Nuclear Suitcase Bombs

[Dave_Stewart]

*Originally posted by AnsaMan *
**First of all, General Lebed is a VERY poor source. If
you do a real good web search, you will find he has
a habit of saying outrageous things.

Secondly, the reports discount the possibility of
required codes that lock these weapons.

Third, I am led to understand that such small weapons
have certain components that have very short half-lives.
This means they need high-level periodic maintenance.

Fourth, the “disappearance” of weapons does not take
into account the habitual overreporting of productivity
during the Soviet era in order to make production
goals. The “missing” weapons may have never existed.

Fifth, if the Soviets had ANY brains at all, these
non-alert devices would not be stored intact. Likely
the weapons and the physics package would be stored
separately. **

Sixth, if I may add to your list, the US does not make war on enemies with nukes. If you have a nuclear arsenal, you can get away with a hell of a lot. Why do you really think Russia is in the G-8, and China is heading towards the WTO? Why do you think North Korea was given so much aid after it fired a missile over Hokkaido? I have read academic speculation that if Saddam had waited the 12 months he needed to finish his nuclear weapon programme, Saudi Arabia would now be known as western Iraq.

Bin Laden doesn’t have nukes, otherwise bombs wouldn’t be raining on Kabul right now.

One question I have though is in respect of nuclear shells. Depleted uranium shells were used in the Gulf War. How do they work? I’m guessing that they are not weapons of mass destruction. There must be tens of thousands of these things in the former Soviet Union.

[Doc_Nickel]

“Depleted” Uranium is just that, depleted. It has a relatively low level of radioactivity, and the projectile is not reactive in a nuclear/chain-reaction kind of way.

What DU is, is extremely dense- as I recall, something like half again heavier per volume than lead. It also has an extremely high melting point.

The DU projectiles- called “Silver Bullets” by Abrams tankers- are actually darts; rather than the conical, bullet-shaped shell you see the howitzers use, or you see in old WW2 flicks, the dart is a long “spear” with stabilizing fins. It has plastic shells that surround the dart which provide stabilization in the bore, as well as obturation (it blocks the propellant gasses, gives 'em something to ‘push’ against.) These shells are called “sabots”, and leave the dart almost immediately after the projectile clears the muzzle. Hence, it’s referred to as a “discarding sabot projectile”.

Anyway, the dart is roughly the same weight as a “regular” cannon shell, but is smaller in diameter, which, among other things, provides less “wind resistance”, called ballistic coefficient, I think.

The dart has no explosive or propellant- it’s wholly inert. However, once it strikes something hard, like tank armor, the DU all but vaporizes, converting much of it’s energy (it leaves the muzzle at around 3,000 fps, as I recall) into heat, which burns it’s way through the armor. The white-hot spalled DU “spray” also tends to set off fuel tanks and ammo.

But I digress. Suffice to say that a “Depleted Uranium” cannon shell is NOT the same thing as a “Nuclear” cannon shell.

[Tranquilis]

Keep in mind that a DU pentrator isn’t a nuclear shell, but there are nuclear warheads for 155mm and 203mm guns. They are basically a small nuke in a tough case, designed to handle the extreme conditions of being fired out of a big gun. The issue with using one of those as a portable demolition device revolves around the ability to come up with a firing circuit that by-passes the built-in safeties. Not terribly easy to do, and these weapons also need periodic maintenance, or they become useless, except as scary door-stops.

[Wildest_Bill]

I guess the Russians didn’t use much common sense when they made the suitcase nukes now did they? I mean couldn’t they forsee the problems(such as them getting in the wrong hands) with making such a weapon?