Re: go interceptors!

From: Technotranscendence (
Date: Mon Jul 16 2001 - 16:04:59 MDT

On Monday, July 16, 2001 10:16 AM wrote:
> Its easier to send an ICBM on its course 35 minutes around the world then
> is having someone in place ( constantly) to set-off a suitcase nuke-which
> invariably has Less Killing Potential, then a Mirved Nuke. Even if the
> warheads are loaded with gene-spliced anthrax, that alone, might guarantee
> greater killing capacity then a suitcase nuke, simply because one may
> at several separated locations, rather then punishing New York City, or
> Washington, DC.

True -- and North Korea, Iran, etc. are all developing long range missile

I imagine, too, smuggling a nuke in and trying to place it takes time and
can be thwarted along several lines. None of these are, of course, full
proof. But also the suitcase nuke gives the chance of someone else stealing
it. Imagine the scenario where A decides to infiltrate B with one, just to
have one in place for future use, and C intercepts it then uses it for its
purposes, whether to attack A or B or D, etc. I.e., it's harder to control
a suit case nuke.

> Typically, the suitcase nukes have a detonation yield, of some 1-5
> which is smaller then the Hiroshima strike of 20 kilotons and the Nagasaki
> stike of 12 kiloton yields. The "Davy Crocket" level backback nukes,
> developed in 1956 were designed to detonate at 1/2 kiloton-1kiloton level
> explosions. These were the "landmine" nukes that would be used to
eliminate a
> Soviet on-slaught through the Fulda Gap in Germany.

Understood. I'd hear about the technology and was aware it was intended for
European Theater operations. I imagine Atomic Annie -- that artillery
launched nuke -- was made for the same reason.


Daniel Ust
    See "The Many Births of Free Verse" at:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:49 MDT