Obama's debate error: suitcase nukes

[thesquanderer]

In the debate, Obama said, "And the biggest threat that we face right now is not a nuclear missile coming over the skies. It's in a suitcase."

One of the unreasonable fears that the right wing preys on (the do love fear) is that of suitcase nukes... in fact, while there are plenty of good reasons to better secure our ports, suitcase nukes are not a real threat.

Check this article, from the Wall Street Journal of all places...

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007478

It really does a nice job of showing how unrealistic some of our fears are. In short, as it says,

"For now, suitcase-sized nuclear bombs remain in the realm of James Bond movies. Given the limitations of physics and engineering, no nation seems to have invested the time and money to make them. Both U.S. and the USSR built nuclear mines (as well as artillery shells), which were small but hardly portable--and all were dismantled by treaty by 2000. Alexander Lebed's claims and those of defector Stanislev Lunev were not based on direct observation. The one U.S. official who saw a small nuclear device said it was the size of three footlockers--hardly a suitcase. The desire to obliterate cities is portable--inside the heads of believers--while, thankfully, the nuclear devices to bring that about are not."

[jakem]

1. but dirty bombs are still fair game, right?

:shrug:

[Marsala]

6. Dirty bombs are a joke

Studies have shown that they would not be remotely effective.

[jakem]

16. er, ok... you find out..

ill wait waaaay over ......................................................... here.

[carpetbagger]

22. They would be effective. They would say "Boo!"

And that's the terra in terrorism. We'd go nuts. I'm hoping a calm leader like Barack would help, but I still think we'd go nuts.

[Frank Cannon]

7. That's true. A conventional explosive can scatter radioactive material.

But that's not a "suitcase nuke", per se.

I, too, winced a little when he said that. The material needed to make a fissionable device is hardly able to be packed and/or carried in a "suitcase".

[AzNick]

15. And what do you call a suitcase?

It'd be hard to put a nuclear weapon in an attaché case, but a large flight case could contain such a weapon.

Check this out:

http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/davyc.aspx

3rd photo shows a private hoisting the payload by himself.

It is more than possible that a human could carry, tow or pull a nuclear weapon in something that could pass for a large piece of luggage.

[happyslug]

20. 51 pound just for the warhead, 76 pounds as a whole

Notice no one is saying how long these weapons were good for. One of the problems with any nuclear device is the need for the Uranium or Plutonium in them to be over 99% fissionable material. Once the fissionable material drops below a certain percentage (Which is still classified, thus I do NOT know it) the bomb no longer works and has to be sent back to be rebuilt with new weapon grade fissionable material.

One report I did read a few years ago reported US Air Force Bombs had to be rebuilt every four years do to the type of fissionable material it was using. The Fissionable material would drop below a safe operating level after about four years of life. This was do to the degrading of the fissionable material over time. Based on the results of tests in the 1950s the US has a rough idea at which point the bomb is no longer any good (i.e. will NOT go boom). The smaller the weapon the quicker the turnover, thus suitcase type bombs are possible but, my guess and it is only a guess, is such small bombs are no longer usable after about six months. Remember we are NOT talking about the half-life of the fissionable material (Through half life is related and used in the calculation) for the concern is NOT when 1/2 of the Fissionable material is no longer usable (Which is the half life definition) but when the material no longer have enough fissionable material go go thermo nuclear. From what I have read, all unclassified the correct number is Classified, is a drop from 99% to 98 or 97%, which is NOT long for we are talking about a 2-3 % drop.

Mu point is Suit Case bombs are possible, but to keep them working means constantly rebuilding them (Remember a large bomb can still have enough Fissionable material even as half life drops drastically, but then the weight of the bomb increase just as dramatically). I suspect the picture you see is NOT of a live Rocket but a training rocker (i.e. no explosives or fissionable material). The weapon was kept in some secure location to be issued under very strict conditions (i.e. the Russians cross into West Germany). These rockets were probably constantly being sent back to the states to be rebuilt and by 1971 the Army was glad to get rid of them. Maintaining them exceeded any advantage of having them. The same with Atomic Artillery shells, but the shells stayed in the inventory longer (i.e. till 2000). Thus suit case bombs are possible but expensive to maintain requiring the need for constant rebuilding of the warhead.

Side Note: The Dirty Bomb story seems to come out of the lost of ex-soviet suit case bombs. I suspect these Soviet suit case bombs were sold (or someone convinced the US they were sold) but a quick review showed they had NOT been rebuilt within the time to keep the bomb able to go thermo-nuclear. Now a Uranium bomb operates very simply, 1/2 of the Uranium need to go supercritical is pushed into the other half by old fashion TNT. When the two pieces meet they become one and go super-nuclear. That is all that is to a Uranium Bomb, it is simple and effective (used on Hiroshima). A Plutonium bomb is more complex, for plutonium does not like itself in large amounts i.e. the Plutonium will degrade if to much plutonium is put in one place for any length of time. Thus the simple design of the Uranium bomb is NOT effective. The key is to break down the Plutonium into 16 groups that are propelled together by TNT so that the 16 small groups all come together at one time and go Super Nuclear. A much more complex design, the one tested in New Mexico before being dropped in Nagasaki.

Notice one thing common in both design, TNT. I suspect that the Dirty Bomb fears came out of lost (or claimed to be lost) soviet Suit case bombs. The Scientist determined the bombs could no longer go super nuclear (to much degradation of the material) but the TNT would still spread the Uranium or Plutonium all over the place causing all types of health problems. Notice the fear was not some custom made bomb but a suit case bomb that did NOT work.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Had to look that hard for the error? lol!

Or did you get it from somewhere else?

[redstate_democrat]

11. I'm surprised people actually took the word "suitcase" literally

as if a nuke would be actually transported in a conventional suitcase you can purchase at Macys. I think the word "suitcase" in this case means something else.

[kirby]

3. Here is the confusion...

The suitcase nuke is not a small nuclear bomb. It is just someone who acquires nuclear material from some nuclear failed state and puts it in a suitcase with a conventional bomb material. Probably the correct term Obama should have used was 'dirty bomb'.

[HughMoran]

9. You got it

...and going forward people will get better and better at devising devices to spread the radiation - cuminating in an actual "suitcase nuke".

[tblue]

12. I swear, the collective IQ of members of DU must be astronomical.

I am blown away by the awareness and the grasp of issues demonstrated here every time I come to DU.

Thanks for that explanation. Really. I think, and maybe you agree, Obama was trying to make his point concisely. If he had gone on and on explaining to make this simple statement, somebody would have found fault with that.

[kirby]

19. Yeah, I assume Obama was trying to simplify...

One of his campaign stump speech themes has been that the Bush administration has neglected securing our ports and critical infrastructure (power plants, water plants, etc). As a quick answer to a question, a suitcase nuke invokes an easier to understand visual than a dirty bomb. The original poster seems to be saying Obama is trying to play the fear card. I think he is just trying to point out the neglect here at home.

The problem with a dirty bomb is not really deaths. The real issue would be contamination. Like a nuclear plant meltdown, a large radius would be contaminated and be uninhabitable for years, if not decades. Imagine that in a major city.

This relates (in the debate) to Obama mentioning he worked with Republican Richard Lugar in trying to help Russia and former Soviet Republics properly account for and store their nuclear waste.

[Muttocracy]

4. Anthrax carries quite well in a suitcase. nt

[Eric J in MN]

5. OK, but it's possible to use a nuclear bomb....

...without sending it through space.

The US dropped bombs from planes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If the US spends billions on a defense plan to shoot down missiles which go through space, and the enemy believes that defense system works, than the enemy an attack us by dropping nuclear bombs from planes.

[rzemanfl]

8. The man-portable nuclear weapon story has been around

since the early 1950's. The article itself describes a U.S. nuke that fit in a backpack, but weighed 154 pounds, including the backpack. Heavy, yes, I couldn't carry it, but there are certainly many people who could. "Suitcase" means a person could carry it, not that is says "Samsonite" on the handle.

[H2O Man]

10. I think it is

better that Obama agrees with people like Tyler Drumheller (see: On the Brink), rather than that Wall Street Journal.

[freestyle]

13. What about shipping containers, which are mostly unexamined?

It only takes one, and there are millions of containers entering the U.S., and the rest of North America, every year. Containers are often directly loaded onto trucks, which are even less monitored. Obama made valid points about securing nuclear material, non-proliferation, and port security. While a nuclear device as small as a suitcase may be unrealistic, one small enough to enter the country unnoticed is very realistic.

[1corona4u]

14. Yeah, so what's your point?

Joe Biden said the day before 911, that the biggest threat would come from several places, and in particular, in the belly of a plane. Was he wrong too?

I don't think you can rule any form of terrorism out.

[stray cat]

17. Why are dirty bombs and bioterrorism impossible - seems pretty easy to me?

[BlooInBloo]

18. Why are suitcase-cars so impossible? Sounds pretty easy. Take a car, take a suitcase. Put it in.

:rofl:

[yardwork]

21. Obama didn't say a suitcase nuke. He said a threat in a suitcase.

Lots of things can be carried in a suitcase. Smallpox, for one.

[goodgd_yall]

25. That's what I thought

I didn't think he explicitly said a nuke carried in a suitcase.

[anonymous171]

23. We do have actual enemies out there, just FYI.

We have both Foreign (Bin Laden) and Domestic (Neoconservatives, corporate fascists) enemies remember? You can't just focus on one without also focusing on the other.

[msallied]

24. I think the principle of his statement was true.