a van or truck, you're not transporting it. Plus they're too heavy for a single person to carry, it takes at least two.
So why worry?

If you wanna be worried about something, be worried about a dumb clerc at the local grocery store accidentally spilling the wrong cleaners together in an isle, it's a million times more likely to happen that it is that any one on this forum will die by any intended NBC strike.

If you wanna be worried about something, be worried about a dumb clerc at the local grocery store accidentally spilling the wrong cleaners together in an isle, it's a million times more likely to happen that it is that any one on this forum will die by any intended NBC strike.
You know, it actually would do good to worry more about chemical pesticides and cleaners in general. Dangerous chemicals that we are now producing can not be destroyed, and leak out of dumps. They can be far more dangerous than we realise. Read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring if you want more information on pesticides and the like, although it was published in 1962 and is a little outdated, but everything is 100% true and should be a requisite read in high school for everyone.

You know, it actually would do good to worry more about chemical pesticides and cleaners in general. Dangerous chemicals that we are now producing can not be destroyed, and leak out of dumps. They can be far more dangerous than we realise. Read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring if you want more information on pesticides and the like, although it was published in 1962 and is a little outdated, but everything is 100% true and should be a requisite read in high school for everyone.

No need to read for me, I spent severl years of my youth playing with that stuff. I know first hand how easily Chlorine Gas will arise from the simplist combination of cleaners.
There's a reason they put the "Do not mix with other household cleaners" label on those things.

Uh... to begin, the suposed "Suitcase Nukes" or "Breifcase Nukes" arn't very small. the smallest ones in reality are about the size of full sized travel luggage. Basicly, if you wanted to transport it by car, unless your rear seats folded down, or you had a van or truck, you're not transporting it. Plus they're too heavy for a single person to carry, it takes at least two.
So why worry?

If you wanna be worried about something, be worried about a dumb clerc at the local grocery store accidentally spilling the wrong cleaners together in an isle, it's a million times more likely to happen that it is that any one on this forum will die by any intended NBC strike.

Tell that to Tony Blair.

The "Suitcase" nuke is not the size of a large piece of luggage, more like the size of a technician's tool kit, a very heavy one (weighing in at about 70 lbs.). The major threat is not from the blast, as they are relatively weak weapons of less than 20 kilotons. The major threat posed by such a device is the fallout. Unless you put the device in a low flying aircraft, it will generate an enormous amount of fallout due to the dirt, building materials, etc. blasted up into the atmosphere. Remember the cloud of debris from the world trade center as they collapsed? Multiply that by a 1000 times, make it radioactive and you begin to see the picture.

What do you know about these so called "suitcase nukes" that thse terrorism experts are always talking about? From what I have heard was that back in the good old Soviet days the Russians built a bunch of nuclear bombs small enough to fit into a suitcase which would then be smuggled into American cities and used as part of a first strike in the event of a nuclear war. Supposely they can't account for all of them now and some people think Al-Quaeda has one of is trying very hard to aquire one.

I am not too worried about them personally, I can't imagine a bomb small enough to fit into a suit case could pack much of a punch but it would certainly suck to be within a kilometer or two of one of these suitcases when they go off. I really know very little about them though.
The suitcase nukes in question are not the slim briefcase kind, but the "I'm going away for the week" 50lb kind. Their punch would be enough to level the centre of a city, casualties in the tens of thousands.

The Soviet Union built around a hundred of them, then distributed them to various agencies and officials, and conveniently lost some of the documentation saying who has them. Instant plausible deniability nuke, something you can use and attribute to whoever. No terrorist group can hope to obtain one unless the shadier parts of the Russian government wants them to obtain one for a specific purpose it has in mind.

It makes sense in a twisted kind of way, they are certainly not *that* stupid, just losing a bunch of nukes.

Who would have looked for them in a barn? Sounds quite secret to me agreed but all these affairs are very tom clancy as stated above.
Tom Clancy would never have come up with such an idea of having them stored in a barn.
Though of course, no doubt now he will - and claim he had the original idea before the news was out. ;)

Or am I thinking of Jeffrey Archer?

are relatively weak weapons of less than 20 kilotons. The major threat posed by such a device is the fallout. Unless you put the device in a low flying aircraft, it will generate an enormous amount of fallout due to the dirt, building materials, etc.

You hit the nail on the head, for starts, relativly, its a nuclear bomb people the bomb that blew up Hiroshima was only 15 KILOTONS! so (without trying to sound bigheaded) a 20 kiloton bomb in a suitcase would level a city the size of Hiroshima so i think the explosion would be smoething to worry about :D and about the detonation on the ground you are correct it is reffered to as a "Ground Burst" as i poster earlier this would have MAJOR ramifications in the effected area and as Kahnite and i posted earlier if weather conditions were favourable if the bomb was detonated in New York a large chunck of NE USA would be off limints for 50-100 years, I mean Damn!

What do you know about these so called "suitcase nukes" that thse terrorism experts are always talking about? From what I have heard was that back in the good old Soviet days the Russians built a bunch of nuclear bombs small enough to fit into a suitcase which would then be smuggled into American cities and used as part of a first strike in the event of a nuclear war. Supposely they can't account for all of them now and some people think Al-Quaeda has one of is trying very hard to aquire one.

I am not too worried about them personally, I can't imagine a bomb small enough to fit into a suit case could pack much of a punch but it would certainly suck to be within a kilometer or two of one of these suitcases when they go off. I really know very little about them though.
Suitcase nukes. When you need a minimum of 13kg Uranium+detonation packs for an A-bomb and that plus a shit-load of deuterium for an H-bomb?

I believe you mean 'dirty bomb'. Very different. It isn't a nuclear blast, its an explosion which spreads radiation for a certain radius. Effective in cities, nowhere else

Suitcase nukes. When you need a minimum of 13kg Uranium+detonation packs for an A-bomb and that plus a shit-load of deuterium for an H-bomb?

I believe you mean 'dirty bomb'. Very different. It isn't a nuclear blast, its an explosion which spreads radiation for a certain radius. Effective in cities, nowhere else

No he means suitcase bombs, they are around.

P.s. Consider the devistation radiation can do to ALL living things, i dont thing they are only effective in populaces

Tom Clancy would never have come up with such an idea of having them stored in a barn.
Though of course, no doubt now he will - and claim he had the original idea before the news was out. ;)

Or am I thinking of Jeffrey Archer?
Ah Tom Clancy what a character! Wasn't he just like an insurance salesman or something before he wrote all these doomsday war books? Sadly I did watch that travesty of a movie "sum of all fears" which kind of gave me the idea for this post. In that movie some nazis for some reason set off a small nuke (not a suitcase nuke but just a regular small nuke) inside a sports stadium in some city, I think it was baltimore, but the nuke only destroyed the stadium and a few blocks in each direction. Thats kind of what I imagine would happen if a suitcase nuke was set off in an american or european city. If they set one off under Yankee stadium I have a feeling the South Bronx would be anhilated but Manhattan would be fine. I would imagine in a major city all the massive concrete and steel buildings would absorb a lot of the blast wave and the radiation. However like everybody said you probably wouln't want to be down wind of that cloud of radioactive dust. I probably shouldn't base my military knowledge on sources like Tom Clancy but what the hell I'm not working for the CIA I'm just some moron who posts stuff on the internet.

No he means suitcase bombs, they are around.

P.s. Consider the devistation radiation can do to ALL living things, i dont thing they are only effective in populaces
Yeah, true, but its unlikely that a terrorist group would target a rabbit warren with a dirty bomb.

Some of these people are suggesting that not only would you get a thermal blast from the bomb and a 20kton explosion (no, it wouldn't, couldn't all fit in a suitcase) one person actually used the phrase air-blast. What, they going to wing it up in the air prior to the blast? :headbang:

it would be a dirty bomb. Yes radiation, no, no thermal blast due to chain reaction, just like a few pounds of C4 going off then about a 10 mile radius being sealed off. People would die, but nothing like what happened in hiroshima or nagasaki.

NB/ for a proper nuclear blast, you also need weapons grade uranium. That is very hard to make. A terrorist would prefer a dirty bomb because it doesn't matter if the uranium is poor quality, it will still irradiate stuff.

NB2/ if anyone was considering the terrorist using plutonium - unlikely. Plutonium catches fire in moist air. And it's only an alpha emitter

Suitcase nukes =/= dirty bombs

Suitcase nukes (AKA SADM - Special Atomic Demolition Munition) are relatively small nuclear bombs which are portable enough for a suitcase.

Dirty bombs are an explosive buit to spread a small bit of (but potent) radioactive dust.


And speaking of SADMs, anybody else here remember the 1st Splinter Cell game?

Suitcase nukes =/= dirty bombs

Suitcase nukes (AKA SADM - Special Atomic Demolition Munition) are relatively small nuclear bombs which are portable enough for a suitcase.

Dirty bombs are an explosive buit to spread a small bit of (but potent) radioactive dust.


And speaking of SADMs, anybody else here remember the 1st Splinter Cell game?
I bought it on the first day it came out in the UK. Fucking Rocked. And what do you mean, remembered? I still play it. Much better than Pandora Tomorrow: that was just shite. But the whole SADM thing? it'd have to be a bloody large suitcase. Sort of large enough to hold all the equipment to force together two 7.5kg pieces of U235. And if anyone says red mercury, I shall beat them to within an inch of their lives. There is no catalyst for a nuclear explosion that is chemical - completely separate things.

Yeah, true, but its unlikely that a terrorist group would target a rabbit warren with a dirty bomb.
Firstly i was thinking more along the lines of farm land and Pasteur not rabbits :D

Some of these people are suggesting that not only would you get a thermal blast from the bomb and a 20kton explosion (no, it wouldn't, couldn't all fit in a suitcase)
Actually with modern firing mechanisms and Weapons grade plutonium with a "warhead" the size of a tissue box you CAN get a bomb of around 20 KT's in it (a suitcase) how do you think they invented MIRV's (multiple warheads) with no increase in the size of the ICBM

one person actually used the phrase air-blast. What, they going to wing it up in the air prior to the blast? :headbang:
I was the person who mentioned Air BURST not blast and no i actually meant with a low flying Cessna, the USAF are hardly going to scramble 3 F-18's to intercept a "lost" Cessna

it would be a dirty bomb. Yes radiation, no, no thermal blast due to chain reaction, just like a few pounds of C4 going off then about a 10 mile radius being sealed off. People would die, but nothing like what happened in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Wong as i stated above it can be made (a 20KT suitcase nuke that is) and with favourable (by the terrorist) weather conditions it would be massively more than 10 miles

NB/ for a proper nuclear blast, you also need weapons grade uranium. That is very hard to make. A terrorist would prefer a dirty bomb because it doesn't matter if the uranium is poor quality, it will still irradiate stuff.
Of course its hard to make but so what the terrorist aren’t going to make it are they? the Russians hate America and the documentation stating who has the nukes are conveniently "lost" so the Russians could well give the terrorists the bombs in return for the destruction of lets say New York

NB2/ if anyone was considering the terrorist using plutonium - unlikely. Plutonium catches fire in moist air. And it's only an alpha emitter
Ahhhh but the explosion/resulting chain reaction of this transuranic element will cause the emission of Gamma rays also. (not sure about beta radiation though) and the plutonium is contained in a airtight case, so i don’t know what your point is about plutonium catching fire in moist air is.

Dont mean to sound rude though :)

according to an article i read on the net, the maximum theoretical payload of a suitcase nuke is 5 kiloton. the actual payload is more like 1 kiloton. no i dont have a link. google it

not that thats insignificant.

personally i wonder at the radiation leakage that has to be present. id hate to have been sleeping with it under the bed since the soviet union fell.

and THAT is why im not losing sleep at night over it. these things havent been made since the late 80s (at the latest). so where are they? why hasnt one gone off in downtown tel aviv? what are they WAITING for??

*I* say that if they do exist, they arent in the hands of the terrorists. they have had plenty of good targets in the past 20 years and they havent used them. they havent used them because they dont have them.

The whole SADM thing? it'd have to be a bloody large suitcase. Sort of large enough to hold all the equipment to force together two 7.5kg pieces of U235
Yeah, I've seen pics of mock-up SADMs and they're pretty damn big for suitcases.

And if anyone says red mercury, I shall beat them to within an inch of their lives. There is no catalyst for a nuclear explosion that is chemical - completely separate things.
Makes sense . . . tho I haven't taken chem or physics yet (i will next yr) but yeah, it doesn't seem possible for a chemical catalyst to trigger someting nuclear.

However you do know that the russians were sloppy in there storage of things while the U.S.S.R collapsed, the americans found the russian top secret space boosters in a barn in rural russia!! (by the way i might add that they found out also that the engines were alot better designs than the NASA equivelent) :D
Your missing the point, that was an old Soviet trick. Its been speculated that much of Soviet nuclear research in the late 40s was conducted in an isolated kulhoz, or collective farm. The Soviets loved the idea of Potemkin villages, show people what you want them to see, not what is really there. Thats why we were always so worried about secret nuclear sites, for all we knew they might have their biggest stores emplaced in the middle of a bunch of wheat fields.

Nextly: Suitcase bombs have an extremely low yield. They barely classify as tactical nukes. Their destruction radius as such would be extremely isolated. You might be able to destroy the Empire State Building and the surround block with damage to 3 blocks around that, but not much more. They aren't very powerful, and they can only cause structural damage in the initial blast radius, as opposed to a larger nukes ability to cause damage with nothing more than its shock wave.

Nextly: MIRVs in general are significantly larger than any other nuclear missile in service. Excluding certain tactical missiles with extra manuverability or speed, MIRVs are easily the largest ISBMs created. The necessary firing equipment for a MIRV is essentially non-microsizable. You cannot shrink it down for a suitcase bomb. The mechanisms for firing a larger yield nuke are extremely large, due to the intense time and release controls needed. Frankly put, suitcase bombs will always, and have always been very small, both in yield, and in number.

Actually with modern firing mechanisms and Weapons grade plutonium with a "warhead" the size of a tissue box you CAN get a bomb of around 20 KT's in it (a suitcase) how do you think they invented MIRV's (multiple warheads) with no increase in the size of the ICBM
didn't know they had - still maintain that 13kgs is the critical mass for minimum sized nuke

I was the person who mentioned Air BURST not blast and no i actually meant with a low flying Cessna, the USAF are hardly going to scramble 3 F-18's to intercept a "lost" Cessna
fair enough. I meant air-burst, just a bit sidetracked at the time

Wrong as i stated above it can be made (a 20KT suitcase nuke that is) and with favourable (by the terrorist) weather conditions it would be massively more than 10 miles only if a) you are right and b) the fallout was either blown high enough or there was a very strong wind. Buildings in a city would cause build up of radioactive material, not dispersement.


Of course its hard to make but so what the terrorist aren’t going to make it are they? the Russians hate America and the documentation stating who has the nukes are conveniently "lost" so the Russians could well give the terrorists the bombs in return for the destruction of lets say New York
somehow I think you are a little stuck in the past there - russia is not your enemy anymore. China maybe, although they would probably rather use their lovely ICBMs than a might get caught might not work SADM

Ahhhh but the explosion/resulting chain reaction of this transuranic element will cause the emission of Gamma rays also. (not sure about beta radiation though) and the plutonium is contained in a airtight case, so i don’t know what your point is about plutonium catching fire in moist air is.
I still maintain that a terrorist outfit/rogue state would be the only ones to pull this off. In that case, I doubt that they would be able to be so careful as to keep the plutonium in an airtight container. Incidentally, the man who discovered plutonium kept it in a matchbox on his mantlepiece, as the cardboard was enough to block the raiation. the emission of gamma rays by the blast is only true if you manage the chain reaction. which I still maintain you wouldn't

Dont mean to sound rude though :)
Thankyou. Oh, and ditto

there are alot of problems with dirty bombs in suitcases

1. they are to heavy , who has a 10kg suitcase
2. how are they got into the country , anyone could notice a high radiation level in a bag.
3. they can't do andy physical damage , they are pychological, the radiation would be spread to far and thin to kill.
4. and your not gona find many , noboday has them on ebay apart from this guy crazy guy with bomb (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=36105&item=7116298586&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW)

The only chemical catalyst (if you want to get really technical) is the chemicals used to make C4 lol, the trigger to the nuclear bomb (source: The deadly element very very good read!!) :D

On another note, I would quite like to go to that place in west virginia where a US fighter plane went down in the 60s. carrying 2 nuclear bombs. One they removed, but the other was buried so deep that they couldn't safely remove it and so bought the surrounding 150yds of land, refusing anyone access to it for the next 1000years or something

The only chemical catalyst (if you want to get really technical) is the chemicals used to make C4 lol, the trigger to the nuclear bomb (source: The deadly element very very good read!!) :D
Not a catalyst, it isn't present at the end of the reaction.

Definition: A catalyst is any chemical which provides an alternate route of lower activation energy, which regenerates at some point during the reaction (sloppy, I know, but I can't just remember at the minute).

C4 is more like a reactant, although still not true as it isn't a chemical reaction taking place

I can see my friend The Tribes Of Longton that i can not dissuade you from what you believe, fair enough let us agree to disagree :D

I recoomed the Atomic Archive http://www.atomicarchive.com/index.shtml they have good information and 2 scenarios! Orginally it was just one about New York now they have one of San Fran.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Example/index.shtml

However, I wrote a paper in my high-school class last year about nuclear terrorism. In my belief... suitcase bombs are a threat... but not a huge threat. But... the above guy is wrong... a 1kt bomb would not kill that many people.. heck the atomic archive website scenario has a 150kt bomb go off and that would only kill 350,000 people instantly. Of course, the scenario is during a bright sunny day so it wont be as bad... but a windy day could spell trobule...

I mean I have a Tom Clancy Op-Center book (not written by him) but in that an e-bomb goes off and it was hidden in a water cooler bottle.

Anyways here's a page: http://www.nationalterroralert.com/readyguide/suitcasenuke.htm

Symptoms

People in the immediate vicinity of a suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb detonation would likely die from the force of the conventional explosion itself. Some survivors of the blast might die of radiation poisoning in the weeks afterward. Those farther away from the explosion might suffer radiation sickness in the days and weeks afterward, but recover. Over time, risks of cancer in the affected area would rise, but perhaps only slightly.

A mix of physical symptoms must be used to judge the seriousness of exposure. Impact of radiation poisoning also changes if the body has experienced burns or physical trauma. In the case of treatable victims, extensive medical treatment may be needed for more than two months after exposure.

Some symptoms may include vomiting, headache, fatigue, weakness, diarrhea, thermal burn-like skin effects, secondary infections, reoccurring bleeding and hair loss.

So you see, they're not that big of a threat...

I can see my friend The Tribes Of Longton that i can not dissuade you from what you believe, fair enough let us agree to disagree :D
I shall leave you with 2 words: CRITICAL MASS :D

Thanks again for once again correcting me i meant though as the chemical explosive causes the critical mass to be reached by blasting the peices neede together at high pressure (Nihls Bohr invented this) i didnt mean catalyst, sorry. :)

Im not dumb i no what critical mass is

Thanks again for once again correcting me i meant though as the chemical explosive causes the critical mass to be reached by blasting the peices neede together at high pressure (Nihls Bohr invented this) i didnt mean catalyst, sorry. :)
can't have solids at high pressure, either. Even when rocks are at 'high pressure' it either means that they are viscous or there are great forces acting on them. And the blowing the pieces together thing is how the bomb works. Generally, two large pieces are used because otherwise they risk one of the pieces not having a decent velocity towards the others, so the bomb doesn't work.

I went to a nuclear bunker converted into a museum once. The smallest nuclear warhead replica they had was from the 80s and was about a quarter of the size of a mini. The smallest thermonuke was about the size of a mini. 'nuff said

I went to a nuclear bunker converted into a museum once.

Was it called Hack Greeen by any chance??

Was it called Hack Greeen by any chance??
yeess....

where are you? :eek:

WOW!!! that place was soo cool, it was near a canal, i was on holiday on the canal about 2-3 years ago and i went with my dad and 2 bros i live in the midlands

WOW!!! that place was soo cool, it was near a canal, i was on holiday on the canal about 2-3 years ago and i went with my dad and 2 bros i live in the midlands
Heh. My home town, preston, has a nuclear bunker up for sale. To the public. Now how cool would THAT be!

Heh. My home town, preston, has a nuclear bunker up for sale. To the public. Now how cool would THAT be!
That would be cool you'd never have to worry about nukes ever again, unless preston was nuked :D

That would be cool you'd never have to worry about nukes ever again, unless preston was nuked :D
Why would anyone nuke Preston? there's bugger all here. Besides, it would still withstand the blast at lower levels.

Why would anyone nuke Preston? there's bugger all here. Besides, it would still withstand the blast at lower levels.
remember there are 100,000's of nukes mabee they had sum left ova and fought hey lets nuke i dunno...........preston and it wudnt survive if they nuked ure bunker head on lol :)

remember there are 100,000's of nukes mabee they had sum left ova and fought hey lets nuke i dunno...........preston and it wudnt survive if they nuked ure bunker head on lol :)
There is one person who would nuke preston...

ME

I mean I have a Tom Clancy Op-Center book (not written by him) but in that an e-bomb goes off and it was hidden in a water cooler bottle.

Was this "e-bomb" conventional? If so, putting it in a water cooler bottle (assuming it had water in it) would be the absolute worst placement for a bomb of such a type.

As for the area affected by a suitcase nuke, assuming that the nuke is detonated at ground level in say Washington Square Park in lower Manhattan and is of approximately 20 ktn yield. The area from Battery Park to 42nd street would suffer from major blast damage. Only the area 2-3 kilometers from the park would suffer total devastation (no buildings left standing). Depending upon the prevailing weather at the time of detonation and extending 48 hours onward, the fallout area could affect regions as far away as Baltimore to Boston, though contamination farther west than 40 kilometers is unlikely (due to prevailing weather patterns in the New York area). The areas affected, depending again upon prevailing weather at the time and their proximity to the blast, would not be immediately fatal to those who ventured within them. Instead, much like Chernobyl, the area would have a cumulative effect upon the body based upon the rads present and the activity carried out within these zones (ingesting contaminated water and/or food, plowing up fields or kicking up the dirt in any way, thus inhaling contaminants, etc.)

WOW!!! that place was soo cool, it was near a canal, i was on holiday on the canal about 2-3 years ago and i went with my dad and 2 bros i live in the midlands


Are you talking about that hotel which would be the home of the nuclear holocaust Congress?

Oh wait... never mind. Anyways yeah there a place Hotel Greensomething in Virginia... this is in Britian I can see.

2. how are they got into the country , anyone could notice a high radiation level in a bag.
3. they can't do andy physical damage , they are pychological, the radiation would be spread to far and thin to kill.
4. and your not gona find many , noboday has them on ebay apart from this guy ][/QUOTE]

MI6 warned as early as the 70's that small themo nuclear devices could be 'smuggled' into GB in small parts (dipolomatic bags, small craft landing at night on a God-forsaken beach etc). These could / would be put together in perhaps a 'safe' rented flat or house and stored, ready for use. I believe the Rumanians were quite helpful to the Soviets too.
If only one of these small devices were to be obtained by a modern terror group (the IRA wouldn't have anything to do with them), it could be driven in a small van into Whitehall or Canary Wharf, Trafalgar square..........you name it. Assuming these terrorists are the suicidal bunch that we've grown to know and love, they could detonate it very quickly, before the police tried to move them on. The result would be a groundburst dirty bomb. Now I know you've all been talking about such a device exploding on American soil but we and other parts of Europe (Paris, Rome, Berlin) are much nearer to Russia than you, and if MI6 is right, one could go off tomorrow. That would leave the centre of say, London, uninhabitable for generations. A pretty good bit of propoganda for the terrorists. And don't forget, MI6 and MI5 are as good as the CIA and FBI, we don't know if such an attempt has already been planned and foiled.

And don't forget, MI6 and MI5 are as good as the CIA and FBI, we don't know if such an attempt has already been planned and foiled.
MI6 and MI5 are WAY better than the FBI and the CIA

MI6 and MI5 are WAY better than the FBI and the CIA
Seconded. :)