[lit-ideas] Re: Al Quaeda and Suitcase Nukes
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:11:51 -0800
Well you're right. I read kiloton where it said ton but the paragraph which
follows describes older (1960s) technology providing an explosion in the 3-5
kiloton range. I'm not convinced that the article didn't intended kiloton
when it wrote ton. I'll check further though.
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Judith Evans
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:01 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Al Quaeda and Suitcase Nukes
--- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paul: You missed the references in my note. Both
> Fox News and a site
> associated with Homeland Security refer to suitcase
> bombs as being in the
> 10-20 kiloton range.
I can't see any mention of 10-20 kilotons in the Fox
News piece. It does say this:
"The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a
single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at
maximum density under normal conditions. The Pu-239
weighs 10.5 kg and is 10.1 cm across. It doesn't take
much more than a single critical mass to cause
significant explosions ranging from 10-20 tons"
I haven't a figure for the kiloton yield of the
2-floor-locker size (possible) bombs
Judy Evans, Cardiff
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
