The 3BV3 shell is a 152mm howitzer shell. So, the diameter is known and the length should be no more than 900mm. The weight is likely comparable to the US W48 Mod 0 shell, which weighs 54kg but has only a yield of 70 tons TNT equivalent. Thats with the steel casing. Remove the casing and all these metrics drops considerably. The yield of the 3BV3 is 1kt, though. It would absolutely be possible to strip that warhead down and stuff it in a large backpack, its gonna be less than 152mm in diameter and probably 500-600mm long and well below 40Kg. If they wanted a portable warhead like that, they could have done it. In comparison, the more sophisticated US equivalent would have been the W82 155mm shell with a yield of 2kt and thanks to a titanium casing only 43Kg on the scale with a length of 860mm - which included a rocket assisted range increaser. But it was never put in service due to no real demand for it. If you can live with only 1-2kt yield, these shell type nukes handily beat many of the nuclear demolition charges in portability.
The w54 is a backpack nuclear weapon. It weighed 58.5 lbs and later dev made it 79 lbs beleaved to be a boosted weapon. When tested the yield was 22 tons tnt and 18 tons tnt.
Hi Andy, love your content. However at 21:40 narrator clearly states, that SADM weight is 58 _pounds_, not kg, so about 26kg, making it easily transportable in a backpack, especially considering its very compact dimensions.
26 kg is usually the weight of a fully packed large size suitcase… Note that the weight allowance travelling economy class on most airlines is 23 kg. Possible? Yes. Easy? Hell no.
@@tonamg53 a 25kg backpack isnt unusual for camping hikers or the military and there are examples of warheads he completely missed, like the US W48 and its never fielded successor W82 - both 155mm shells, the latter weighing only 43kg with a rocket assisted range increaser in a titanium shell. Now, remove all that stuff you need for it to be an artillery shell and you're suddenly very small and light with a 2kt yield. The soviet equivalent is a 152mm shell with a steel shell, no range extender and only half the yield, but I guarantee you the nuclear guts would fit handily in a large camping backpack and it wont break your back.
Fun fact… the blue Danube atomic mine needed to be kept warm when buried …. As it was 🇬🇧 British engineering they decided to keep the electronics toasty warm with a flock of chickens 🐓
Finally a video with coments section open. I am ukrainian living in Europe and I am gobsmacked by the ignorance of people in the comments about eastern europe. Looks like the dominant population of the commenters are cold war era grown folk and serial MSM users. Guys Russia is the same country as every other with its bad sides and good sides. The difference for us in the west is that every fault of the "enemy" is put under magnifying glass, and our own faults are hidden away from daylight. West is portrayed in Russia in the same way as Russia is portrayed in the West. This mutual hate is not good. Before you badmouth a country, go see it and then make your own conclusions. As someone who lived in post soviet UA, visited Russia, and living in Europe, I can say that there are no good or bad countries/nations. Especially if you speak to ordenary people that all want to just get along. Some proper toxic comments on this channel.
P.s. Nuclear "dwells" located across crucial approaches over the boarder of Warszaw Pact/NATO states, a myth for the long time, yet later confirmed, is definitely worth examination. Been in touch with former CSLA (Czechoslovakian Peoples Army) officers as well as historians, and indeed - this stuff was built on both sides of the fence, supposedly with NATO unofficial confirmation of the similar project existing on the West.
Backpack or suitcase nuclear weapons are a myth. To be specific, nuclear bombs are different from dirty radiological bomb. A dirty backpack bomb might b e feasible, but it is not immediately lethal other than it's explosive charge, so not used. I'm not an expert on nuclear weapons, but they are quite complicated to make and deploy. In this kind of bomb, the weight of the pit plutonium core, tamper, shaped explosives, nuclear trigger and so on is a lot of weight. Much more than a human can carry on his back (maxium 50 kilograms). Even a large suitcase might be a carry maximum of 80 kilograms. The low yield Trinity test bomb from 1945 has obviously been more miniaturised with time. Low yeild nuclear weapons of a few kilotons were still used as tactical nuclear weapons on artillery shells, fired several tens of kilometres. Even if concealed, nuclear weapons are highly radioactive (because of the plutonium core) and can be easily detected by geiger counters. High yeild chemical military explosive are restricted, but is more easily deployable as it is found in many and plentiful conventional explosive warheads.
US Navy Seals train with carrying a backpack nuke. They've never said the weight and obviously nobody will say the yield. It is carried by ONE MAN specifically to increase the odds of it being optimally placed, as any use of it will probably be in end-of-world actions behind enemy lines. This information has been in several interviews and books from 30+ years ago before US Special Forces practically went straight into social media after discharge lol. Can't be mad at 'em, lord knows the government won't take care of the men.
Nicely done. I listened to Art Bell many nights while driving and heard all these suitcase nuke stories. It's refreshing to see some actual facts about the size of small nuclear bombs.
@@AndyMcloone IMO- Feltons output is sensationalist wehraboo clickbait and your stuff is much better researched. So i reckon you easily passed it already on the quality level...:)
I wouldn't go so far as to say Felton's content is clickbait and I do like it but this channel's content is on a higher level i.m.o., less output but it's far more deeply researched.
As someone who used to be involved a bit with the physical security of certain US strategic systems (though I'm not any sort of expert), I appreciate the attention to detail in your presentation. Cheers!
So the suitcase nuke story came from Frederick Forsyth, and the “Russian rebel taking over nuke facility” story came from Crimson Tide. Next thing we’re gonna hear is that Jason Bourne is real.
Man you really have a great channel here, i cant believe you havent gotten more subscribers. Im sure it wont take too long, one of these videos will kick off big time. Ive watched quite a few of your videos and am relatively impressed with the format, information, and your easy to listen to voice. I subscribered and am looking forward to watching more of your videos
To be fair the congressman said several times "according to a report"... he wasnt pulling up a tik tok video and insisting its true. most people know to take anything out of russia with a huge grain of salt and it sounds like he was making a valid point about unsecured weapons after the collapse of the ussr
Very interesting! I'd heard about these Soviet suitcase nukes but never gave them much thought. The way I remember the story (where I heard it I don't remember anymore) was that the Soviets only made a dozen or so suitcase nukes and hid some of them in various locations in Europe and possibly elsewhere. And then after the collapse of the Soviet Union all these nukes were quietly moved back to Russia and then destroyed or put in storage. Except one that wen't missing in Switzerland, but that one was eventually recovered by some western intelligence agency in the late 90s or early 00s. Cool story, but I always found it a bit skeptical.
I mean, if you can fit a nuke in a Davey Crockett, that fits the definition. What I can't imagine is being the guy that has to fire one of them! I mean like "whoops! The propellant didn't work - the darned shell only landed a hundred feet away!" There's a great video here somewhere that describes how PALs (permissive action links) were developed, and thank goodness they were - they saved our bacon in s number of "broken arrow" events. "Always/never: the quest for safety and control... Sandia Labs"
Thank you for your videos. A suggestion is to read non English subtitles as when views on a phone are small and if not at phone and listening or have glasses handtb, you can't follow what has been said
Yesterday I watched "The Peacemaker" with George Clooney & Nicole Kidman on Netflix, haven't watched this for quite a while, watched it back in the 90s as well, nice movie. I always thought something like this might be possible, though not necessarily like shown in the movie. In theory, with modern miniaturized technology, I do believe a small tactical nuke could be kinda possible, but that would still limit it's destructive potential, of course. Not sure if the whole concept has any real strategic value, but, yes, terrorists usualy don't care, it's more about spreading fear, less the destruction.
Glad to see someone address this. I know a lot about Soviet tactical weapons and even more about current-ish U.S systems but I cant go into details; suffice to say you're absolutly correct SADM are closer to the size of a 55 gallon oil drum than a suitcase
I remember hearing this story about the bombs planted in NATO countries many decades ago. It certainly sounded real then. There were other items stored with suitcase. There was a special radio to converse with the USSR, weapons, and perhaps money.
Another outstanding presentation! My knowledge and experience in the subject of Cold War era nuclear weapons, had led me to believe that the so-called "Backpack or Suitcase" Soviet nuclear weapons were simply folly. Your presentation just re-affirmed my conclusions. Thanks Andy. 👍
The critical mass of plutonium 239 is just north of 10kg, so you want more than that for a proper bomb. Add in control systems, casing and an exploder and the weight will increase considerably. A strong person could manage 30kg in a backpack, for a short distance. Put it in a suitcase on wheels and it's manageable by any ablebodied adult. Small women take this away with them all the time. I've worked airports and had scales available (the only thing stopping them is overweight charges). If you swap out plutonium for Californium the weight decreases - but Californium is not something that you make nuclear weapons from, It's fiddly and its half life is so restrictive that it's effectively unstorable as a weapon. But as a special, one off, for immediate use? Maybehaps. It has been considered for tiny, tactical, nukes 'nuclear bullets' - nobody appears to have made them.
Brilliant video Andy. Those russian aircraft become really unreliable as soon as a political opponent of Putin gets on board. Who do they get to fly these people around?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” - H. L. Menchen
I had heard there were a lot of nuclre generators that were small enough some Russian lumberjacks carted off the core for heat, which of coarse killed all but one I think. So there may have not been a formal one there are plenty of ways they can make a dirty bomb that will devastate from a pack or carry-on. Though drones can't do high yield a swam could spread as bad as a large yeild scenario. But remember, I am a storyteller at heart so,,,,,
I dont think myths being interesting is why these stories exist. It is simply that they are indeed plausible. In grade school, when I first learned of nuclear weapons my first thought that putting a small nuclear weapon in a backpack would not only be possible but make sense - I hever heard of one, it just made sense scientifically. What better way to deliver a nuclear weapon than to have it already nearby the target so there is no warning of any kind. If a child could think it possible then why couldn't a "nuclear nation" actually build them. I would tell my colleagues in the Air Force in the 1980's that I thought that one day a nuclear backpack would be smuggled inside the World Trade Center (inside job) buried in a wall that had never a need to be opened, then a handler would have access to smash the wall open and set off the bomb when directed. They thought it was impossible. Then 9-11 happened decades later. I cought up with a couple of them and thought I was right afterall. So nuclear backpacks MUST exist, if only for a contingency alone. My fear is that now with the Biden administration letting illegal migrants across the board in a "wholesale" fashion, how many Russian or Chinese operatives have already smuggled in a nuclear backpack or two already. I dont worry about it, but liberals are weak on such matters, conservatives are better at dealing with such things and would not condone an open border just to build up liberal votes across the US (and to flood Texas with liberal voters).
That sutcase bomb is completely possible. If it was filled with antimatter, completely possible. If we filled that bomb with replicating nanites, even better.
Great video Andy! Just a point on interest about PALs, on the Sandia National Laboratory channel they talk about PAL's and why they came about (3 parts). They also talk about in the US, the warhead (physics package) is a civilian asset and the delivery is a military asset. This means there is an interface and then the system only becomes one on joining the two halves. The first PAL was designed to be set from the military delivery part of the system. This was fine until someone later realised that if anyone, with a battery could short circuit the contacts on the physics package and detonate the bomb. A rapid redesign was implemented. ruclips.net/video/sb2qo5m_hTY/видео.html 18:30
The 10 year thing is due to tritium decay in fission weapons. The fission core still works. There are issues with decay and radiation itself hitting atoms leading to transmutation into non-fissile material, and plain old oxidation. But a low yield detonation due to contaminants is still serious.
I guess another Problem with Suitcase/Backpack/Troley/Cargobike Nukes that they would lack Radiation Shielding (because Weight Limits) thus being detectable (and also dangerous for the Operators).
I've easily came home from work biking with around 40kilos on my back for 9.6 miles one way in Portland oregon.. I get cut offs of various metals to machine for home projects
Am I understanding incorrectly that a PAL wouldn't make a stolen weapon completely useless? The fissile materials aren't rendered inert by a PAL, right? A nefarious actor might conceivably extract the spicy materials for use in another device, yeah?
Cook's bomb fails because the gun type design doesn't work with plutonium. A small amount of plutonium can be made supercritical, but it requires implosion. Putting the same mass into a gun-type bomb would produce only a clanging noise, or at worst, a nuclear fizzle, if the bomb was large enough. Gun-type designs work with Uranium, but require ~10x more fissile material to produce a supercriticality, and are therefore not man-portable .... in WWII, they were BARELY portable by plane, and only one plane in active service was capable of doing so for long distance!
Well in theory if these devices actually exists, noone will find them in any military deposit. Not that its hidden, the isotopes required for such a compact device have relatively short half life, so there wouldn be a point to use them in the military. Most likely it would be made out of an odd odd proton and neutron numbered isotope, which are completely artificial and highly radioactive. Combine that with a strong enough n source with a cold ignition, and make the pit shaped and not the charge itself, maybe with a little bit of deuterium or lithium filled levitated design to boost, yeah, I think it could be done, although it would be horribly expensive, the user would get radiation sickness, and it could be utilized in max a year timeframe.Good news is it wouldnt be that contaminating, and it would require a huge state with a shtton of particle accelerators to make the material for it, but in theory, yeah it can be done. Well of xourse noone knows the yield, mabe they could boost it up to a kiloton, but thats a relatively small bang for a lots of bucks.
So a little bit of information, to be red carded and quality to be a wild land fire fighter in the us you have to be able to carry 85lbs over a mile in a specific time. So everyone in green pants yellow shirt you see on the news fighting forest fires on the news is able to do this. So moving a 120 pounds of device from car to car isn't that difficult
Ich schreibe mal auf Deutsch weiter, Englisch macht mein Hirn gerade nicht. Also, es gibt eine Zerfallswahrscheinlichkeit bzw Rate. Die kann man ja nachschlagen. Dann braucht man noch irgendwas, was angibt, wieviele Neutronen produziert werden und wieviele man produzieren muss, da Physik ja immer gerne noisy ist - gerade auf dem Quantenlevel. Heißt, wenn ein Neutron irgendwo landet, wo es keine weiteren Neutronen raushaut, endet der Teil der Zerfallskette. Jetzt könnte man die Wahrscheinlichkeit berechnen, dass das Neutron auf "normales" Uran trifft bzw auf radioaktives. Daraus kann man dann kombinieren, wieviel radioaktives Uran man überhaupt braucht (prozentual). Ich habe mal was von 99% gelesen. Nun gut, dann haben wir also eine 99% Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass das erste Neutron eine Kettenreaktion auslösen kann. Das alleine scheint aber nicht zu reichen. Wenn jemand eine bessere Idee hat, um die kritische Masse zu berechnen aus der Zerfallsrate von U-235 oder U-233 - gerne her damit. Habe leider in Kernphysik gepennt -.-
When Stalin heard Oppenheimer say he has become death I bet he was furious like no no no god damn it I’m death destroyer of Soviet Union I’m death god damn it not this sad boy who can’t handle a "test" bomb 😂😂
You make jokes about the Cook Report, but there was something about the intro music that just felt right. It goes with buying plutonium like bass guitar to porn. I think you're wrong.
Of course the backpack nukes are bs, but the demon core and other plutonium cores could easily fit into a backpack and I figure the explosives and electronics could be made small enough to fit in a big pack. It would be heavy. Iirc they made nuke warheads for artillery and even a rocket launcher type thing. I think both sides after sobering up from their nuke drunken spell putting nukes in everything decided it is best not to have a nuke in every type of weapon.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
"freak helicopter crash" 😂
Great video, thanks 👍
yeah... odd....
The 3BV3 shell is a 152mm howitzer shell. So, the diameter is known and the length should be no more than 900mm. The weight is likely comparable to the US W48 Mod 0 shell, which weighs 54kg but has only a yield of 70 tons TNT equivalent. Thats with the steel casing. Remove the casing and all these metrics drops considerably. The yield of the 3BV3 is 1kt, though.
It would absolutely be possible to strip that warhead down and stuff it in a large backpack, its gonna be less than 152mm in diameter and probably 500-600mm long and well below 40Kg. If they wanted a portable warhead like that, they could have done it.
In comparison, the more sophisticated US equivalent would have been the W82 155mm shell with a yield of 2kt and thanks to a titanium casing only 43Kg on the scale with a length of 860mm - which included a rocket assisted range increaser. But it was never put in service due to no real demand for it.
If you can live with only 1-2kt yield, these shell type nukes handily beat many of the nuclear demolition charges in portability.
Jumped on here to bring up the same point small enough to put in a mini !.......😮
The explosive yield is not as deadly as the prompt ionizing radiation
They also would be a lot easier to hotwire as they are activated by the acceleration and rotation with a simple safety pin to remove.😮
Jesus. That's an ominous testimony. Imagine using one of those on a target like a nuclear power plant. IMAGINE.. getting one.. inside 💀
The w54 is a backpack nuclear weapon. It weighed 58.5 lbs and later dev made it 79 lbs beleaved to be a boosted weapon. When tested the yield was 22 tons tnt and 18 tons tnt.
“Freak” helicopter crash lol let’s ask Prigozhin how he feels about “freak” accidents in flight
Dude down the street supposedly has 14 of them
Perhaps they keep the House warm by the nuclear Energy of the Slow fission process.
Yeah but since he glows in the dark, I'm not too sure about the shielding
I haven’t gone in a day so when I go to the bathroom we’re down to 13
Can I borrow one?
There’s always that one guy that has you have only better.
Hi Andy, love your content. However at 21:40 narrator clearly states, that SADM weight is 58 _pounds_, not kg, so about 26kg, making it easily transportable in a backpack, especially considering its very compact dimensions.
26 kg is usually the weight of a fully packed large size suitcase… Note that the weight allowance travelling economy class on most airlines is 23 kg.
Possible? Yes.
Easy? Hell no.
@@tonamg53 a 25kg backpack isnt unusual for camping hikers or the military and there are examples of warheads he completely missed, like the US W48 and its never fielded successor W82 - both 155mm shells, the latter weighing only 43kg with a rocket assisted range increaser in a titanium shell. Now, remove all that stuff you need for it to be an artillery shell and you're suddenly very small and light with a 2kt yield. The soviet equivalent is a 152mm shell with a steel shell, no range extender and only half the yield, but I guarantee you the nuclear guts would fit handily in a large camping backpack and it wont break your back.
I mean, Kuznetsov hid 80 rocket engines away for 30 years... couple suitcases? 🤣
Fun fact… the blue Danube atomic mine needed to be kept warm when buried …. As it was 🇬🇧 British engineering they decided to keep the electronics toasty warm with a flock of chickens 🐓
Indeed, bizarre but true.
I heard the designation "Blue Danube" years ago. It was the name of the first production UK nuclear weapon, meant to be dropped from the V-Bombers.
Love your nuclear episodes. Thankyou for sharing and hello from Newcastle Australia
Newy for the win!
Small world, I was born in Maitland and grew up in the hunter
Fucking love Newy
Finally a video with coments section open. I am ukrainian living in Europe and I am gobsmacked by the ignorance of people in the comments about eastern europe. Looks like the dominant population of the commenters are cold war era grown folk and serial MSM users. Guys Russia is the same country as every other with its bad sides and good sides. The difference for us in the west is that every fault of the "enemy" is put under magnifying glass, and our own faults are hidden away from daylight. West is portrayed in Russia in the same way as Russia is portrayed in the West. This mutual hate is not good. Before you badmouth a country, go see it and then make your own conclusions. As someone who lived in post soviet UA, visited Russia, and living in Europe, I can say that there are no good or bad countries/nations. Especially if you speak to ordenary people that all want to just get along. Some proper toxic comments on this channel.
P.s. Nuclear "dwells" located across crucial approaches over the boarder of Warszaw Pact/NATO states, a myth for the long time, yet later confirmed, is definitely worth examination. Been in touch with former CSLA (Czechoslovakian Peoples Army) officers as well as historians, and indeed - this stuff was built on both sides of the fence, supposedly with NATO unofficial confirmation of the similar project existing on the West.
Backpack or suitcase nuclear weapons are a myth. To be specific, nuclear bombs are different from dirty radiological bomb. A dirty backpack bomb might b e feasible, but it is not immediately lethal other than it's explosive charge, so not used. I'm not an expert on nuclear weapons, but they are quite complicated to make and deploy. In this kind of bomb, the weight of the pit plutonium core, tamper, shaped explosives, nuclear trigger and so on is a lot of weight. Much more than a human can carry on his back (maxium 50 kilograms). Even a large suitcase might be a carry maximum of 80 kilograms. The low yield Trinity test bomb from 1945 has obviously been more miniaturised with time. Low yeild nuclear weapons of a few kilotons were still used as tactical nuclear weapons on artillery shells, fired several tens of kilometres. Even if concealed, nuclear weapons are highly radioactive (because of the plutonium core) and can be easily detected by geiger counters. High yeild chemical military explosive are restricted, but is more easily deployable as it is found in many and plentiful conventional explosive warheads.
US Navy Seals train with carrying a backpack nuke. They've never said the weight and obviously nobody will say the yield. It is carried by ONE MAN specifically to increase the odds of it being optimally placed, as any use of it will probably be in end-of-world actions behind enemy lines. This information has been in several interviews and books from 30+ years ago before US Special Forces practically went straight into social media after discharge lol. Can't be mad at 'em, lord knows the government won't take care of the men.
Nicely done. I listened to Art Bell many nights while driving and heard all these suitcase nuke stories. It's refreshing to see some actual facts about the size of small nuclear bombs.
When they were talking about using nukes to demo the Chunnel… you have to ask: “wouldn’t a normal bomb do the trick in that situation??” 😅
Lots of Putin's opponents seem to die in "freak accidents", odd that
the same goes for the Clintons, worse in fact lol
@@MisterHolaMan Lets not forget the late Dr David Kelly
Your channel has the capacity of reaching to the level of Dr. Mark Felton. Keep up with your cold war stuff, it's extremely interesting.
Thanks
@@AndyMcloone IMO- Feltons output is sensationalist wehraboo clickbait and your stuff is much better researched. So i reckon you easily passed it already on the quality level...:)
I wouldn't go so far as to say Felton's content is clickbait and I do like it but this channel's content is on a higher level i.m.o., less output but it's far more deeply researched.
Excellent and informative as usual, thanks!
Love your Cold War content, keep it coming 👏👏👏
As someone who used to be involved a bit with the physical security of certain US strategic systems (though I'm not any sort of expert), I appreciate the attention to detail in your presentation. Cheers!
So the suitcase nuke story came from Frederick Forsyth, and the “Russian rebel taking over nuke facility” story came from Crimson Tide. Next thing we’re gonna hear is that Jason Bourne is real.
Interesting doc and well researched . Cheers that man
The math is fascinating, once you get into the heavier isotopes the size comes right down but the use by date is shorter.
Love these videos, Andy. Keep them coming, buddy.
Man you really have a great channel here, i cant believe you havent gotten more subscribers. Im sure it wont take too long, one of these videos will kick off big time. Ive watched quite a few of your videos and am relatively impressed with the format, information, and your easy to listen to voice. I subscribered and am looking forward to watching more of your videos
Welcome back! Great episode. Looking forward to many more in '24!
Thanks!
To be fair the congressman said several times "according to a report"... he wasnt pulling up a tik tok video and insisting its true. most people know to take anything out of russia with a huge grain of salt and it sounds like he was making a valid point about unsecured weapons after the collapse of the ussr
Very interesting!
I'd heard about these Soviet suitcase nukes but never gave them much thought. The way I remember the story (where I heard it I don't remember anymore) was that the Soviets only made a dozen or so suitcase nukes and hid some of them in various locations in Europe and possibly elsewhere. And then after the collapse of the Soviet Union all these nukes were quietly moved back to Russia and then destroyed or put in storage. Except one that wen't missing in Switzerland, but that one was eventually recovered by some western intelligence agency in the late 90s or early 00s.
Cool story, but I always found it a bit skeptical.
I mean, if you can fit a nuke in a Davey Crockett, that fits the definition. What I can't imagine is being the guy that has to fire one of them! I mean like "whoops! The propellant didn't work - the darned shell only landed a hundred feet away!"
There's a great video here somewhere that describes how PALs (permissive action links) were developed, and thank goodness they were - they saved our bacon in s number of "broken arrow" events.
"Always/never: the quest for safety and control...
Sandia Labs"
Thank you for your videos. A suggestion is to read non English subtitles as when views on a phone are small and if not at phone and listening or have glasses handtb, you can't follow what has been said
Thanks.Good point! I will try and incorporate this idea into future content
You really hit the sweet spot with interesting videos!
Yesterday I watched "The Peacemaker" with George Clooney & Nicole Kidman on Netflix, haven't watched this for quite a while, watched it back in the 90s as well, nice movie.
I always thought something like this might be possible, though not necessarily like shown in the movie.
In theory, with modern miniaturized technology, I do believe a small tactical nuke could be kinda possible, but that would still limit it's destructive potential, of course.
Not sure if the whole concept has any real strategic value, but, yes, terrorists usualy don't care, it's more about spreading fear, less the destruction.
Glad to see someone address this. I know a lot about Soviet tactical weapons and even more about current-ish U.S systems but I cant go into details; suffice to say you're absolutly correct
SADM are closer to the size of a 55 gallon oil drum than a suitcase
I remember hearing this story about the bombs planted in NATO countries many decades ago. It certainly sounded real then. There were other items stored with suitcase. There was a special radio to converse with the USSR, weapons, and perhaps money.
Excellent video. Impeccable, research, and great exposition
Another great episode.👏👏 Really enjoyed it. Thx.
Very nice this. Thanks!
Another outstanding presentation! My knowledge and experience in the subject of Cold War era nuclear weapons, had led me to believe that the so-called "Backpack or Suitcase" Soviet nuclear weapons were simply folly. Your presentation just re-affirmed my conclusions. Thanks Andy. 👍
The critical mass of plutonium 239 is just north of 10kg, so you want more than that for a proper bomb. Add in control systems, casing and an exploder and the weight will increase considerably.
A strong person could manage 30kg in a backpack, for a short distance. Put it in a suitcase on wheels and it's manageable by any ablebodied adult. Small women take this away with them all the time. I've worked airports and had scales available (the only thing stopping them is overweight charges).
If you swap out plutonium for Californium the weight decreases - but Californium is not something that you make nuclear weapons from, It's fiddly and its half life is so restrictive that it's effectively unstorable as a weapon. But as a special, one off, for immediate use? Maybehaps.
It has been considered for tiny, tactical, nukes 'nuclear bullets' - nobody appears to have made them.
That W-54 device at 22:50 looks like a darned kitchen timer!
What a 4D chess Lebed was playing! It took me some time to understand why he was undermining the very resort he was in charge of.
Thanks Andy for another banger vid.
Thanks
Very interesting and informative video. Im subbing
Another fantastic piece. Thank you!
Great video - thank you. A much needed dose of common sense and logic.
Wouldn't keeping a nuclear weapon in your suitcase ruin your duty free alcohol.
Just asking on behalf of a mate whose booking his holidays soon.
Great video and detail. Your point about the quality control needed is often overlooked. A nuclear weapon is 10% physics and 90% quality control.
Well made doc. Thanx
Excellent Andy, love your cold war stuff...❤
From what I recall "backpack bomb" just rolls off the tongue better than "trunk bomb" which is more of what it was
Thank you for this very interesting video.
Another absolute banger from Andy
Let's not forget the broken arrows that had safeties all fail besides one.
Brilliant video Andy.
Those russian aircraft become really unreliable as soon as a political opponent of Putin gets on board.
Who do they get to fly these people around?
😆
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” - H. L. Menchen
I had heard there were a lot of nuclre generators that were small enough some Russian lumberjacks carted off the core for heat, which of coarse killed all but one I think. So there may have not been a formal one there are plenty of ways they can make a dirty bomb that will devastate from a pack or carry-on. Though drones can't do high yield a swam could spread as bad as a large yeild scenario. But remember, I am a storyteller at heart so,,,,,
We 🇺🇸 👈🏼 have two missing SADM IN OUR INVENTORY.
They lost them in the 80s I believe.
wholeheartedly agree with your closing statement on occam's razor
Interesting to hear the UK didn't elect to implement the launch security measures...
Great video!
Nice video.
Putin doesn't want you to know this, but the suitcase nukes are free. You can just walk down to Rostov-on-don and take them. I have 41 suitcase nukes.
I dont think myths being interesting is why these stories exist. It is simply that they are indeed plausible. In grade school, when I first learned of nuclear weapons my first thought that putting a small nuclear weapon in a backpack would not only be possible but make sense - I hever heard of one, it just made sense scientifically. What better way to deliver a nuclear weapon than to have it already nearby the target so there is no warning of any kind. If a child could think it possible then why couldn't a "nuclear nation" actually build them.
I would tell my colleagues in the Air Force in the 1980's that I thought that one day a nuclear backpack would be smuggled inside the World Trade Center (inside job) buried in a wall that had never a need to be opened, then a handler would have access to smash the wall open and set off the bomb when directed. They thought it was impossible. Then 9-11 happened decades later. I cought up with a couple of them and thought I was right afterall.
So nuclear backpacks MUST exist, if only for a contingency alone. My fear is that now with the Biden administration letting illegal migrants across the board in a "wholesale" fashion, how many Russian or Chinese operatives have already smuggled in a nuclear backpack or two already. I dont worry about it, but liberals are weak on such matters, conservatives are better at dealing with such things and would not condone an open border just to build up liberal votes across the US (and to flood Texas with liberal voters).
Anyone else notice the similarity between the chap holding the 'suitcase' nuke at 4.00 and Mark Drakeford? 😂
How convenient. 100. A nice number. Just happens to be a hundred.
That sutcase bomb is completely possible. If it was filled with antimatter, completely possible. If we filled that bomb with replicating nanites, even better.
Add Naquada for increased Yield😂
Great video Andy!
Just a point on interest about PALs, on the Sandia National Laboratory channel they talk about PAL's and why they came about (3 parts). They also talk about in the US, the warhead (physics package) is a civilian asset and the delivery is a military asset. This means there is an interface and then the system only becomes one on joining the two halves.
The first PAL was designed to be set from the military delivery part of the system. This was fine until someone later realised that if anyone, with a battery could short circuit the contacts on the physics package and detonate the bomb. A rapid redesign was implemented. ruclips.net/video/sb2qo5m_hTY/видео.html 18:30
I just saw that scrawny Arnold picture, googled his height and had a giggle session. I thought he was
. Taller.
I am not a weapons expert but don't the cores of these weapons have to be remanufactured every 5 to 10 years because of atomic
Decay?
The 10 year thing is due to tritium decay in fission weapons. The fission core still works.
There are issues with decay and radiation itself hitting atoms leading to transmutation into non-fissile material, and plain old oxidation. But a low yield detonation due to contaminants is still serious.
given the state of things and the lack of nuclear detonations, i think it's pretty busted
I guess another Problem with Suitcase/Backpack/Troley/Cargobike Nukes that they would lack Radiation Shielding (because Weight Limits) thus being detectable (and also dangerous for the Operators).
Surely one would have gone off by now no?
Probably would have had to, Plutonium decays over the Years.
I've easily came home from work biking with around 40kilos on my back for 9.6 miles one way in Portland oregon.. I get cut offs of various metals to machine for home projects
Am I understanding incorrectly that a PAL wouldn't make a stolen weapon completely useless? The fissile materials aren't rendered inert by a PAL, right? A nefarious actor might conceivably extract the spicy materials for use in another device, yeah?
Cook's bomb fails because the gun type design doesn't work with plutonium. A small amount of plutonium can be made supercritical, but it requires implosion. Putting the same mass into a gun-type bomb would produce only a clanging noise, or at worst, a nuclear fizzle, if the bomb was large enough. Gun-type designs work with Uranium, but require ~10x more fissile material to produce a supercriticality, and are therefore not man-portable .... in WWII, they were BARELY portable by plane, and only one plane in active service was capable of doing so for long distance!
Well in theory if these devices actually exists, noone will find them in any military deposit. Not that its hidden, the isotopes required for such a compact device have relatively short half life, so there wouldn be a point to use them in the military. Most likely it would be made out of an odd odd proton and neutron numbered isotope, which are completely artificial and highly radioactive. Combine that with a strong enough n source with a cold ignition, and make the pit shaped and not the charge itself, maybe with a little bit of deuterium or lithium filled levitated design to boost, yeah, I think it could be done, although it would be horribly expensive, the user would get radiation sickness, and it could be utilized in max a year timeframe.Good news is it wouldnt be that contaminating, and it would require a huge state with a shtton of particle accelerators to make the material for it, but in theory, yeah it can be done. Well of xourse noone knows the yield, mabe they could boost it up to a kiloton, but thats a relatively small bang for a lots of bucks.
There is another story that I heard when I was active duty 1987-89 about US special Forces backpack nuclear weapons deployed in Europe
When Congressmen start talking about foreign policy I cringe. Mr. Fallon should know better but of course he doesn’t.
So a little bit of information, to be red carded and quality to be a wild land fire fighter in the us you have to be able to carry 85lbs over a mile in a specific time. So everyone in green pants yellow shirt you see on the news fighting forest fires on the news is able to do this. So moving a 120 pounds of device from car to car isn't that difficult
38:32 i love 80s music 🎶
Did somebody calculate the critical mass for uranium? That alone should give a scale on what the smallest theoretical bomb could be.
Ich schreibe mal auf Deutsch weiter, Englisch macht mein Hirn gerade nicht. Also, es gibt eine Zerfallswahrscheinlichkeit bzw Rate. Die kann man ja nachschlagen. Dann braucht man noch irgendwas, was angibt, wieviele Neutronen produziert werden und wieviele man produzieren muss, da Physik ja immer gerne noisy ist - gerade auf dem Quantenlevel. Heißt, wenn ein Neutron irgendwo landet, wo es keine weiteren Neutronen raushaut, endet der Teil der Zerfallskette. Jetzt könnte man die Wahrscheinlichkeit berechnen, dass das Neutron auf "normales" Uran trifft bzw auf radioaktives. Daraus kann man dann kombinieren, wieviel radioaktives Uran man überhaupt braucht (prozentual). Ich habe mal was von 99% gelesen. Nun gut, dann haben wir also eine 99% Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass das erste Neutron eine Kettenreaktion auslösen kann. Das alleine scheint aber nicht zu reichen.
Wenn jemand eine bessere Idee hat, um die kritische Masse zu berechnen aus der Zerfallsrate von U-235 oder U-233 - gerne her damit. Habe leider in Kernphysik gepennt -.-
new andy mcloone vid lets goooooooooooooooo!
War is peace, peace is war.
What the hell is a kilogram? Asking for America! 😊
I've never even heard about backpack nukes
When Stalin heard Oppenheimer say he has become death I bet he was furious like no no no god damn it I’m death destroyer of Soviet Union I’m death god damn it not this sad boy who can’t handle a "test" bomb 😂😂
You make jokes about the Cook Report, but there was something about the intro music that just felt right. It goes with buying plutonium like bass guitar to porn. I think you're wrong.
You should be able to carry in excess of 100ibs comfortably being averagely fit, though it may look out of sorts.
I have one, got it on eBay.
Do not turn above 27 hours... lol why what happens hehe
nuculear weapons make me sick
Couldn't Lookinglass launch many of the nukes all by itself via wireless? That always sounded kinda crazy to me.
where did you source the information on the soviet 55TM PAL switch/encoder? I found zero information on it during a quick search.
Of course the backpack nukes are bs, but the demon core and other plutonium cores could easily fit into a backpack and I figure the explosives and electronics could be made small enough to fit in a big pack. It would be heavy. Iirc they made nuke warheads for artillery and even a rocket launcher type thing. I think both sides after sobering up from their nuke drunken spell putting nukes in everything decided it is best not to have a nuke in every type of weapon.
The video's title could be nuclear tipped IED's.
Thanks for the video. P.S.Your voice reminds me that of Tyson Fury.🫣
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54