Sorry to change the topic, but there was a lot of speculation in the 1960’s about using low yield nuclear bombs to excavate large construction projects. i seem to recall a proposal to blast a new, sea-level canal through Nicaragua. Is this still being considered? Seems like a good alternative to years of digging-just blast a whole new canal in one or two shots!
“Initially focused on large-scale earthmoving, or nuclear excavation, the Plowshare project–the peaceful nuclear explosives program–became one of Livermore’s major programs through the 1960s. The 1963 test ban treaty and technical difficulties, however, derailed plans to use nuclear explosives to excavate a new Atlantic-Pacific canal through Central America. A reoriented program focused on using nuclear explosives to free natural gas from rock formations, but ambiguous experimental results and the environmental legislation of the late 1960s spelled the end of Plowshare.”
from – http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/roadmap/part2.html (very large text document)
I think the Savannah test tried exactly that. I believe it was abandoned because it was difficult to control percisely and all that pesky radiation. Made one hell of a hole though!
Eric
Making a small nuclear device is not the problem. They have artillery that can shoot small nuclear shells. I think the main point is the cost value, the price of a nuclear bomb costs way more than conventional bombs. Eventually you get to the point that it is a lot cheaper to blow something up with a lot of bombs than with one expensive nuclear bomb.
Thats scary.
What kind of maintainance would the suitcase nuke require, something that terrorists could manage?
If one was set off in Manhatten, would the explosion and radiation reach the middle of Long Island?