On Mar 8, 1:23 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:"Raptor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Bill C wrote:
> On Mar 7, 10:05 am, Raptor <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>> Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
>> mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:> Like PBS Frontline:
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/comment...
> The Center for Arms Control:
>http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/prolifproject/tnw/chap5.html
> The Center for Defense Information:
>http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/cooperation.cfm
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:I don't need to follow the links to know that it is an actual threat. So
was Anthrax, botullism, etc., from Iraq finding its way to the US. But
invasion was not necessary to prevent it from happening,
Quoted message said:Yes, we could have sent off a stern letter of warning.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:We know what we need to do to prevent a suitcase nuke attack, and we are
(presumably) doing it pretty damn well.
Quoted message said:My but you're so forceful. By the way, what exactly is it that we're doing
about suitcase nukes again?
We've been over this before:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/
8f1cbaf9cef1118b>
<http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm>
"Suitcase" nuclear weapons:
- probably existed
- are very low yield; nobody's going to cause a
Hiroshima with one
- reports of them going missing are unreliable and
probably not true
- any portable nuclear weapons that went missing
in the 1990s are completely inoperable by now
The Center for Arms Control page that Bill linked refers
to the CNS study I linked above, whose conclusion is
that old Russian "suitcase" nukes are not a threat but
we could use more information about what the Russians made
(good luck getting that from Putin, though, no matter
what GWB says about seeing into Putin's heart).
Ben
RBR Dept. of Known Unknowns- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I couldn't find a fairly new link that I had a while ago from one of
the intel sites on this stuff. It was a report from 2003. As you've
said it's always been pretty sketchy what the "suitcase" nukes
actually are, and if they did exist. Lots of conflicting reports. What
did, and still do exist are ADMs:
http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/madm.htm
(I didn't know we had our own in house expert:
http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.htm
The Davy Crockett (shown here at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in
Maryland in March 1961) was the smallest and lightest nuclear weapon
ever deployed by the U.S. military. It was designed for use in Europe
against Soviet troop formations.
Now we know what Davey's been up to on his "walkabouts"😉
Anyway the report was one on just what had gone missing and was
triggered by confirmed reports and Russian actions on an air force
unit that was selling off it's missiles and parts, and a couple off
whole planes, which was what got them caught. They said they were
doing it because they hadn't been paid in something like 18 months.
The report solidly confirmed 8 ADMs missing and unaccounted for from
a Speznaz base among other things.
The IAEA is also VERY worried along these lines:
http://www.worldmun.org/2006/committees/committee.php?c=18
Topic A: Nuclear Terrorism
Since 1993, there have been over 650 confirmed incidents of
trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive material. Last year alone,
nearly 100 such incidents occurred, 11 of which involved nuclear
material. Almost half of the confirmed incidents involved criminal
activities (e.g.: theft, illegal possession, smuggling, or attempted
illegal sale of the material). As the incidents of reported nuclear
materials trafficking steadily rise, it becomes more and more
important that the IAEA take action to ensure global security and
prevent possible attacks.
The main potential nuclear security risks include: the theft of a
nuclear weapon; the acquisition of nuclear materials for the
construction of nuclear explosive devices; the malicious use of
radioactive sources, including in so-called "dirty bombs," and the
radiological hazards caused by an attack on, or sabotage of, a
facility or a transport vehicle. The IAEA's main points of focus are
prevention, detection and response.
The other major concern is that a lot of this stuff could have, and
has been maintained by scientists who were either abandoned, like the
Russsian military and are doing it for cash, or rogue scientists like
Khan who did it for ideology:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3343621.stm
A large percentage of "experts" absolutely believe that it's a case
of When, Not if. Unfortunately I agree with them. The good thing is
that it's not likely to be worse than Hiroshima at worst, if you can
call that a good thing, and probably much less.
Bill C
