nuclear bomb?

Question

I've just seen The Peace Maker by George Cloney, it was terrifying to see a man was able to carry a nuclear bomb in his pack bag walking in busy streets of new york.

My question is it possible to carry a nuclear bomb in a pack bag? I see some images of a small plotunium core having a capacity of more than a kilotons of nuclear explosion.

If it is possible the it will be very scary, as you have known we have so many nuclear crisis now. Iranian nuclear enrichment program, the crisis of pakistan if let un check the terrorist may able to control some of thier nuclear facilities and never ending chesnya crisis.

It is very scary ended it will happen in the future the catasthropic nuclear explosion in a populated cities. That will be the end of us

Answer 1

This is nothing new, during the Cold War, billions of dollars were poured into researching the best nuclear device that could fit in a suitcase.

Answer 2

There is a high probability that nuclear weapons will be used somewhere within the next 25 years. The likelihood increases due to proliferation of knowledge, material, and technology. There could be up to twenty more nations capable of building nuclear weapons within a decade. There are no adequate safeguards to prevent nuclear proliferation; North Korea and Iran demonstrate the vacillations and irresolution's of all existing nuclear powers confronted by this danger, and every intelligence service in the world has failed beforehand to detect nuclear weapons development projects.

Nonetheless, small nukes have existed for 50 years; both the US and Soviets developed cannons to deliver warheads in calibers 105, 150, and 208 mm. Naval torpedoes can carry nukes. The stockpile of shells is an unknown figure, but combined it is likely to be hundreds of warheads, at least. US nuke experts have said publicly the smallest nuke could be about 5" in diameter, about 24" long, and weigh about 95 pound (warhead, trigger, shield, and casing,) Not really walking around bombs, but easily disguised--if obtained.

The key is to get about 4 kilos of enriched ("weapons grade") uranium or plutonium.That is not easy, and hasn't been done, yet.

Even the "Dirty bomb" is more a psychological than destructive weapon; the radiation danger from a release of 8-10 pounds of plutonium in a major city has been calculated as about 27 deaths after 20 years or more. From past aerial tests of nuclear weapons about 5,000 tons of plutonium residue has been released.

We've lived with the spector of nuclear aramageddon for 60 years, and we've probably escaped the danger of a wholesale exchange of nuclear arsenals (mutual assured destruction). Nukes are frightful, abut so is much else in the world.

Answer 3

In the 1960's the United States developed an atomic bomb that was meant to be launched from a recoilless file. The warhead was 16" long and 11" in diameter and weighed about 50 pounds with a variable yeild of .01 kt. It has been almost 40 yearls since it was devloped, it would be a safe assumption that as new technology as developed smaller devices have been made or at least are possible.

A US Department of Energy report suggests that minimum weight for fissionable material is only 1 - 4 kg. Both the DoE and the DoD have also produced reports concerning "micro-nukes" that can be fitted to bunker buster bombs.

Answer 4

There's good news and bad news to the answer of your question. The bad part is that yes, there are tactical nuclear devices that are man portable. They would probably be in the <1kt-2kt variety and depending on placement, could cause major damage and loss of life. As a comparison, the bombs used against Japan were in the 17-20kt range. The good news is that you can build a bomb of this size unless you've learned how to miniaturize the components, which India, Pakistan and N Korea certainly have not. There was some distress a number of years ago that several 'backpack' bombs were missing from the Soviet inventory but they were either found, found to be inert, or were re-captured.

Answer 5

Yes it would be possible to someone with the technology but would be Very expensive. A more likely scenario would be a so called 'dirty bomb' a device using some radio active material that is scattered by a normal plastic explosive.
Best to remember that the people with the most dangerous & deadly nuclear weapons are Americans ! But of course they won't use them will they?

Answer 6

This is a pretty popular concept, but the suitcase nuke is most likely not in existence. The USSR toyed with the idea, but could not get any yield from a device that size. The US might have something like this, but if they do it's a black project. That, and it would be too heavy to be truly man portable. It is completely conceivable to have a device that would be easily concealed in a van or shipping container, or even a big crate. Ship it with a GPS activated trigger and it's goodnight nurse.

Answer 7

the simplest low-yeild nuclear devices can be the size of a backpack yes...all they need is something shaped like a mortar cannon to fire a block of uranium or plutonium into another block the same size and have some sort of device that showers the implosion with neutrons at the instant of impact...but it would be very bulky and heavy...and the container would be too small to contain the radiation, the levels would be detectable from across the street. unless it was all contained in a mass of graphite or lead.

Answer 8

Nuclear weapons could be carried in a backpack when handled with care. Anyway, what you witnessed is only on the movies.

Answer 9

A backpack, is not a correct term. It is a suitcase nuke. A rather large suitcase at that.
It can take out a city block, and spread radiation for miles depending on the wind.

Answer 10

Very possible. Not light obviously. But this would be more in the realm of a "dirty" bomb. The initial blast would be bad, but the "fallout" would be the big worry...