According to this artice written April 12, 2001, Osama bin Laden may have “More than 20 nuclear suitcase bombs” hidden throughout Afghanistan in deep tunnels and caves.
Why didn’t he use these bombs before the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
Whose to say that one of our missles won’t deploy near or on one of these bombs and start a costly chain reaction?
How the HELL did the former Soviet Union “lose” twenty of these mofo’s anyway??
I am afraid that any action at this point may be too little too late to save ourselves…
>Why didn’t he use these bombs before the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
Because he doesn’t have any? Seems to me that if he DID, it would be a LOT easier to carry a suitcase nuke to within half a mile of a famous landmark than to spend months training people in the U.S. to fly airliners.
Whose to say that one of our missles won’t deploy near or on one of these bombs and start a costly chain reaction?
Because nuclear missile warheads are armed by accelerometers to prevent nutjobs from detonating them on their launchpads. You can set fire to a nuclear missile or blow it up on the ground with conventional explosives without setting off the warheads.
How the HELL did the former Soviet Union “lose” twenty of these mofo’s anyway??
My point is that if one of our missles were to denotate on top of one of these suitcase bombs, surely the suitcase bomb would detonate too.
If you had read the artice "That nuclear suitcase bombs could have reached Osama bin Laden stand corroborated by General Lebed’s (former Security chief of Russia) statement in 1997 that a number of such bombs stood missing from Russian arsenals."
*The nuclear suitcase bombs have been acquired from Central Asian Republics (CAR) Islamic countries with the active assisstance of Chechen Muslim rebels. Laden’s agents are reported to have paid 30 million cash and two tons of Afghan heroin worth 700 million in Western markets, to Chechen mafia for this purpose. *
A nuclear bomb cannot detonate from an external explosion. It takes very precise timing of the detonators to get it to implode in the first place. A blast from one side will simply spread radiocative material all over the place.
A nuclear bomb, suitcase or otherwise, is not likely to go off simply because there is an explosion near or even on top of it. The detonating head of a nuclear weapon of any variety must be carefully directed and precisely engineered to start the chain reaction. A conventional explosion could render the device unstable, or in an extreme case set it off with a lower yield than intended. Obviously these risks are quite undesirable, but it is far from a given that it will go off.
Are there any sources substantiating the report that bin Laden has suitcase bombs? I remain skeptical.
Not how they work, man. To get nuclear fission, many things have to happen right in an incredibly short period of time. Atom Bombs, the simplest version of a nuclear device, require the simultaneous detonation of a sphere of explosive to implode a ball of Plutonium or uranium; the timing involves nanoseconds. Any directed explosion hitting a nuclear device is going to at worst detonate the the exterior sphere unevenly.
Imagine pushing a basketball into a bathtub of water - the waterline is the wave of destruction generated by the impact of the attacking missile - it does not strike every surface of the ball at the same instant, no?.
So it’s the aparatus that does the dirty-work - the explosive wrapped ball is pretty much just a conventional bomb unless the explosive shell is detonated in just the right way. And the only way to get that to happen is to deliberately detonate the thing.
[excerpt from article]"*“There is no longer much doubt that Bin Laden has finally succeeded in his quest for nuclear ‘suitcase bombs,” says Yossef Bodansky, head of the Congressional Task Force on Non-Conventional Terrorism in Washington. *[/end excerpt] Article dated 10-25-99
BTW I am assuming that the suitcase bomb(s) do not have the same safeguards that a warhead would have. Afterall, it is literally inside a suitcase, not a multi-million dollar galvanized shell.
Ahem . . . maybe because he only has one or two and he’s saving them for a special occasion? Like when/if the US finally backs him into a corner he can’t get out of? Or when/if we launch an attack on Afghanistan? Or after we do and ground troops start getting too damn close? You gotta admit, it’s a hell of a way to cover your getaway.
Also,I don’t see why anyone is assuming that suitcase nukes aren’t sitting right here in the USA right now, or that there wasn’t one on one or more of those hijacked planes. John Ashcroft seems pretty damn certain that there was a lot more planned to happen on 9/11 than did, and that there are still quite a few terrorist cells in the US that are laying low for the moment.
I’m assuming that you are all correct about the difficulty of detonating a nuclear weapon accidentally, and/or the possibility that one little glitch would cause it to fail. So how do you know there wasn’t a nuke on one of the hijacked planes that failed to detonate for some reason? One could be laying in the Pentagon right now - do you think we’d know they found one if it was possible to keep it from public knowledge?
And there could be terrorists in the US sitting on nukes right now, waiting on something before using them - maybe a US attack on Afghanistan, or, if we get out hands on bin Laden, as a threat to secure his release or to avenge his execution.
I think it would be stupid and irresponsible to dismiss the possibility out of hand.
Where were you guys when the USSR was breaking up? Let’s see - country has been falling apart slowly for some time; anyone with half a brain can see it’s coming. Lots of corruption, apathy, fear, and poor security. Highly ranked military officer fakes records or whatever necessary to get his hands on one or more small nukes. Puts them on the black market to ensure a comfortable retirement. TA DA!
I remember when the USSR was breaking up there was a hell of a lot of concern about this. Also the fact that a lot of people with the knowledge and experience required to build nuclear weapons were suddenly out of a job - the assumption at the time was that the small, ambitious countries that didn’t yet have nukes were were bidding for their services.
I think the only reassurance we’ve ever had that a lot of suitcase nukes haven’t fallen into the wrong hands is that no one has used one . . . yet.
It doesn’t matter how big or small the warhead is. It is absolutely necessary for the outer explosive to detonate correctly. All nuclear weapons, from missles to compact tactical weapons (like suitcase bombs), use an outer shell of conventional explosives to crush the fissionable material into something dense enough to sustain a chain reaction. It isn’t so much as a safeguard as a crucial design element. The bomb simply won’t work otherwise.
Exactly how ‘tactical’ do these things get? I’m assuming there’s a certain amount of reactive material less than which will fail to yield a major explosion; am I incorrect? How small or precise can these things be, compared with, say, Hiroshima? And would the fallout from the a suitcase-sized bomb be more of a threat than the explosion itself?
Do a search on “suitcase nuke bomb” and you’ll find some sobering information. From a Nov 98 article from a Pakistani outlet:
An anti-nuke website run by the Proposition One Committee has a pretty good collection of articles on suitcase bombs as well.
Some of what we know about the American version, known as a SADM, from an NBC News report in September 1997:
The US apparently built about 300 two man bombs and between the US and Soviets, about 3000 atomic weapons that could be moved by small teams or light trucks. The US appeared to have dismantled all of its weapons out of security concerns should one be stolen. Apparently they are well shielded and difficult to find. There is no clear picture as to the status of the ones built by the Soviets, although there are rumors that some of the weapons have been pre-positioned (buried) in the US.
I wouldn’t be surprised if terrorists had managed to get their hands on a couple. I am surprised that if the terrorist organizations have them, they weren’t used in this series of attacks. Why waste time and take the risk of hijacking aircraft when one “suitcase nuke” would be a much more efficient way of accomplishing your objective?
On Boxcar first link , I read two reasuring informations, however :
1)“Some could still be active. Such simple, pure-fission nuclear devices may have a shelf- life of up to 8-10 years without refurbishing.” So, since the fall of USSR happened 12 years ago, we should be safe. I doubt a terrorist organization could “refurbish” them, whatever it could mean. I would actually suspect that only the original builder could.
“The danger of terrorists getting their hands on a suitcase bomb is real, but lower. Arming the mini-nukes takes 30 minutes, the colonel revealed, and can only be done by trained specialists. The weapons are designed to
self- destruct if improperly opened.” So, there is a second condition to detonate them. I know that another poster said Spetnatz have been recruited, though…
He could tell you in extreme detail I’m sure, but here’s how I understand it. For a simple atom bomb, the type used against Japan, the bomb consists of at least a critical mass (I don’t know what that mass is exactly) of uranium surrounded by conventional explosives. The outer explosive detonates in a precise timing and pattern, which causes some of the uranium atoms to fission into smaller atoms, gamma rays, and neutrons. Because of the critical mass, these first fissioning atoms unleash enough energy to start a chain reaction in the rest of the uranium. In modern nukes, the uranium is replaced with plutonium, which releases more energy and is easier to produce. Also, the plutonium surrounds a mass of deuterium. When the plutonium fissions, it creates high enough pressure and temperature to cause the deuterium to undergo fusion, unleashing even more energy.
(movie spoiler alert)
In the movie “The Peacemaker” a terrorist was attempting to use a backback nuke to blow up something in NYC. The script didn’t explain it well enough, but George Clooney’s character prevented a big disaster by prying off some of the conventional explosive before it could set off the nuke part. It still went off, and destroyed a building, but not half of Manhattan like it might have.
This article says the soviet suitcase bombs are 1 kiloton though expresses doubt as to the credibility of the story. It also contains a discussion of the physics involved in construction of small bombs.
None of the articles listed offer any actual evidence that nuclear suitcase bombs actually exist. Suitcase bombs would require the highest level of miniaturization. Soviet technology in this area lagged behind the US. A new nuclear power’s weapons would be far too large. The smallest nuclear weapons the Soviets possessed would be artillery shells. It would require a high level of technical knowledge to convert the fuse mechanism of an artillery shell to one that could be set off by an individual without a cannon. And if Bin Laudin had access to such a device, why didn’t he put it on a boat and sail to New York? He’s not exactly a model for restraint.
I put the whole idea of suitcase nukes as extremely unlikely.
Do a google search under WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and while it will not provide a blueprint on how to build one…no… better yet go here and do a search under Nuclear Suitcase.