# This is such BULL that I had to comment



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Prepared One posted a link to a video where Mr. Irwin Redlener discusses the possibilities of a nuclear attack on the US:






No reflection on you, Prepared One, but I think this video deserves its own debunking thread.

In the late 90's former Soviet General Alexander Lebed stated that more than 100 'suitcase nukes' were missing from Soviet inventory. The claim is highly suspect. In the video Redlener shows photographs of such a device:















This design is so utterly ridiculous that the contents of the entire video becomes suspect. Notice the design of the 'gun barrel', which appears to be constructed of aluminum paint coated black iron pipe fittings! LOL. Of course, ordinance grade steel would be required. Notice also in the drawing that the propellant used to fire the uranium 'bullet' is 'high explosive'. Rifle powder was used in the Little Boy bomb to accelerate the bullet down the barrel. High explosive would destroy the device completely, resulting in no atomic detonation.

Irwin Redlener is a pediatrician and public health activist who specializes in health care reform. He has no business lecturing us on atomic attack. /Rant off.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

I think everything in Russia looks like low tech pipe fittings. I was typing a big response but, WARNING WARNING AGENT AGENT.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Mmmm Perhaps a closer look is warranted. However, I was more interested in his threat assessment rather then the technical aspects. I admit I did not research his background or his affiliations.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

It might have been dumbed down purposely. After all, it's probably not a good idea to publish actual DIY plans for thermonuclear devices. Not that you could trot over to Home Depot for some U-235, but still.

Even with high explosives that would destroy the device, you wouldn't want one going off in a city.


----------



## TacticalCanuck (Aug 5, 2014)

I am of the opinion that no nuclear attack will happen again. Dead slaves can't make the system money end of story. And money and power over others is all they care about. Can't rule a trashed earth with nobody to do your dirty work and make your bed for you. 

I pray that we never see it and all nuclear capabilities are removed.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

TacticalCanuck said:


> I am of the opinion that no nuclear attack will happen again. Dead slaves can't make the system money end of story. And money and power over others is all they care about. Can't rule a trashed earth with nobody to do your dirty work and make your bed for you.
> 
> I pray that we never see it and all nuclear capabilities are removed.


Simply put, if all the slaves are dead, who will empty the shit-buckets?


----------



## SecretPrepper (Mar 25, 2014)

I like the light switch triger. That is some high tech stuff right there.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Good deductive reasoning Sidekahr. What is shown doesn't compute. However, I do believe a lot of things went missing when communism failed in the Soviet Union.. Just saying entities like Iran could care less about who or how many they kill.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

I wonder if the photo shows his idea of what it could look like. The Russians have 
been noted for using what works. For years their aircraft used tube type electronics 
while the US and the west were well into early solid state ICs. was it because they 
were behind the times or was it that their electronics would stand up to an EMP?
New and fancy is not always better.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Psychological warfare at its finest.....


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

Please scroll down to types and click it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

I think you folks are a hoot. First you speak and write on topics that you have not the least knowledge about. Second, you do not take the time to see just what has really existed in the US Arsenal of weapons. As far as suit case nukes existing, I can assure you that they did exist in the 70's and folks were darned right serious about their use. But not only did they exist by six inch shells existed for our tube artillery for use on massed soviet formations in europe. and these were 6" in diameter and about 3 feet long. Lastly we also had warheads for some of our tactical missles that were not a whole lot bigger. And These had nothing to do with a dirty bomb that we hear talked about these days. These were weapons on the order of magnitude of fat man and little boy.

And just to stir the pot even further, it wouldn't take much to stick them in a 55 gallon drum. 

And remember the soviets still havent given us a full accounting of what was in their stockpile since the old USSR collapsed


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

WWW.fas.org
The Federation of American Scientists. I believe formerly the Federation of Atomic Scientists.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)




----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Yes, they had suitcase nukes. We had backpack nukes. Don't know if they or we still do as I have been out of that part of the army for many, many years.

What were they for? Well, imagine a structure, like a large bridge, in dire need of being destroyed. A team of special forces guys go in, set the item in place, arm it and then un-ass the AO. The structure is dropped. Pretty handy, huh?

OK, sure, items were lost during the downfall of the Soviet Union and the resulting economic chaos. Here's the thing about special weapons; they require a lot of maintenance by trained personnel. In his seminars, the lecturer says we and the Soviet Union had enough items to kill the planet several times over. While technically true, it is false in terms of practicality. Furthermore, an item isn't guaranteed to detonate simply because the trigger is pulled, so to speak.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

I can see where in war the use of a nuclear device may be considered. I can also see where a rogue nation or terrorists organization would find using or threatening to use a nuclear device attractive. 

Anyway, I believe suitcase nukes exist or the technology to create them exists. However, I don't believe anyone is foolish enough to disseminate (widely distribute) an accurate schematic of one.


----------



## SGT E (Feb 25, 2015)

Heres the 8 inch Howitzer Nuke...400+ pounds and about 40 Kilotons MAX....Most of this casing is solid steel with a little hardware on the inside....Would fit easily in a small suitcase but could even be made smaller...I've assembled a couple hundred of these...Just the Nukes themselves...no casing...I could fit 2 dozen in the bed of a pickup truck side by side


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Real Old Man said:


> I think you folks are a hoot. First you speak and write on topics that you have not the least knowledge about. Second, you do not take the time to see just what has really existed in the US Arsenal of weapons. As far as suit case nukes existing, I can assure you that they did exist in the 70's and folks were darned right serious about their use. But not only did they exist by six inch shells existed for our tube artillery for use on massed soviet formations in europe. and these were 6" in diameter and about 3 feet long. Lastly we also had warheads for some of our tactical missles that were not a whole lot bigger. And These had nothing to do with a dirty bomb that we hear talked about these days. These were weapons on the order of magnitude of fat man and little boy.


Why do you assume we are uneducated and do no research? Of course we know that small nuclear weapons existed. The W-54 Davey Crocket recoilless rifle round weighed 50 pounds and had a yield of 10-20 tons (see below). It was an implosion device. A backpack device using such a weapon would have weighed about 60 pounds and appeared something like this:















I was just pointing out how ridiculous the purported Soviet gun-type device in the video was.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

I take nuclear info quite seriously, and regardless of where or if there are suitcase nukes floating around - the fact is, it is possible, there is a minimum amount of fissible material that is required to cause a nuclear explosion. Effectively its just a matter of getting that amount of material and using enough high explosive - like a blasting cap, to start the chain reaction that occurs very quickly as energy released from the initial blast carries over in the chain reaction.

Its possible and that is the point. The calculations are just a matter of determining how much energy input has to go into unlocking the neutron effect. Its basically a nuclear "implossion" as energy is pushed inward to shock the nuetron energy out of the fissible materials. - this is why the bullet - pushes energy in. This is why there is not an outward blast destroying the device, because it is not explosive materials it is implosive materials.

There are tons of people who are smart enough to build nuclear weapons, -thankfully, fisssible material is relatively difficult to come by in sufficient quantities. The missing nukes/material can be both good or bad for Russia, as it removes the potential to retaliate as explained - basically anyone becomes a potential lable much like with what happened with Bin Laden and 911 - which many people will say he did the attacks - or his networks did, however, what if George Tenet said it was the Chinese, or Mexico? Would people have been as prepared to believe the CIA?

None the less, you can't let down your guard as that same guard will defend against a range of other attacks. Its just part of the antismuggling activities. Stuff gets smuggled all the time, but stuff gets caught all the time too.

The point is it is a real threat.

If you think that the design is not workable, perhaps you know more about nuclear weapons than I do. I really can't comment, I've never built a nuclear weapon before.

Design plans were leaked online if I recall correctly. I'm not a nuclear physisist so I have no idea. I will take the potential seriously but it doesn't change how I live my life.






bear in mind ALUMINUM IS AN EXPLOSIVE!


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

You're correct, Will, the threat is very real. So far as we know, any nation that has tried to detonate an atomic bomb, has succeeded on the first attempt.

P.S. Aluminum is an element, and is not explosive in and of itself.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Those of you who think that the rag headed idiots running around slicing of heads and hanging gays would not use these, . . . let me invite you to buy some of my Ohio ocean front property, . . . I have Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf all available for you.

They would love nothing better than to find a patsy to shoulder one of those dude under a burka, . . . buy a ticket for the Ohio State vs Michigan football game, . . . and during the middle of the 2nd quarter, just push the button on the thing.

No it would not kill all 110,000 people there, . . . but it would kill a bunch of them, . . . sicken another bunch, . . . and put a fear up and down the USA like has not been done since 9/11. 

All of the middle east except Israel would dance in the streets that we got hit again.

They don't care about money, slaves, or somebody to empty their pots, . . . they are imbecilic mad people, . . . worshiping a thug for a god, . . . they have no morals, no ethics, and no compulsion to do anything but commit mayhem.

Yeah, . . . I can see these being used multiple times, . . . up and down the free world, . . . until someone turns it back on them. And I'll make a little prediction while I'm here, . . . they will use them first, . . . maybe multiple times, . . . before the rest of the world finally decides to really do something about them.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

In the 90's information began leaking out of the Soviet archives about so called "suitcase nukes". 
Yes, they did exist, and several former Soviet operatives had revealed that 12 to 18 had been smuggled into the US and prepositioned. Was this true, or were the operatives simply trying to curry favor from their former enemies?
The consensus of those who knew nuclear weapons was that these do doubt had degraded into uselessness without periodic maintenance.

Come on, I can't be the only one here who has read of this?


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

I finished my install of my 5MW reactor in my basement. All I have to do now is switch on my basement light and wallah instant electricity!!


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

There is actually a lot of engineering that goes in to assembling a nuke. It only takes between 7 and 12 pounds of fissionable material but it also takes a proper containment vessel, high explosive to direct and initiate fission and a barrier to keep it from "cooking" off and melting. After it is detonated there is also another barrier that keeps it all together long enough for the reaction to become critical. When assembling such a device very special facilities are required and special protection for the workers. Doing this in your basement would only kill you before you got half way through the assembly.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

James m said:


> I finished my install of my 5MW reactor in my basement. All I have to do now is switch on my basement light and wallah instant electricity!!


James, the water department is going to know that you are up to something when your water bill for cooling that reactor comes due. They will think that your 20 inch main broke!


----------



## Farmboyc (May 9, 2015)

James m said:


> I finished my install of my 5MW reactor in my basement. All I have to do now is switch on my basement light and wallah instant electricity!!


First da lights den da lazers


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

sideKahr said:


> You're correct, Will, the threat is very real. So far as we know, any nation that has tried to detonate an atomic bomb, has succeeded on the first attempt.
> 
> P.S. Aluminum is an element, and is not explosive in and of itself.







This is not true actually - according to reports on the North Korean Nuclear Program, it was reported they had a number of detonation failures before finally succeeding. I am not sure about Pakistan but I vaugely recall pakistan also potentially not getting its first one off but I could be mistaken on that.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Aluminum will burn if you get enough oxygen to it but then so will iron or diamonds. Just because something is flammable does not make it an explosive. It is likely that if it is flammable it can be made into an explosive.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Will, I said aluminum was not explosive, I didn't say it wouldn't burn. There's a big difference.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

PaulS said:


> There is actually a lot of engineering that goes in to assembling a nuke. It only takes between 7 and 12 pounds of fissionable material but it also takes a proper containment vessel, high explosive to direct and initiate fission and a barrier to keep it from "cooking" off and melting. After it is detonated there is also another barrier that keeps it all together long enough for the reaction to become critical. When assembling such a device very special facilities are required and special protection for the workers. Doing this in your basement would only kill you before you got half way through the assembly.


This is assuming they care if they live or die as a result to exposure. Some people are willing to blow themselves up, I figure some would work to death if it achieved their goals, or just didn't know they would die. Humans as expendable for "the cause" would not be an alien idea for terrorist groups. This may also be true for groups such as the KGB where the mission has higher criticality than survival.

You are thinking panda sane here, panda sane is not how people who use nuclear weapons think. Militaries have very very conditioned people. Its not about everyone going home at the end of the day, its about getting the job done. The idea of war where there are no casualties is largely a result of technological superiority. War in the past saw many many casualities, and still does in some theatres.

The question of people living or dying during assembly is secondary to the fact it can be assembled although some people will die in the process.

REALIZE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED IN THE MIDDLE EAST IN THE PAST DECADE, MILLIONS IN THE LAST GENERATION as a result of war measures. MILLIONS and MILLIONS have been displaced. You don't see it at home but the effects are real on those people. This is not counting the people disabled as a result of war. They have seen family killed, lost everything as a result of war. They are highly conditioned. Living in a warzone is more psychologically traumatic for the non-combatants than the combatants, with famine, disease, rape, and constant threat of death. If you wonder why some are a little extreme, its because they lived death, its not just a matter of religion.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Will2 said:


> This is not true actually - according to reports on the North Korean Nuclear Program, it was reported they had a number of detonation failures before finally succeeding. I am not sure about Pakistan but I vaugely recall pakistan also potentially not getting its first one off but I could be mistaken on that.


I didn't know that. Thanks.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

PaulS said:


> James, the water department is going to know that you are up to something when your water bill for cooling that reactor comes due. They will think that your 20 inch main broke!


It depends PaulS, . . . if it were Kentucky, WVa or other portions of the south, . . . they might figure he put his still on line, . . . they'll be making plans on dropping by just before the next holiday, . . . stock up.

Some of them boys love that good 3 day old or 5 day old corn liquor, . . . especially when it has been aged in the recycled 1 gallon plastic milk jugs over there on the split white oak shelf.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Make no mistake. Those whack-a-doodles in the in the middle east will eventually get around to this type of attack. Chemical and Biological as well I imagine. Just a matter of time, not if. My only hope is that we have a strong president that will retaliate appropriately instead of who we have now. Oblunder would be a disaster war time president and would probably join his Arab brothers in dancing in the streets.


----------



## SerenityNZ (Aug 17, 2015)

Did a bit of research into Nostradamus predictions a while back...(I'm no expert)

There is one prophecy however which is yet to pass that very much fits the description of a possible dirty nuke attack on NYC...


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

While I don't doubt the use of a dirty nuke anywhere in the US, I find Nostradamus' prophecy's to be a head "scratcher". I've seen all sort of his "come true prophecy's" as revealed by those who can interpret his quatrains. But I've noticed one thing about all these interpretations, they are all made after the fact. I believe I read 6 or 7 different interpretations of his quatrains that said the end of the world was to occur December 21, 2012. There was so much hype about it that even my wife got nervous as late December arrived. So to me, interpretations of Nostradamus' quatrains are sort of like arm pits. Everybody has two of 'em and they all kind a smell. Remember Harold Camping, Christian radio broadcaster, author and evangelist predicted that Jesus Christ would return to Earth on May 21, 2011 and then had to change it to October 21, 2011. He had previously predicted that Judgment Day would occur in 1994. I wonder if the 21st day of the month thing was carried over from his predictions?


----------



## Farva (Aug 26, 2015)

rice paddy daddy said:


> In the 90's information began leaking out of the Soviet archives about so called "suitcase nukes".
> Yes, they did exist, and several former Soviet operatives had revealed that 12 to 18 had been smuggled into the US and prepositioned. Was this true, or were the operatives simply trying to curry favor from their former enemies?
> *The consensus of those who knew nuclear weapons was that these do doubt had degraded into uselessness without periodic maintenance.
> 
> *Come on, I can't be the only one here who has read of this?


^
This

I didn't build or maintain them, but I did have to handle them and worked with the dudes that maintained and were able to use them. Any moderately complex weapon needs to be maintained periodically. In most cases, very very periodically. Especially one that's going to be sitting around for many many years and probably never get used. This goes for everything. Torpedo's , Cruise missles, "Depth Bombs" :0 , ect.... Miss or stop the PMS schedule and it's going to end up being a very toxic chunk of fire hazard shortly. This is even more so with a nuclear weapon. Way more so.

From what I've read, The Pakis and Norks built coal barge sized weapons and had a lot of problems trying to get them to light off under very controlled circumstances. Now imagine a suitcase nuke, or a modified ex-mirved warhead in 55 gallon drum, 30-40 years old at best, passed hand to hand over the years, no planned maintenance, or newbie incompetent incomplete without the tools, gauges and oscope lookin stuff, maint and handling, riding in the back of the F150 heading to NYC. Yeah, it probably aint happening. Mess, Yup. Atomic holocaust, Probably not.

It would be more deadly if it was just dropped in Mono Lake.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Thanks for your hands-on expert opinion, Farva.


----------



## Farva (Aug 26, 2015)

sideKahr said:


> Thanks for your hands-on expert opinion, Farva.


Thank you Sir,

But, I'm not an expert by any stretch, just a dufus that struck torpedoman in the beginning of my short career, then quit and struck something because the TM Chief and weapons handling sucked. Joke was on me though. Don't have to be a Torpedoman to handle weapons. Whoda thunk it? Not me. Every Command I went afterwords was "I see you were on the weapons handling party at your last command. We're going to need that here too." Noooooooooooooooooo, Calgon take me away............:-?


----------

