North Korea threatening to turn D.C. into a sea of fire.

[TerranceQuestion]

Well, Ive got nothing. Good research Mike!

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

North Korea will keep shouting the boy who cried woof ........!

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

Sorry your argument seems to be not possible since the battery's are flat, or hard to fire one without getting caught in the blast.

Not withstanding new batteries and a timer are obvious solutions, the fact remains that it is possible to construct a small portable Nuke.

The NK's even make mention of this in the article



Granted this is in reference to missile payloads, none the less it is possible to build a small light portable nuke, and the NK's have hinted that they are building lighter smaller devices......

The original claim that there is


Is wrong, they are a reality

Appreciate your point of view.

I never said it isn't possible, or that portable nukes weren't created, or that they still exist. My contention revolves around the hyperbole around supposed suitcase nukes. That's it.

The W54 is nothing secret, was a real weapon, weighed 163 pounds and, in fact, posed a serious danger to those actually using it. The batteries in question are not your average Duracell. I'm not trying to patronize you, I'm very sure you're aware of that. Could a new battery be created? Of course, but stop right there. Going from the reality that it would be possible to create one, to understanding it's very specific, very precise requirements, how to manufacturer it, etc, etc is a HUGE leap.

So, for the sake of pleasant discussion we'll just eliminate those hurdles ; take an entirely different approach. Someone builds thier own portable device. By portable, I'm suggesting something we could fit in a small truck. Who could do something like that? Who could handle the the maintenance requirements, the technical hurdles, the reality of yield(s), the technological requirements for manufacturing (the highly specialized tools, the tooling, the expertise to do know how to do it, the fissile material refined to appropriate level, etc, etc, etc)? Certainly not the DPRK. Their technology is about where we were the middle of last century. Possibly even all the way back to our first successful test. Remember, it's widely believed this, the third test, was the first successful test. There were certainly explosions in the other two, but of such a small yield as to bring into question whether they (DPRK) achiened an atomic explosion.

It's easy to hand-wave away the massive hurdles that must be cleared to get from there (desire for a "suitcase" nuke), to here (actually having a working device of any size). The idea that the DPRK has the technology to build such a device isn't grounded in reality. I'm not trying to personally attack you or insult you; it just isn't the case. The DPRK claims a lot of things. Because they claim to working towards miniaturization (I don't doubt them), doesn't mean they have the capability to do so. It's also worth noting they are specifically referring to making their warheads small enough to fit on a ballistic missile.

So, I'm back at my original point. "Suitcase" nukes never were. Unless, you count a 163 pound device as suitcase portable. I've carried quite a few ruck sacks in my time in the Army and a 163 lbs ruck isn't very portable. Were, and are there, portable devices? Of course. They come in the form of cruise missiles, bombs, even artillery shells.

I'm in no way dismissing the threat of a portable device being used against us. Truly. It's a real threat. However, I think the discussion is best when grounded in not quite so much rumor and innuendo.

 

[Randall]

Religious whackos or political whackos ... what diff does it make when they start playing with nukes? Only a totally insane maniac would seriously threaten other countries with nukes if they don't lift sanctions and comply with their demands. If we give in now what's next? On the flip side, I don't speak Korean so I've got no personal knowledge of what was actually said or if they even actually have the bomb. For all I know it's more propaganda designed to foster sympathy for another lousy war. When the balance of power is dependent on weaponry it's not uncommon to permit independent observers in who can confirm it's actually real. I've seen no report from any such observer ... just a lot of posturing and rhetoric.

 

[mike]

Appreciate your point of view.

I never said it isn't possible, or that portable nukes weren't created, or that they still exist. My contention revolves around the hyperbole around supposed suitcase nukes. That's it.

The W54 is nothing secret, was a real weapon, weighed 163 pounds and, in fact, posed a serious danger to those actually using it. The batteries in question are not your average Duracell. I'm not trying to patronize you, I'm very sure you're aware of that. Could a new battery be created? Of course, but stop right there. Going from the reality that it would be possible to create one, to understanding it's very specific, very precise requirements, how to manufacturer it, etc, etc is a HUGE leap.

So, for the sake of pleasant discussion we'll just eliminate those hurdles ; take an entirely different approach. Someone builds thier own portable device. By portable, I'm suggesting something we could fit in a small truck. Who could do something like that? Who could handle the the maintenance requirements, the technical hurdles, the reality of yield(s), the technological requirements for manufacturing (the highly specialized tools, the tooling, the expertise to do know how to do it, the fissile material refined to appropriate level, etc, etc, etc)? Certainly not the DPRK. Their technology is about where we were the middle of last century. Possibly even all the way back to our first successful test. Remember, it's widely believed this, the third test, was the first successful test. There were certainly explosions in the other two, but of such a small yield as to bring into question whether they (DPRK) achiened an atomic explosion.

It's easy to hand-wave away the massive hurdles that must be cleared to get from there (desire for a "suitcase" nuke), to here (actually having a working device of any size). The idea that the DPRK has the technology to build such a device isn't grounded in reality. I'm not trying to personally attack you or insult you; it just isn't the case. The DPRK claims a lot of things. Because they claim to working towards miniaturization (I don't doubt them), doesn't mean they have the capability to do so. It's also worth noting they are specifically referring to making their warheads small enough to fit on a ballistic missile.

So, I'm back at my original point. "Suitcase" nukes never were. Unless, you count a 163 pound device as suitcase portable. I've carried quite a few ruck sacks in my time in the Army and a 163 lbs ruck isn't very portable. Were, and are there, portable devices? Of course. They come in the form of cruise missiles, bombs, even artillery shells.

I'm in no way dismissing the threat of a portable device being used against us. Truly. It's a real threat. However, I think the discussion is best when grounded in not quite so much rumor and innuendo.

We can quibble over the term suitcase but the fact remains these devices are reality not rumour.
I can prove they exist, the onus is on you now to prove your claim they are just rumour

It's worth mentioning there is very little reality with "suitcase" nukes. These rumors have been floating around for some time.

vs

The Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was a family of man-portable nuclear weapons fielded by the US military in the 1960s, but never used in actual combat. The US Army planned to use the weapons in Europe in the event of a Soviet invasion. US Army Engineers would use the weapon to irradiate, destroy, and deny key routes of communication through limited terrain such as the Fulda Gap. Troops were trained to parachute into Soviet occupied western Europe with the SADM and destroy power plants, bridges, and dams.
The project, which involved a small nuclear weapon, was designed to allow one person to parachute from any type of aircraft carrying the weapon package and place it in a harbor or other strategic location that could be accessed from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first to provide support as needed

These are described like a suitcase is, as "man portable" though as one link suggests steamer trunk is perhaps a better description



As for the technical skills needed, they are according the director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government "modest"

If a rogue actor - a state like Iran, Iraq, Libya or Cuba, or a terrorist group like Hamas or Japan's Aum Shinrikyo - obtained as little as 30 pounds of highly-enriched uranium, or less than half that weight in plutonium, they could produce a nuclear device in a matter of a month or two with design information that is publicly available, equipment that can be readily purchased in the commercial market and modest levels of technical competence found in graduates of any respectable engineering program.

Russia's Loose Nukes a Serious Threat to US - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

This year, or next year, or the year after, when we find ourselves victims of a nuclear terrorist incident, how will we account for our behavior if we don't act urgently now? In the face of this frightening new reality, we must act - before the morning after.
NOTES: Allison, director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, is co-author of a study released in March, 'Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy: Containing the Threat of Loose Russian Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material."

For more information about this publication please contact the Belfer Center at 617-495-1400.
For Academic Citation:
Allison, Graham T. "Russia's Loose Nukes a Serious Threat to US." The Houston Chronicle, April 1, 1996.

Rumor and innuendo, Or frightening new reality ?

The director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government seems to think its the latter

 

[RobDel]

Religious whackos or political whackos ... what diff does it make when they start playing with nukes? Only a totally insane maniac would seriously threaten other countries with nukes if they don't lift sanctions and comply with their demands. If we give in now what's next? On the flip side, I don't speak Korean so I've got no personal knowledge of what was actually said or if they even actually have the bomb. For all I know it's more propaganda designed to foster sympathy for another lousy war. When the balance of power is dependent on weaponry it's not uncommon to permit independent observers in who can confirm it's actually real. I've seen no report from any such observer ... just a lot of posturing and rhetoric.

Get ready to laugh. According to this Propaganda, we (the US) are being shown kindness by North Korea. I don't even think this footage is from the US. Where can I get some of that North Korean Government Coffee and Cake!

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Remember doing a some research on the Nuclear Suit Case and methods used to transport such objects first of all the makers of device ? Also more concerned with the growing arms race in Asia which is history repeating folks.
BBC News - Is nationalism on the rise in Japan?

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

Literally, almost all of what I said agrees with your point(s) True, it's not technical magic to create an atomic weapon. The concepts are in print in any library in the U.S. However, producing a working weapon isn't as easy as your alluding to. The very subject of this thread - the DPRK - only took 25 years and three attempts before they got it right. There's an even larger hurdle going from a functional weapon to a miniaturized "suitcase" nuke. The mythology of widespread "suitcase" nukes comes from the W54; a completely real, portable atomic weapon. Just like I said above.

A nice summation:Experts close the lid on 'suitcase nukes' - USATODAY.com

Read this one in its entirety: Suitcase nukes closer to fiction than reality It dispels the very myths I've been talking about. Money shot: an improvised device, using the knowledge and skill you mention in your post would be the size of an SUV. Not in a SUV, the size of one. The article touches on the maintenance I mention and how quickly the fissile material, in a theoretical "suitcase" nuke, would be rendered useless. The answer is very, very quickly. Just as I said. To repeat, I'm not suggesting portable nukes didn't or might not still exist. I think the threat is overblown for the reasons I have listed, several times now.

That's it. That's my only point. That is, people spend a lot of time discussing "suitcase" nukes. Very little of it based in reality. The threat from portable (depending on how you define that) is overblown, in my opinion.

You can disagree. I've said I appreciate your point of view & I do.

 

[nameless]

Its really good that the people in this thread/forum are taking interest in this and have an opinion when most of the people around me in "solid space" dont give two shizs.
Whats interesting to note about all of this North Korea stuff is just that, all the stuff around it leading up to a possible event. What we have here is an exercise in control of social consciousness through social media, meme propagation, political manipulation and a whole host of other modern bs. Some of this is conscious ie. done on purpose with intent, whilst some of it is just the spinning of cultural efficacies such as the easy comedy target that is the crazy North Koreans.

In order for a political concern to gain a mandate its effective to have public backing. Attempts at controlling social consciousness in this regard has been amateurish as we have seen previously in the iraq war with the clumsy attempts of the Bush Bliar administration in convincing us that the Iraqis and Osama were in cahoots.

The last two proper border incursions served as a future warning after years of messing around;

• March 26, 2010: A South Korean naval vessel, the ROKS Cheonan, was allegedly sunk by a North Korean torpedo near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. A rescue operation recovered 58 survivors but 46 sailors were killed. On May 20, 2010, a South Korean led international investigation group concluded that the sinking of the warship was in fact the result of a North Korean torpedo attack. North Korea denied involvement. The United Nations Security Council made a Presidential Statement condemning the attack but without identifying the attacker.
• November 23, 2010: North Korea fired artillery at South Korea's Greater Yeonpyeong island in the Yellow Sea and South Korea returned fire. Two South Korean marines and two South Korean civilians were killed, six were seriously wounded, and ten were treated for minor injuries. Approximately seventy South Korean houses were destroyed. North Korean casualties were unknown, but Lee Hong-gi, the Director of Operations of the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), claimed that as a result of the South Korean retaliation "there may be a considerable number of North Korean casualties".

During this time there was a lot of press coverage and political outcry but a lack of public concern. Thats where the media pantomime comes in with a whole series of attempts at supporting and helping people give a fig about South Korea and demonising the bad guys North Korea. This is where the fun begins in meme control and propaganda.

 

[Shimmer]

Yep, the suitcases. It doesn't help that there are LOADS of them missing...

also, Hi again.

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

Yep, the suitcases. It doesn't help that there are LOADS of them missing...

also, Hi again.

Hey there! If you care to, read this article: it specifically deals with that claim. Suitcase nukes closer to fiction than reality

It's important to add the widely disseminated picture of a supposed suitcase nuke, was actually a mock up created by Curt Weldon (R-Pennsylvania). Nobody, anywhere, has ever found a real one.

Again, I'm not claiming someone couldn't (or possibly has!) stolen enough fissle material to create our worst nightmare.

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

Here's Mr. Weldon with mock-up and what some claim is an actual man-portable nuke. Nobody has ever been able to prove the pictured "device" is real.

 

[mike]

Here's Mr. Weldon with mock-up and what some claim is an actual man-portable nuke. Nobody has ever been able to prove the pictured "device" is real.

Not quite correct, the best we could say is nobody has been able to prove the device "pictured" is real

We know these devices are real, wether thats a picture of one is debatable, not their actual existance

The Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was a family of man-portable nuclear weapons fielded by the US military in the 1960s, but never used in actual combat. The US Army planned to use the weapons in Europe in the event of a Soviet invasion. US Army Engineers would use the weapon to irradiate, destroy, and deny key routes of communication through limited terrain such as the Fulda Gap. Troops were trained to parachute into Soviet occupied western Europe with the SADM and destroy power plants, bridges, and dams.
The project, which involved a small nuclear weapon, was designed to allow one person to parachute from any type of aircraft carrying the weapon package and place it in a harbor or other strategic location that could be accessed from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first to provide support as needed

Man-portable nuclear weapons are real

And that article contradicts itself

In a FEMA guide on terrorist disasters that is posted in part on the White House's website, the agency warns that terrorists' use of a nuclear weapon would "probably be limited to a single smaller 'suitcase' weapon."

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Get ready to laugh. According to this Propaganda, we (the US) are being shown kindness by North Korea. I don't even think this footage is from the US. Where can I get some of that North Korean Government Coffee and Cake!

Ah yes. Living in Indiana as I am, we always look forward to the seasonal snow harvest to make our coffee. This time of year is a time of rich harvested snow.

On a side note, do we know when that little video was made?

 

[Jeff Crowell]

So, I've perused this thread and didn't see the answer to a few questions I had. I could have missed them, though, and if so I apologize. It was my impression that NK didn't have the technology in ICBM's to get a nuke to CA, much less DC. Am I wrong there? Suite-case bombs aside (which appear to be the main topic of this thread), is it known at all if NK can even get a missile to our boarders without it falling into the Pacific?

J.

 

[mike]

Just Where Can North Korea's Missiles Hit?

 

[Jeff Crowell]

Thanks Mike. Based on the second, smaller, and more accurate map in the lower part of the article, it still seems like the south east, and yes, DC, are safe. The article also makes a comment that they only have 5 to 7, still enough to cause serious damage....but not wipe out the US. Saber rattling.

 

[SlightlyAbovePar]

Mike, maybe his approach will work better: can you quote (from any of the many instances provided) my text where I agree man portable devices are, in fact, real? Can you quote where I discuss the W54, which was, in fact, a man-portable nuclear device?

Could you quote from any of the numerous instances where I specifically agree portable nukes were/are real, but that I feel the threat is vastly overblown due to technical limitations?

If you're willing to do that, could you help me out and let me know where you think you and I don't agree?

I've read your quoted text about the special munition every time you've posted it.

 

[mike]

No worries Jeff

Nuc proliferation is a complex issue to be sure.

One would like to think that with great power comes great responsibility.
That the desire to wipe out your enemy, suddenly becomes real and thus less attractive with an ability to do so.

MAD seems to have worked in some situations Pakistan and India for example, its simply unthinkable that they would go down that path, there is simply nothing to win
As the computer in war games said the only way to win, is not to play the game.

NK has been really silly here, we know they have been working with Iran

Does Iran already have The Bomb with North Korea’s help? One expert raises a disturbing question. « vineoflife.net

Is Korea Making Nuclear Weapons for Iran? | Asylum Watch

If Iran were to smuggle in a device that went off with a NK signature, it could spark a cascade effect that drags china then russia into a major shit storm, while Iran sits back eating popcorn.

A friend of mine once had a crazy neigbour who threatened to poison his dog, his response was "You better hope no one else does it, because now that you've made the threat, you will be the first person i track down and kill"

In a world where lots of these weapons exist, its pretty stupid of NK to be making threats like this.

Trying to protest their innocence after the fact, may be an impossible thing to do

 

[mike]

Mike, maybe his approach will work better: can you quote (from any of the many instances provided) my text where I agree man portable devices are, in fact, real? Can you quote where I discuss the W54, which was, in fact, a man-portable nuclear device?

Could you quote from any of the numerous instances where I specifically agree portable nukes were/are real, but that I feel the threat is vastly overblown due to technical limitations?

If you're willing to do that, could you help me out and let me know where you think you and I don't agree?

I've read your quoted text about the special munition every time you've posted it.

Its pretty straight forward, i think man portable nukes aka "suitcases" nukes are real

You seem to think they are not

You seem to want to insist that Suitcase nukes (are) closer to fiction than reality

Notwithstanding portable devices aka "suitcase" nukes are a reality not fiction the article itself references a white house website that acknowledges the existance of "suitcase" nukes

In a FEMA guide on terrorist disasters that is posted in part on the White House's website, the agency warns that terrorists' use of a nuclear weapon would "probably be limited to a single smaller 'suitcase' weapon."

Its one or the other. Suitcase nukes, fiction or reality ?
Your stated view is

It's worth mentioning there is very little reality with "suitcase" nukes. These rumors have been floating around for some time.

Fema and the Whitehouse say otherwise

If you are more comfortable with the notion they are fiction, fine.
We can agree to disagree

Suitcase nukes, or atomic demolition devices (ADMs), are actually small nuclear bombs. Both the Soviets and the US had such devices during the "Cold War." They were to be carried by Special Operations Forces who would be parachuted ahead/behind main force units using the ADMs to destroy large bridges, collapse mountain passes, or destroy entire major headquarters.

These ADMs can be no larger than a king size suitcase. Some were designed for a large backpack. They were considered tactical nukes, and authority for usage could have been released to the Soviet "Front" commander or the US Theater Commander-in-Chief.

Suitcase Nuke