Suitcase Nukes not real

spike

spike

New Member
Jack Bauer may lose 24 hours of sleep worrying about suitcase nukes, but should his viewers?

Probably not, nuclear weapons experts say.

Nuclear bombs cleverly concealed in suitcases don't exist in real life. Even so, they have long been a popular Hollywood plot point.

The lethal luggage — or what non-proliferation experts prefer to call portable nuclear devices — have been featured in action thrillers, including 1997's The Peacemaker with George Clooney and Nicole Kidman and 2002's Bad Company with Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock.

Now, 24 (Fox, Monday, 9 p.m. ET/PT) has had Kiefer Sutherland and the gang hunting for three bombs packed into suitcases.

But how concerned should we really be that suitcase nukes will one day be fact rather than fiction?

Arms control expert Charles Thornton of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland calls the scenario "so highly unlikely as to be approaching fantasy."
Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-03-12-suitcase-nuclear-bombs_N.htm

Sorry to put the damper on a couple OT members fantasies.
 
Professur

Professur

Well-Known Member
It's a silly idea anyhow. I can pack a lot more damage into a suitcase than any nuke could provide.
 
RDX

RDX

Member
The smaller versions of the W54 warhead could easilly fit inside a suitcase (although not the small business suitcases that are often shown in movies). It would be a bear to lug around though, probably about 100 lbs with all the support equipment.
 
Cerise

Cerise

Well-Known Member
"American Hiroshima:"

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/007085.php


Bauer_President_web.jpg




HA HA

nelson.gif
 
Cerise

Cerise

Well-Known Member
Maybe the word "suitcase" is a misnomer.

Terrorist use of a radiological dispersion device (RDD)—often called ”dirty nuke” or “dirty bomb”—is considered far more likely than use of a nuclear device. These radiological weapons are a combination of conventional explosives and radioactive material designed to scatter dangerous and sub-lethal amounts of radioactive material over a general area. Such radiological weapons appeal to terrorists because they require very little technical knowledge to build and deploy compared to that of a nuclear device.

Terrorist use of a nuclear device would probably be limited to a single smaller “suitcase” weapon. The strength of such a weapon would be in the range of the bombs used during World War II. The nature of the effects would be the same as a weapon delivered by an inter-continental missile, but the area and severity of the effects would be significantly more limited.
Click to expand...


Do you think that a terrorist group such as al Qaeda, over a period of time, would not have the capabalities, the financial wherewithall to fund the technology and expertise needed to put together a crude, underpowered, yet still deadly nuclear weapon?


Like I said---maybe it will again take the deaths of thousands of Americans at the hands of al Qaeda to wake people up to the fact that when it comes to protecting the lives of American citizens---being Proactive or Reactive for the nation's defense is not the democrat party's strong suit.


http://www.nationalterroralert.com/quickreference
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top