Briefcase nukes
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Hey /k/, I was wondering why small nuclear devices or other such weapons of mass destruction have never been used in major cities by terrorist groups. You'd think that the first thing ISIS would try to do would be to set off some such nastiness in an urban area, so why not?
>>29369871
because its hard. also expensive. also just the thought of someone having WMDs has led to invasions. imagine what would happen if they were used on a mostly civilian populace. EVERYONE would BTFO isis in a heartbeat and no one would be able to say not to.
>>29369871
Because the kind of nuclear device terrorists would be capable of constructing would be a gun-type weapon.
And that requires substantial amounts of uranium that is >90% U235.
And getting that much highly enriched uranium is near impossible, specifically because it's easy to built nukes with it.
It would also be a fuckhueg device, think little-boy sized.
The prop in that photo is completely unrealistic bullshit, it wouldn't work.
Because it is more efficient to just fill up a vehicle full of explosives.
>>29370672
you can get backpack nukes, though IS won't be around long enough to develop them.
![Screen-324337[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/OtXnRfI.jpg "Screen-324337[1].jpg")
There is a snuke in Hillary's snizz.
>>29370672
The suitcase is an exaggeration (and of course, this requires a technical finesse far beyond ISIS, even reasonably beyond the Norks or the Kashmiris), but man-portable nukes aren't outside the realm of possibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition
>>29369871
Terrorist groups can barely scrape together a device bigger than a suitcase bomb for western cities, what makes you think they'll be able to procure a nuke?
>>29369871
There are two types of nukes. Implosion and the aforementioned gun-type. Implosion bombs typically use Plutonium 239 which is easier to get hold of than Uranium 235, but requires lots of testing and engineering to pull off because the implosion has to be precisely timed. It is very technically complex to build.
The gun-type weapon is very easy to build, but requires Uranium 235. U235 is an isotope of U238. In nature, U235 makes up less than 1% of the Uranium that gets mined from the Earth. Separating U235 from U238 to the concentration needed for a fission reaction is extremely difficult because U235 and U238 are identical in every respect except the 0.01% difference in weight because of the lack of two neutrons in U235.
tl/dr If you're a nation-state, the things you need to build a nuclear weapon can be had if you have enough money and infrastructure. If you are a non-state actor, your only hope is to steal a nuke.
>>29370732
>>29370777
Yes small nukes exist, I didn't argue against that.
But the "nuke" in OP's photo is pure fantasy.
The problem with nukes that are physically small is that they are often complex, and (usually) give a pathetically small explosive yield compared to a physically larger weapon using the same amount, or slightly larger amount of weapons grade nuclear material. Hence physically small nukes are very ineffective and costly.
It's why nuclear artillery never really took off. Because nuclear shells capable of being fired from reasonably sized guns are weak and very expensive. You'd be much better off shooting chemical shells rather than nuclear. The same goes for any "suitcase" weapon you intend to deploy against a populated city.
>so why not?
Because they don't have any. Moron.
>>29371185
>micropenis yield
That's why I've always wondered why people were so afraid of something like this. The blast won't kill you if you're not immediately on top of it, and unless places very carefully (perhaps atop some steel beams) it's not gonna do much infrastructure damage.
Dirty bomb is much more feasible. Couple hundred pounds of explosives and some medical Cobalt or something (that shit goes missing all the time) and you could ruin a port or a downtown for at least a while. Score a major propaganda victory at least.
You know, hypothetically.
(FBI pls no bully)
>>29369871
Because you could build an anfro bomb with diesel and some supplies from Home Depot for cheaper and a lot easier
>>29371228
Chemical weapons would be far easier to manufacture and would do a similar amount of damage.
Hypothetically, of course.
If ISIS or someone REALLY wants to make an impact just round up a group of pals, load up the guns and head out to Wal-Mart on Black Friday to start indiscriminantly firing into the throngs of idiotic fucking morons clamoring around for their deals.
>>29370899
>If you are a non-state actor, your only hope is to steal a nuke.
There is another possibility, but it's a real long shot.
You'd need to steal a significant weapons grade uranium, and you'd need an expert to help you build the bomb.
Weapons grade uranium isn't something you just find lying around at you local nuclear power plant,
But some types of reactors use it, notably small naval reactors, and some research reactors.
Stealing the stuff from a naval base is probably too ambitious for any terrorist organization in the world today, since as far as I'm aware only the Russians, the Brits, and the Americans currently operate nuclear powered vessels. Although supposedly India is trying to get in on the action.
A more feasible option for a terrorist organization would be to steal or acquire through some other means research reactor fuel with a high enough U-235 content to be used as weapons material.
Reactor fuels would most likely be in ceramic pellet form, but a decent lab with expert guidance could potentially convert the fuel to weapons grade material.
>>29369925
>just the thought of someone having WMDs has led to invasions
oh right, that's totally the real reason
I think what people are more worried about are dirty bombs, which have low explosive yield but massive environmental & health damage, rather than suitcase nukes.
>>29369871
The second a nuke is used in a terrorist attack is the second China, Russia, America, France, and Britain form the most anti-terrorist ass-kicking coalition that has ever existed, because at that point it's a global hazard that for once everyone agrees on- kill the fuckers who made the mushroom cloud.
I don't think the world is ready for the collective national rage that would come from a nuclear terrorist attack, especially a coordinated one that hit several cities across the globe.
>>29371295
>covertly acquiring a nuclear reactor
I can't even. I just can't.
I can't even muster up a reaction image.
>>29371264
True, why would terrorists obey the CWC or Geneva? Of CBR, really only chems are easy-peasy. Nukes and Bio would require SO MUCH infrastructure!
Hypothetically.
>>29371228
>and some medical Cobalt
Or that organophosphorus nerve agent that gets posted in homemade weapons threads. I hear it's a bitch to make, but if you can convince someone to blow themselves up in the name of their god, surely you can convince them that the dangers of nerve gas synthesis are acceptable.
>>29371278
Nah bro.
Superbowl.
If they killed a bunch of people live on TV during the most viewed broadcast in America the country would lose its fucking mind. But if daesh actually did that, I wouldn't be surprised if the US straight up launched a new crusade to just indiscriminately kill any and all muslims.
They could probably be pretty successful if they recruited Russia to help out.
India, Israel, and China might be willing to help out as well, even though they aren't Christians.
>>29371342
You don't need a reactor you retard.
You just need to steal fuel from a naval yard or a university.
Converting ceramic fuel pellets into metallic uranium isn't super difficult if you completely ignore the health hazards, you know like terrorists do every day when they cook up incredibly volatile shit like acetone peroxide.
>>29371348
>organophosphorus nerve agent that gets posted in homemade weapons threads.
Wait, what?
I've never seen anything even resembling that being posted, and I hang in all the homemade weapons threads I can find. You can't exactly cook up sarin in your mom's kitchen. Organophosphates are way beyond the capabilities of even most people with experience in organic chemistry.
>>29371385
not just america would join in.
if they nuked the superbowl, we could have 10x the casualties of 9/11.
all of NATO would form the biggest ass-kicking coalition ever. fuck, maybe russia would help.
and SAC would finally fulfill it's drills.
>>29371385
China actually has one of the largest Christian populations and highest current conversion rates.
>>29371469
Educational purposes only and all that.
Actually, I don't even know if it's real. I've certainly never tried it, having no real experience with chemistry. It could be like those C4 "recipes" that trick people into making little snowmen.
>>29371500
The Chinese government also fucking hates muslims.
>>29370672
This, this times a thousand.
To make a nuke a terrorist would have to do the following:
1) Gather the right educated people, probably through bribery since you dont want them to sabotage your shit if you kidnap their family or w/e, so you're going to need a ton of money
2) Fund these smarties while they R&D an atomic device. Cost and production time are inversely related to tininess and power of the bomb. Also build them a lab.
3) Gather all the parts you need, mainly specially crafted high spec pieces made of expensive materials.
4) Gather uranium. You need tons of it because you can't get the real stuff. This will be insanely expensive, and you have an extremely high probability of being noticed and set up by any of the world's spy agencies. Ain't nobody got time for nuclear armed terrorists
5) Build the bomb in a place where people aren't scanning for radiation. Testing isn't an issue because you can't afford a second bomb, and setting one off would send the world into a shitstorm of security measures and your-ass-hunting-drones.
6) Somehow sneak it past all the radiation detecting shit on the borders and set it up in a major city, most of which have the same detectors
7) Detonate, causing a horrific bombing and medical crisis in the city. If done really well, rival 9/11 for destructiveness etc. City is shut down for a while, people mourn, then USA invades everything, considers using nukes to retaliate. We wouldn't, of course, but Mr. Jihadi would certainly think we would. At the very least opens the door to use of nukes in the future.
So in the end you have a project that would bankrupt most nations let alone some terrorist group, for an attack that could be outdone by a dozen guys with boxcutters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/magazine/the-doomsday-scam.html?_r=0
>>29371481
>if they nuked the superbowl
About time you read "The Sum of All Fears" by Tom Clancy
>>29371500
Chinese are the easiest people in the world to convert to Christianity because they have no concept of religion so if you tell them about it they instantly believe it's real and that it's the best thing ever
>>29371426
How is that any less idiotic?
Spectroscopy can be done on fallout from a nuclear explosion. These tests can not only tell which country the fissile material came from, but which reactor it came from and when it was made. Accidentally letting weapons grade U235 out of your control is basically inviting nuclear war on yourself, so keeping the raw materials locked up more tightly than the weapons themselves is in any nuclear nation's best interest.
>>29371524
maybe if they got a few million tons of the radioactive cat litter shit they could make something with a 50 ton yield if they're lucky.
but what if they just buy a nuke from the norks or iran or some shit since they both wanna destroy the west, how feasible would it be then.
>>29371531
I think i'll check that out.
>>29371511
Thanks. I'll have to look at this more closely later.
I'm not good enough at organic chemistry to tell right away if this is just bullshit or not, but at first glance it looks iffy at best.
>>29371590
>I think i'll check that out.
Breddy gud. Kebab find a nuclear bomb the Israelis lost in the 1973 war, and manage to, with some help, rebuild it. It's a good "How to build a nuclear device good and do other stuff good too" book with a couple of crucial elements missing - Tom hints at that, and if you ask OPpenheimer in one of his threads he'll say the description of working with the device is pretty accurate barring a couple of deliberate omissions, and the other elements in the story concerning the nuke are fairly accurate too.
>>29371590
if the Iranians or Koreans wanted to nuke us they would do it themselves. To begin with, they don't want to. They can't benefit from that at all, and if they could build a bomb they would much rather keep it as a political tool. Secondly they wouldn't trust a terrorist group, there's no reason to. They may be willing but you can't control them at all, and there's a good chance they'll fuck it up on the way. Look at how many missions they fail at vs successful ones they have. Iran and Korea both have much much much bigger budgets and skilled/trained people to use, they don't need to outsource it.
The only reason they would have to outsource a mission like that is because they want to kill Americans or cause havoc in the world without being blamed for it. That's a good scenario for the fear-hyping types but again, doesn't benefit either country in any way. Waste of money and resources for a pointless outcome.
Considering how much progress North Korea has made I think it's a legitimate concern there is real trouble brewing there. Kind of depressing that is going to become a major issue after the next election since it's a whistling tea pot on a hot stove top.
Obama's been handling Iran hopefully he'll iron that out before his term is over I wouldn't trust Hillary or Trump to be able to do it.
Conventional terrorists like ISIS probably couldn't set off a nuke if they had a tech manual without using it on themselves, unfortunately they probably still would.
>>29371631
neat, coincides well with the audiobook i'm listening to, Command & Control by Eric Schossler.
talks about all the fuckups with nukes and how it changed policies, talks about sac, shit like that.
about 20 hours in audiobook format, definitely a good listen/read.
>>29371660
Oh how good is that book? I just read that a couple of months back.
>>29371649
I think your assuming someone corrupt there wouldn't want to steal and sell that sort of device.
>>29371385
>Superbowl.
Tom Clancy pls
>>29371658
the norks are only somewhat of a credible threat right now.
if they fired a nuke at us towards the west coast, the interceptors at fort greely would kill it.
if they fired it towards the east coast, it would crash over europe.
at least with the tech they have now anyway.
maybe we take the curtis lemay route and preemptively and preventatively nuke them.
>>29371590
>but what if they just buy a nuke from the norks or iran or some shit since they both wanna destroy the west
They don't.
Both of those nations want nukes to keep from getting invaded. They also want nukes to look like they're being tough against the evil Americans. In other words its a play that's put on using live guns as props. If they actually use these nukes, they will literally get BTFO. If they sell the nukes, then anyone can tell which country they came from (see >>29371578) and then they get BTFO.
>>29371671
I mean it could happen, but both of those countries are police states that make 1984 looks like kindergarten. If it didn't happen during the collapse of the Soviet Union where there were a shit ton of them along with a ton of desperate, disillusioned military leaders who were already selling off heavy military equipment, then it's not going to happen in a stable place like Iran or N. Korea. I wouldn't be surprised if Kim has a personal CCTV camera next to his bed that shows his nuke project 24/7 lol
>>29371511
Nope, nope, nope, nope nope. Bullshit or legit I got a chill from reading that.
>>29371741
That's pretty much why I saved it. Chemistry is some neat-scary shit sometimes.
Alexander Lebed, a Russian politician who had served in Boris Yelstin's government, claimed in 1997 that some number of suitcase nukes were not under the control of Russian military authorities. Lebed was vague about the number involved - originally claiming 84 were missing and changing the number to 'about one hundred' - and vague about whether the weapons were definitely missing or just unaccounted for.
The possibly missing suitcase nukes were particularly troubling. They were small (30 - 50 kilograms), easily portable, had a yield of half a kiloton to 2 kilotons and lacked the safeguards to prevent accidental or unauthorized detonation that other Russian nuclear weapons had. Who controlled the weapons was also troubling: they were variously described as being controlled by Soviet special forces or the KGB.
Russian authorities responded to Lebed in various ways; from denying suitcase nukes existed to admitting their existence but denying any were missing to downplaying their viability as a weapon (apparently they needed regular maintenance or they would cease to function). The revelations caused some unease but no evidence has ever been found of a suitcase nuke in the wild.
>>29371755
Yeah assuming it's accurate that's some real staring into the abyss shit lol.
>>29371678
Well with all the nuke testing and stuff the amount of radiation from one being launched off in any direction wouldn't really cause that much devastation but it'd be a political nightmare with the public opinion, people panicking and shit. You remember all those we're all going to die in a nuke attack drills in school? People building end of the world bunkers and shit in the cold war. Public opinion right now is war fatigued but something like that would flip it like a lightswitch until the body count rises.
Not to mention how many other countries are going to start ramping up their militaries if a hostile nuclear attack is launched, you'd think they would with threats and attacks being carried out by ISIS currently but between that and another larger conflict.
>>29371705
Honestly it's those shit conditions that makes me think a bureaucrat or someone with access would risk it to fund getting out. It ultimately doesn't matter how successful they are about doing it and not getting caught people risk a lot for very little quite often others getting away with the device is the real issue there and it's quite possible, even if you could track where it's going a portable device would almost certainly be triggered if terrorists got a hold of it during someone attempting to recover it or stop them from using it somewhere it'd do a lot of damage.
Honestly nobody knows if anything like that got sold off at the collapse of the soviet union, someone could be sitting on one. Lots of their hardware ended up all over the place and is causing problems still.
>>29371773
>but no evidence has ever been found of a suitcase nuke in the wild
pretty sure Sasquatch has it then
>>29371834
It is kind of scary to think that amidst the collapsing chains of beauracracy, lax security and general confusion that followed the collapse of the soviet union, somewhere in a warehouse in one of the prefixstans could be a pile of those things just sitting on a pallet and no one has any fucking idea what they are. They just ended up thrown in with a bunch of other mysteriously disappeared hardware because no warpackt quartermater wanted THAT kind of trouble attatched to their name.
"Ilham, why there suitcases on shelf next to Buk?"
"No idea Karim now come hold torniquet is heroin time."
>>29371671
There are limits to what even the most corrupt person in the world would do. Selling one of you own countries nukes to anyone would bring a shitstorm down on you from your bosses. It's hard to spend bribe money when you and your entire family out to fifth cousins have been lined up and shot for treason.
>>29371787
No, because those countries don't allow one person enough control to let that happen. They dont trust their people any more than we do. Besides anyone with nuclear access would have a million other ways of getting out before having to steal a nuke. Also how would they sell it? If $50,000 in heroin appeared on your table most people wouldn't know how to begin moving it. Now imagine it's a giant death machine that everyone in the world is tracking. Can't take it to the pawn shop.
Yes it would be bad if terrorists got hold of nukes, just like it would be bad if they got a hold of a squadron of F22s. Both are equally likely to happen, and both would provide them with such a logistical shitshow that whatever plan they had for it could probably never be realized. There was cause for concern in the 90's about this, but even then the world understood the gravitas of it and made sure not to fuck up. If there was even the rumor of a loose nuke somewhere every country in the world would be looking for it and most likely cooperating to find it.
>>29371947
No, for the last time no this isn't how it is. The very second the Soviets figured out shit was going south they secured their arsenal. They knew this was as much a liability as everyone else. I think they were less concerned with nukes being sold to terrorists than they were of some pro-Soviet nutbag general setting one off to give the USSR a fiery sendoff and stick it to the Americans. Or the CIA breaking in and stealing one or two. Or one of the former states grabbing a couple to secure themselves with. Or an accident that ends up blowing up a good chunk of their country. In any case they made sure that shit was on lock down and firmly in Russian hands.
>>29371947
Maybe they'll sell them as surplus military luggage to Varusteleka or Sturm-Miltec.
>>29371773
Dave Barry of all people has a novel that focuses on one of those
>>29372089
I find it hilarious that apathy could be what is keeping nukes out of the hands of terrorists or failed states. Nukes could be one of THOSE packages that every warehouse has; the ones that just show up one day and no one knows that they are because the crew spend their lives figring out new and inventive ways to avoid work and the delivery guy is the kind of person who needs three tries to get his name right. The package is heavy, looks expensive and is covered in warning signage in a language no one can identify, so collectively deciding it is more trouble than its worth the crew sign for it and shove it somewhere unobtrusive assuming that someone will come for it eventually, and go back to getting smashed on white spirit.
Meanwhile somewhere in the middle east, a man who is 95% beard checks his goats to see what time it is and wonders what in allah's name is taking so long...
OP here. Since we've sort of crossed nukes of the list, what about other weapons like chemical agents? You'd think terrorists would be all over that.
>>29371773
if they lost the suitcase nukes they would be useless except as a material source for a dirty bomb at this point, the highly enriched material would have begun to decay until it reached a point where a critical mass was not possible, if detonated it would fizzle.
still backpack nukes were a real thing, weighing in at around 50 kilos and with a explosive blast of up to 0.25 kilotons
>>29371469
IIRC
>take common insecticide
>chop off the groups that affect bugs, but not humans
>add groups that kill humans
>>29371511
It has been years since O-chem, but this sounds scary and technical enough to be real. The industrial process the US used to make tons of this back in the day is a bit more streamlined.
Considering some nutty japanese made sarin in the 90's VX is not outside the realm of possibilities for someone with the materials, knowledge, and time.
>>29372285
>other weapons like chemical agents?
The technology to weaponize chemical/biological agents is still tricky. Particularly if during testing you don't want to kill yourself. Lots of factor reduce the efficacy of such weapons, like a breeze. Making their actual lethality fall far below ideal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack
>>29369871
Maybe if they got their hands on some of the suit-nukes the Russians lost during the fall of the U.S.S.R. and they some how managed to copy it they might. As is, they're shitting in their own bed by being such blood thirsty idiots, all those refugees that fled = a whole lot less people to tax and get money straight from.
>>29369871
The big reason for why you don't see suitcase nukes is because the sheer amount of plutonium needed to make one(~13 kgs) is enough to make several normal fission weapons with a yield of ~20 kts each. The only truly viable way to create a suitcase nuke is through a method called linear implosion, which is hardly implosion at all. A normal weapon uses a spherical mass of high explosives to compress a subcritical core of plutonium and have it undergo supercriticality insertion.
There are several things working on your side with spherical geometry(densities inversely proportional to cube of radius, etc.) but the end result is an incredibly efficient weapon wherein most of the bulk is that high explosive charge and all the correct shaped-charge esque lensing to get the right shape of shock wave. In modern thermos a 5kt primary stage may only use about ~3.3 kgs of plutonium.
When size is a premium, another way to build a shitty low yield nuke is to gather a shitload of plutonium in one place, alloy it with gallium(actually all designs do this) to lower density, and then modify the geometry into a "football" spheroid shape so that it is barely subcritical. At this point all that is necessary to get it to go off is relatively tiny amounts of explosive at each end. The shock also collapses the gallium-induced delta phase into alpha, which infers a 23% increase in density.
What this amounts to is a shitload of plutonium going critical(if only barely), and releasing such little amounts of energy that the force of the high explosive doesn't even pale in comparison. The plutonium mass blows itself apart and a yield of around 10 or 20 tons of TNT is reached.
These are mainly radiological weapons, though. Still, why go for extreme miniaturization when the same amount of plutonium could make like three or four good size nukes in the right hands?
People also talk about gun type designs, but there are a variety of physics reasons for why that isn't feasible.
>>29374243
I forgot to mention that linear implosion is really not implosion because the plutonium is really only being deformed by the high explosive and not really compressed.
>>29371426
>just steal fuel from a naval yard
Good luck
>>29370732
anon's pic related, this is commonly misattributed to being a MADM(Medium Atomic Demolition Munition), when in fact this is a ln SADM(Special ADM). This is an example of a linear implosion weapon. The actual MADM is like a sporterized W-45 and is about the size of a mini fridge(see my comment about more efficient designs).
>pic related, a real MADM with 20 kt yield
1. DAVY CROCKETT MOTHERFUCKERS.
2. Isis would build a dirty bomb with shitty uranium.
>>29371185
>It's why nuclear artillery never really took off
That's factually incorrect. At the height of the cold war nuclear artillery shells made up a good half of all US tactical nuclear weapons.
>>29370758came here for this, was not disappointed
>>29374308
What's the cylinder on the left? Detonator?
>>29371511
saved. Now I am on all the lists.
>>29374398
>At the height of the cold war nuclear artillery shells made up a good half of all US tactical nuclear weapons.
Citation Needed
>>29371660
I've just found Cardinal of the Kremlin in cassette audiobook form, narrated by the guy who played the Major in M.A.S.H. It's the most '80s /k/ thing ever.
>>29370672
I know almost nothing about nukes, but how hard would it be to put a shaped charge with a fissionable perpetrator on top of a bulk of fission capable material and have it blow into the material? All you have to do is get it to the right density right?
Sorry for sounding ignorant, but I really don't know much about this topic, it just seems to me that it wouldn't be too terribly difficult to make a gun type device assuming they could get their hands on the fizzle material. It doesn't even have to be a good nuke for them to achieve their goal, fuck a conventional bomb with some kind of radioactive shrapnel would accomplish their goal of mass panic and fear.
>>29371348
>I hear it's a bitch to make
Coke and fly bait makes a reliably toxic organophosphate. Farmers used to use it to kill coons because they love the sugar from the coke. IIRC they changed the chemicals in fly crystals specifically to avoid people doing this, but im sure a dedicated group in a third world country with less restrictions on pesticides could do it fairly easily.
Fuck the whole nuke/chem/bio weapons shit is scary when you realize how a college chem student could figure it out well enough to create a problem. Why can't we just go back the 1700 and live in peace until we die of easily curable disease?
>>29375001
carbamate =/= organophosphate
>>29375026
Its entirely possible that I am wrong, I wont deny that. I am just going off of what my highschool chem teacher told me 10+ years ago.
>>29374854
http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/nuc_84000001b_01.pdf
>3000 W48 155mm shells
>1800 W33 203mm shells
>Planned production run of 800 W79 203mm shells
>Planned production of an unknown number of W82 shells
>Report from 1983
The US had 25k weapons at the height of the Cold War. ~10k were strategic weapons. 5000 weapons is almost half.
>>29375067
Amazing
>>29371511
>mfw in HS chemistry a couple kids "accidentally" made lyddite
In quotations because supposedly they were just fucking around with phenols and ended up with picric acid, but it's a bit thin. They got a strict talking to and were closely watched after that, but that's because it was the '80s
>>29374308
>sporterized
did they tap on a scope and some new wood?
>>29371531
>not Rainbow Six
They'd be better of Dark Wintering us than trying to smuggle a nuke into one of the most well-guarded events in the US. That'd be more likely to bring the country to its knees, whereas nuking us is just like hitting a beehive with a baseball bat.
Of course, they'd be just as likely to kill themselves off with a pandemic, but it's not like they give a shit about their own kind.
>>29375067
Holy shit, so the Nuclear Trident was only one side of MAD.
We had enough backpacks and artillery shells that we could WALK into every major city in Russia and destroy them.
Or was this just because we were afraid of ZERG RUSH? I know the W-45 (>>29374308) and Atomic Annie was developed specifically with the Fulda Gap in mind...
>>29375165
What the shit are you on about?
>>29373525
I'm honestly amazed that incident didn't kill more people, a crowded subway is the perfect environment to release a chemical weapon
>>29375172
We had enough miniaturized nuclear devices that, even if the B-52s/ICBMs/SSBNs all failed to counterattack / were neutralized, a small ground force could still enact Mutually Assured Destruction with aforementioned tactical nuclear weapons.
Alternatively, these devices might have been developed with a more defensive use in mind, should the Russians attempt to use their superior numbers to overwhelm our resistance in central Germany, as the two cited examples demonstrate
>>29371318
Put it this way:
It was enough to justify an invasion to the public.
In this context, that's all that matters.
>>29371511
This reminds me of the one about how to dispose of a body.
Because uranium enrichment is a process that requires a LOT of machinery. Mainly because the ratio of uranium 238 to 235 found together is really high.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=69UpMhUnEeY
>>29371228
A man portable device (As in a Pentagon desk jockey calculating what a man is theoretically capable of carrying) would be a dirty bomb. Small nuclear devices get a small yield partially by low yield efficiency, or the amount of the fissile material that is actually ... well.. fiss'ed. For an artillery shell it can be as little as 1%. The rest gets scattered as fallout.
>>29375212
Because the Russian would totally have allowed NATO to drive its artillery in range of Moscow
You're a fucking moron.
>>29375210
It's because they didn't use any means to disperse it. All they did was punch a few holes in the plastic bags it was stored in and dropped it on the ground.
If they had used something as simple as a large firecracker it would have killed a lot of people.
>>29371278
Syria has Wal-Marts?
>>29369871
Burka burka alalalalalalalalallah akber
There's a reason we call them cavemen
>>29371342
I've got one you can use in the future.
>>29375271
>because in a retaliatory scenario individuals could be stopped from infiltrating during the chaos
>>29375601
Nuclear artillery and backpack nukes were never deployed in such a manner.
Your idea is retarded.
>>29375818
>could and did
>the same word with different spelling
>>29375875
I'll just wait for Oppenheimer to shoot you down.
>>29375212
You fail to comprehend true scorched earth tactics. Ill ignore the comment on what Russia will and wont allow.
These devices, used defensivly, would enable defenders to detonate captured bases, or key points in a ground war as massed troops moved past them.
The US and Russia were not just prepared for a war, we were prepared fora war of extinction, with some of the most bitter, dark fighting and scenarios planned.
A nuclear launch from an ICBM command silo does not just launch all the nukes at once. it launches them a few at a time over a period of a month to years. It ensures no survivors, when they peep their head out of the silo, or ever again. Long after humans in that area are dead, the nukes will keep falling.
>>29376993
You're also an idiot.
>>29376993
Dude, what? No. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
>>29375875
Deploying nuclear artillery in a strategic role was never considered, and actively discouraged. Both sides had their reasons for this.
The main indicator that this would never have been done is because no one ever told the Soviets about it. The entire point of deterrence (or even MAD) is to let your opponent know what you are capable of, so that they will think twice about picking a fight.
If this was ever a plan, the US would have wanted the Soviets to know, as it's impossible for an unknown capability to factor into
deterrence.
>>29371511
I call BS on that.
ATFFBICIADEANSAFAMTBHSMHSENPAIDESU plz go.
...Or am I trying to feel less insecure about the fact this kind of information could fly around like it's nothing. I don't even know.
"Knowledge is a weapon" they say...
Fuck now I feel like a fun grabber
>>29377418
Chemistry is taught in many places. You don't even have to teach how to make a weapon- it's all the same concepts. People developed this shit decades ago, so if they could do it why not another person?
>>29370672
couple of things to add that most people do not realize. their are more types of nuclear devices then just spherical implosion and gun-types. its possible to design and test linear implosion methods and others without having to go to the difficult precision required in the standard implosion design. so this can mean plutonium could be used in a clandestine nuke as well. not that plutonium is any easier to get.
and secondly, Little-boy didn't need to be so fucking big, it was massively over engineered so that it would 100% detonate no issue without the design ever being tested. the damned capture plate that not even required was several tons! there was nothing fancy in the gun-type nuclear artillery rounds from later on compared to little boy, they just didn't have all the unnecessary shit.
I hear about pesticides and the like that are really lethal and are usually banned dor use.
Couldn't a terror group make a relatively crippling attack by using conventional explosives to disperse the chemicals? It might not kill many but it would require cleanup and then theres longterm symptoms to any exposure
>>29377665
The idea of an agent orange bomb is a horrifying thought in more ways than I can articulate.
>>29371511
>It could be like those C4 "recipes" that trick people into making little snowmen.
Interested in this
supposedly there was some MIT student that drew up a design for a DIY nuke but the FBI then told him not to publish it
At any rate, it's because it's difficult. Nuclear weapons aren't easy to make because refining Uranium requires a lot of space, expensive equipment and a large uninterrupted power supply. It's not easy to make this, especially undetected.
>>29375210
the weapon is only half the story, its all in the delivery!
>>29377797
Can other radioactive materials be substituted for Uranium such as polonium or neptunium or some shit?
>>29375143
Iran's government is on record saying that they think it's worth Iran being annihilated if they can also destroy Israel.
>>29371511
Well if this post gets pulled we'll know how legit it is I guess, but honestly FUCK THAT I like living.
>>29372075
>I think they were less concerned with nukes being sold to terrorists than they were of some pro-Soviet nutbag general setting one off to give the USSR a fiery sendoff and stick it to the Americans
Shit that's kinda scary. I could see that happening.
>>29373525
didn't they also have a fucking russian attack helicopter
how the hell do you even sneak that in
>>29377831
Neptunium.
>>29376993
You're fucking retarded. In the event of nuclear war, both sides intended to blow their loads as quickly as possible, since silos were primary targets and would be quickly destroyed.
>>29378200
Towards the end of the Cold War, both sides planned for what the US called "The Long War" which was a nuclear exchange that spanned weeks or months.
It was an outgrowth of limited nuclear war.
>>29377831
A Bunch of isotopes of various elements could be used to assemble a critical mass. the only reason why u235 and Plutonium are used atm is because they are both the easiest to use and handle and the cheapest.
this site has a good list of a few of the isotopes capable of forming a critical mass
https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/criticalmass.htm
>>29377960
They're saber rattling like usual, in truth, they're probably fucking terrified at the thought of the hooknoses retaliating.
>>29378226
So all those two month fallout bunkers were useless, huh?
>>29371524
Not to mention the sort of people with the skills, knowledge, and expierience to actually build a nuke are closely watched.
"Oh hey, Dr. Nuclear B. Maker just bought plane tickets to syria..... hmmm. Might wanna fire up the ol' abduction van and pay him a visit before he leaves.
Not to mention somebody capable of completing decades of schooling and an equal amount of field expierience isnt going to typically be your average goat fucking durka durka dipshit, nor be very attracted to thier ideology.
>>29378339
No. Why would they be?
>>29378341
I thought you needed security clearance anyway for doing anything in regardless to nuclear energy?
>>29378226
Reasons?
>>29371481
That doesn't even match a tenth of what would happen if they bombed the soccer world cup.
>>29378362
It was built upon a desire by both sides to prevent the massive nuclear exchange that was prevalent at the time.
For the US, the primary goal of nuclear forces remained deterrence, but if deterrence had broken down, then the US should attempt to find a way to stop the war.
This was called "War Termination" and it centered around the idea of interwar deterrence, regaining deterrence after it had been lost. There are many parts of this and achieving it was complex, but in order to even have a chance at doing this, the war had to last longer than 2 hours.
So the US began constructing attack options involving riding out attacks (in some cases) and force regeneration (rearming returning bombers), all the while preserving command and control.
Rather than expending all ordnance in a "use it or lose it" situation, the responses would be measured and calculated to send the clearest message to the Soviets: "Your attack did not succeed, we are still here, we still have weapons at our disposal, and we are still in control of them".
On the Soviet side, since they saw any nuclear war as an extension of conventional efforts elsewhere, drawing the nuclear part out would give their conventional forces more time to complete their goals, so they were willing to fight an extended nuclear war as well.
This is all theory, but so is everything else when it comes to nuclear warfighting. It is quite possible that the end result of "The Long War" would be the same as the massive exchange, just in slow motion.
>>29370777
>Troops were trained to parachute into Soviet-occupied western Europe with the SADM and destroy power plants, bridges, and dams.
>Nuclear powered jihadists when?
>>29378474
Sounds unstable, as in "first one to go all out wins" unstable
Something I always kinda wondered,
What if some terrorist cell just grabbed a hundred volunteers, same guys theyd normally grab for suicide bombings, and rolled em around in a big ol pile of ebola blankets during the next outbreak. Put em on planes to wherever they wanna hit.
Im not saying it would be the end of the world, wouldnt have to be, just get even a few hundred people sick and cause a fuckload of panic in the targeted populace.
Think of how expensive the response required to something like that would be? The entire time the media would be shrieking like a raped ape about how the sky is falling, internet would light up with paranoid crazies urging everyone to loot the grocery stores, people flooding hospitals at the first sign of a cough or headache. People would be freaking the fuck out.
I know ebola isnt some super-plague, but most people dont. Just think about the panic an ISIS announcement that there are 2 or 3 infected individuals per state in the US would cause.
People worry about nukes and shit, but forget that just causing pandemonium is a very large part of these groups agenda, not just body counts.
>>29378530
Actually it's the opposite.
The first one to go all out loses.
Outcome 1: You attack their nuclear weapons. Their surviving weapons destroy your economic targets. You lose.
Outcome 2: You attack their economic targets, They attack yours. You both lose.
>>29369871
Because that would push even hardcore SJWs to want to just annihilate ISIS, it would end the restraint and the US would have boots on the ground within days, which would spell the end for ISIS.
>>29378611
Didn't you always say that the targets in a nuke war would be military ones?
>>29378709
These days yes.
>>29378709
And to expound, even back in the late Cold War, the first strikes would be focused on nuclear forces. whatever happens after, you want to have limited your opponent's ability to strike at you.
>>29378611
Correct me if I'm wrong, but It seems to me like people tend to fucus on the possible body counts and mutually assured destruction aspects of nukes and overlook the fact that there are strategic and tactical nukes.
Which is why during the cold war we cranked out so many nuclear arty shells, if the huns came spilling across the steppes the idea wasnt to immediatley nuke moscow, it was to use them to wipe out large infantry concentrations, and for territory denial.
The way most nuclear exchange scenarios would pan out would be limited exchanges where a few dozen tactical warheads were exchanged by both sides in a ground fight.
Russia's goal was to capture enough territory before the threat of a MAD level exchange brought both sides to the bargaining table and in an armstice the soviets would demand they get to keep what they captured.
The NATO nations goal was to encircle them with tactical nukes and contain them so that when the talks came russia wouldnt have captured enough to claim anything of value.
>>29375294
No, but it has a bunch of "targets".
>>29378740
A shame then we're talking modern tactics.
>>29378751
I wish i was smart like you.
>>29378226
With subs, maybe, but the silos would've all been spent or destroyed within an hour.
>>29378751
Wait, given, this, >>29378611, why would you choose to go for the option that makes the other gy win?
>>29378823
Are we?
>>29376993
>The US and Russia were
Isn't "were" past tense?
>>29378200
>both sides intended to blow their loads as quickly as possible, since silos were primary targets and would
And "Intended" and "were" are past tense too.
>>29378226
>Towards the end of the Cold War,
Even my initial statement refers to a specific time frame.
>>29378837
I'm not smart. I just have an area of knowledge. I'm sure you have an area of knowledge.
>>29378846
Possibly. Depends on the circumstances.
>>29378533
Because those people want to die in a blaze of glory for their god, not bleed to death from every pore and orifice.
>>29378890
Victory is not assured. It's not rock paper scissors.
All you can do is give yourself the best chance.
>>29369871
>Why can't poorfag sandniggers living in mud huts replicate technologies that even the largest superpowers are still refining.
Gee, wonder.
>>29378890
Upon re-reading your post, I understand better what you are asking.
The misunderstanding is in the scale of the attacks.
What most people think of as a massive first strike targets a lot of things.
Nuclear weapons, command and control systems, alternate command posts, early warning systems, communications nodes...
These targets numbered into the thousands in the late Cold War and number around a thousand or so today.
When you are talking about a limited nuclear strike, you will still strike your opponent's nuclear forces first, but it will be limited to the weapons themselves.
You don't want to hit the communications and command and control systems, because it is vital that the opponent retain control of his forces. (This is a general rule. In some cases, you might hit isolated communications systems with the goal of disrupting their command and control temporarily.)
The idea is that the enemy sees the limited nature of your attack and is faced with multiple options, each with its own escalatory risks and rewards:
Ride out the attack, and respond later. Least aggressive initially. Can trigger rapid escalation if your following attack is too distant to the initial strike.
Respond in kind. This is the middle road, but might play into his hands. If he has used his land based systems to attack yours, attacking his remaining systems might be difficult and of little utility. Attacking another target may be perceived as escalatory.
Or you can escalate intentionally. This would be an attempt to regain deterrence by displaying a willingness to escalate, and a show of strength.
There are many variations on these three options, but the point is that multiple options exist.
In a massive first strike (weapons, C3, Early Warning) you only have one option, a massive retaliation.
it ain't just nukes that we should be worried about either man.
>>29378846
attempting to destroy the enemy's silos seems like a great reason for them to empty them at you. The entire point of limited nuclear war as a doctrine is to allow for negotiation and a resolution other than "scorched earth motherfucker"
>>29371426
>steal it from a uni
My uni has a research reactor. It has armed guards from the DOE. It's 5 minutes away from 3 different police stations. It is also less than 2 hrs away multiple NG bases which have helicopters, tanks, etc, and we're in the middle of nowhere. Good fucking luck.
>>29375271
Right, a huge 280mm artillery piece is not something you just tote to the battlefield with a Hilux.
There were four atomic cannons the US moved around. It took some slow logistics to setup and maintain those cannons in Western Europe. The Soviets knew they were at just about every moment with satellites and spy ops. Impractical unless you are working in a fog of war post nuke exchange.
>>29379960
The Iowa class battleships carried nuclear artillery after thier retrofit.
Got to finger-fuck one of the decomissioned shells. I know it was only the casing, but it felt cool to lay hands on something that had once been part of a tiny sliver of armegeddon.
>>29378931
Just out of sheer curiosity: what is the tiniest sized nuclear weapon possibly allowed by current physics?
Like lets say, a marble sized ball of fissile matierial surrounded by stupendously well made high explosive lenses?
Could an implosion type device theoretically be the size of a hand grenade? Or maybe, say, placed into the shell of a LAW, or AT-4?
Obviously such a device would be utter suicide to use, and be utterly impractical, Im just curious as to how small we could theoretically make one.
>>29369871
Well if the pol predictons are true, about 4 of these will be going off in different cities soon
I mean they predicted the belgium attacks
>>29377768
See http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21667.0
Of note in the end of the recipe;
>Now, to mark your bomb. This is extremely important. You will need to identify your device according to the internatinal munitions protocol. The first marking will be two black dots near the top of the charge, on the top sphere (use a fine-point black magic marker for this). These dots should be horizontal, about one inch apart. This signifies that it is a class 2 explosive (meaning it’s homemade). Below these dots, place a single third dot. This means it is a class 1 hazardous material (meaning the most dangerous). Then, below this formation line up five dots close together - that will indicate that this is Composition 4.
>>29380330
>he didn't read the thread
The bomb in OP's picture is a mockup.
>>29380330
>/pol/
>being right
Pick one lel
>>29378533
There would be some panic, but infecting people with ebola isn't as flashy and sudden as blowing something up. You also risk the government doing damage control by claiming it was accidentally imported by some individuals instead of a deliberate terrorist attack.
And despite how horrific ebola is, it's less contagious than the common flu. You have to be in direct contact with blood from an ebola patient to get it, and the incubation takes a long time, making it easy to quarantine everyone suspected of having the virus.
>>29379960
To clarify, I wasn't actually saying we'd lob the shells at Russians, I was saying we'd use them as IEDs and literally walk them into cities.
All we need is the bomb, the delivery system is immaterial.
>This whole thread
>>29379960
They had 155mm nuclear rounds too.
>>29381074
>You have to be in direct contact with blood from an ebola patient to get it
Wrong. Any bodily fluid will suffice.
>>29372313
What the fuck are you talking about? The tritium might have decayed, but the HEU or plutonium will decay in an appreciable amount over 25 years.
>>29383508
And that's even assuming a suitcase nuke is tritium boosted.
>>29380032
>all the iowa class ships firing a synchronized full nuclear broadside
hrrrrrrng
>>29379960
you're actually kinda wrong.
was it massive? yes
was it practical? kinda
but it could be set up pretty fast, about the time of a normal howitzer.
from the time it parks, in 20 minutes it can have rounds on target.
and that's in manual mode, it goes faster if they have a support truck with something to help them out, like more guys
besides, if you're using that, stealth is kinda out the window.
>>29375115
It had been conerted from the XW-45 swan and further bubbafied through the addition of a colony of chickens to keep it warm, no joke
>>29378270
When U235 and Pu239 (which doesnt naturally exist in nature and requires a reactor itself to even make, much less isolate and utilize) are the most readily abundant and cheapest sourcea, "other sources" are nowhere NEAR viable.
>>29369871
North Korea can't even make a nuke small enough to fit on a rocket (and can barely make one explode) and you think some stupid mudslimes can manage it?
If Saddam couldn't get nukes and Iran couldn't get nukes, how the fuck do you think Rashim-Al-Allah from Birmingham is going to pull it off?
For a short period of time the Navy SEALs were testing backpack nukes.
>>29387000
>"I can't read the thread" post edition.
>>29369871
Holy shit i'm getting some BF3 vibes here
>TFW Vladimir, Kiril and Dima didn't make it
>>29371318
>tfw fucking with the petrodollar is worse than having nukes
>>29380090
Minimum critical mass is about 8kg of plutonium in an implosion type weapon.
Fission weapons have a distinct minimum yield.
>>29371385
>current pope
>calling a crusade
about as likely as him stopping sucking muslim cock for enough time to get more air.
>>29369925
>using BTFO
You make me cringe
>>29379048
Hey Oppenheimer, I meant to ask you in the last thread you participated in but I was banned at the time for accidentally posting NSFW stuff to /wsg/
Do you personally have any preparations for NBC situations? Gear in your house, a bunker, NBC suit, iodine, geiger counter, anything of that nature? Or do you not worry about it enough to make any preparations for it? (alternately, do you figure you'd be fucked so there's not point in trying?)
Sorry if this derails the thread, I don't mean to
>>29391148
>Do you personally have any preparations for NBC situations?
I have some items specific to radiological concerns, but the reality is that they will likely never be used. My logical brain knows this of course, and most of the time, I know that it is wasted space in my closet. That being said, some part of me will not let me throw them away. Everytime I go to do inventory or rearrange things in my office, I can not bring myself to toss them.
What preparations I have made are in the context of surviving a natural disaster, something I have found myself in the position of having to do unprepared once, and have promised myself to never do again.
>>29391644
What items?
>>29371553
Are you retarded?
>>29371512
This, they've strugle with turks and terrorits in the tarim for years. Every now and then something goes boom there but gets under-reported because
>china
>>29370672
>>29370732
Have you been living under a rock?
Man-portable nuclear bombs have been around for almost 3 fucking decades already.
Educate yourselves:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/25-years-us-special-forces-carried-miniature-nukes-their-backs-180949700/?no-ist
>>29369925
With this current political climate? The UN would send them a strongly worded letter saying "You done bad bubba, UN is displeased" and nothing would change. Besides, for the amount of effort it would take to procure, a mini-nuke actually isn't that cost effective compared to just buying a bunch of conventional bombs and using them to strategically destroy targets.
>>29393489
>Educate yourselves:
Never fucking post again. One of the posts you're quoting is saying a IND would be large and primitive (which unless you're Tom Clancy is the consensus view). The other is showing a picture of one of the very ADMs you demand they "educate" themselves about!
