Planted Nuclear Devices

Some of you may recall the story of the alleged Russian submarine off the coast in Sweden. More recently, there seems to be more activity in and around the English channel. I'm not one to join the sensationalism bandwagon, but it got me thinking about Nuclear Delivery systems and how impractical the concept of Nuclear Missiles seem to me in this age. I am by no means a military analyst or an economist so please forgive my naivety on some of these topics but I have a few questions to ask. It seems to me that among the many lessons the West learned from 911; good planning, and cunning delivery can be as devastating as modern technology. That being suggested, why is it that aerial delivery of nuclear bombs tends to remain the dominant part of national defense topics? There is always the occasional discussion of a dirty bomb or biological warfare which is certainly a nasty threat in its own right, but as I understand it, all countries are stuck in a bit of a stalemate. I'm sure those of you that are regulars on this topic know the actual term for it. Its when any or all countries involved can not launch a nuclear missile because the targeted country will fire back leading to it's own demise. Seems simple enough.

Does this mean however that if the element of complete anonymity were added to the equation, that such an act would be more viable? I've seen it suggested that a nuclear device could be fit inside a suitcase, although I think that is more akin to a Middle Eastern approach and would leave too much room for human error/intervention. Instead I was wondering about the possibility of a country like Russia or China for example, coming up with a long term strategy for installing nuclear devices that could be detonated either on timers or via satellite. If such devices could be installed in a number of vital areas I can't imagine it would be difficult to eradicate any functioning version of a country currently in power - America being an obvious example.

I would imagine that in a nuclear blast any type of evidence that could be used to identify its origin would be incinerated, if not in a normal blast than one designed to leave its maker disguised. Finding locations within many major cities would be a simple as buying or renting space and working on the perfect housing. Again, I'm not educated on these matters but would presume that once the devices are detonated, there would be no reaction because no one would know what happened until it was too late. Feasibly, with enough funding, planning and effort, this could be done in more than one country. Some could argue that there would be too much intel for such a plan to manifest, but I believe that could be dealt with relatively easily, especially with a country like China.

So I'm wondering what the pros and cons of this angle of attack would be, and why aerial delivery would even make sense in the 21st century?

Aerial is so Nagasaki there was no o who was it I know a lady who worked for gov and the biggest fear nowadays are suitcase nukes it does a lot of damage cant compare it to a 5ton nuke but it'll send a clear enough message if they are planting suit case nukes around it could be a problem be it the fact of remote detonation which would help cover tracks of detonator...

a reply to: BS_Slayer

Strategic bombing isn't just about delivering nukes. Delivery is just a byproduct of the capability. Strategic bombing still has plenty of uses outside of the nuclear realm.

Basically I mean we don't keep bombers around so they can drop nukes. We keep bombers around, and those bombers are capable of carrying nukes.

It is possible to come up with very small devices, yes. They farted around with it during the Cold War. The U.S. and soviets both had "backpack" nukes. The problem with those is a) it's a one way mission, and there's no denying that to anybody; b) the blast yield is comparative to the size of the device. As an area denial device, it's potentially useful, but it can't level a city.

Typically what you see with suitcase bombs these days is a dirty bomb, not a full blown nuclear device.

As far as being able to tell who the bomb belonged to, you'll need somebody more science-ey than I am. There's probably something to do with isotopes and electrons or something that can be used, but I really have no idea.

a reply to: BS_Slayer

The problem with all nuclear weapons is the need for maintenance. The radiation eventually breaks down the electronics and they need replacing. So not only for you have to take the risk emplacing them, eventually you have to service them.

a reply to: BS_Slayer

There a re a lot of problems with such scenarios. Getting the nukes past the border for one. Fissionable material has its own DNA as it were, every isotope on the planet is identifiable back to the maker. if the Iranians were to use some of their Russian provided fuel rods to secretly enrich enough bomb material, successfully smuggle that into a large city and detonate it, the fallout would point right_back_to_Iran.

Or any fissile material from anywhere. So scratch that.

Why bury the nuke? Underground detonations muffle blast and fallout. Besides, what if some city worker uncovered it while inspecting city pipes? Burying a nuke is out.

If someone were successful enough to get one into a major metropolitan center, seems the top of a skyscraper would be a better choice. Past the border or docks and into the city where it could be effective. There are monitoring and inspection stations on borders and harbor docks that randomly inspect cargo containers, vehicles, whatever.

Sure tons of drugs and migrant workers cross over but tons get caught, too. Maybe one could slip by but if this is a multiple nuclear bomb scenario, the risk again becomes too great that one will be discovered. Next…

A plane could try to pull off a 911 but that again is risky in that cargo holds in planes are also checked and un registered plane are likely to be interdicted. On 9/11 the planes were from the US and not carrying nuclear weapons. Add that to the scenario and it becomes complicated. Again, too risky…

Whats left? Sailing ships into harbors and ports with preloaded bombs or devices aboard is about the only way to secretly encroach and reasonably insure they will not be found out before they are all assembled in ports around a nation.

But even then, weapons fallout signatures will tell where the material originated. Besides, an operation like that could only bomb a few harbors. The silos that contain the retaliatory response are buried deep in the center of a continental land mass called North America.

The perpetrators would only be committing countywide suicide if they tried such thing.

a reply to: BS_Slayer

Not likely to happen or be really easy to achieve.

You mention a suitcase...SOOOOO many other components are necessary to even make one work....its improbable...though not entirely IMPOSSIBLE (not realistic tho)... that anyone could...except perhaps a large org or country.

To amny parts, particulars, components needing to work together absolutely flawlessly.

Still? Not totally impossible...just not a realistic scenario. Maybe in a video game....

If you launch a missile from the other side of the planet, every one will know it is coming and will react.

If you launch from 5 miles off shore, so one will have time to react. The warhead will detonate before the guy at the radar screen can yell, "Incoming."

That is the major threat.

Now if you know you will have a war in the next six months, then setting up devices to take out command and control would be a nice option. Of course, you take the risk of being found out and then all of you plans fail.

There are some interesting scenarios to play out. Blowing up a nuclear power station is one. You can always claim the power station blew itself up and who would know if the power station also created weapons grade material.

P

They have drones they can launch from fleet carriers or hidden bases that could have a nuke attached to it. Pair it with a stealth styled chasis and stealth technology and you have a remote controlled GPS payload delivery system that gives you a monitor and a joystick to get accuracy within 5 meters of the target zone.

They have other methods tho, Like nuclear warheads in cannon fire. of course.

If someone blew up a random nuke. it wouldn't be good for anyone. It might not start nukes flying but defenantly everyone would be retaliating against everyone in such a scenario lol.

Let's hope this never happens.

Good catch BS_Slayer, a star to you.
To build on your idea. Suppose a nation, any nation. In this case we will use Russia, because they have been caught messing around in the strangest places of late, were to pre position weapons. As a prelude to first strike it would certainly give them the advantage. The weapons would not have to be large nuclear warheads. During the first Gulf War, I remember reading about a US weapon called a "flash light". I think it was a small device configured for maximum Electro Magnetic Pulse.
To pre position EMP weapons would be a stroke of genius. In space, near the coast, possibly inside of a harbor. If detonated all at once and in enough places, NATO could be in compete disarray.
Under water weapons couldn't be signaled by radio. But a coordinated signal could be sent using satellite radio and ELF transmission.
Am just paranoid? I hope so.

a reply to: BS_Slayer

Those on this thread who told you that Nuclear Forensics can tell where the material for bomb came from are correct.

But they are not correct that US Military Industrial Complex would not ever use a small nuke.

They indeed would. And they would blame ISIS and they would say terrorists stole the bomb.

Uhhm, private jets?
They go all over the world legally.
Just log a flight path and communicate with the Con of the Airports you traveling to/from.
No problem.
Aaand, say one or several of these jets are turned into drones... The Com's seem legit, but the cargo is not so much.

But I do like the OP's premise of stationing strategic 'sleeper' bombs.....But unless a country already had a plan of attack, putting these devices in places to be potentially found, puts said country in a position of much negative response.

Quick effective attack would be preferable, unless the goal was just chaos, and not overthrow.

In which case, sneaking some medium sized nukes into rental houses randomly across the US and detonating them all at once would be pretty effective at causing random chaos and fear.

Heck, maybe the Russains would use some of the same material they sell the Irainians....then they could say..."look here 'Merica we have found your culprets"

Always good to have a patsy

X

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BS_Slayer

The problem with all nuclear weapons is the need for maintenance. The radiation eventually breaks down the electronics and they need replacing.

There's not a lot of radiation involved with quality devices. But a real issue is that boost designs, and most modern nukes are, have to have their boost gas replaced regularly. The tritium decays to He3, which is a reaction poison. The initiator has the same problem. Most weapon maintenance involves swapping out the initiator and boost gas cartridges, and checking for vacuum leaks.

We're working on zero-maintenance nukes, though. And crappier designs can get by without boost or technically nice initiators. But the yields are lower.

a reply to: Bedlam

I remember a very quiet report years ago that said that if the US had to use their tactical weapons, as many as 70% wouldn't detonate at full yield, and some of those wouldn't go critical at all.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

You only want a couple of kT and you don't care much about wasting fissiles, a small crappy nuke takes a fairly well equipped machine shop and someone willing to take one for the team. And some fissile material.

You can make a bottom feeder without all the technical stuff. It's godawfully inefficient and it's more emissive than a good design, so you wouldn't want to be around it long. But it would work, if you were halfway competent.

There are locked steel cargo shipping containers setting in every city. Those things are big enough to hold the largest bombs, no?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Every shot's a crapshoot. You design to make successful detonation more likely.

There's a good chance that the US is full of Soviet nukes. We don't have tight borders. In fact, there are a lot if scenarios where you sail up main rivers near target (the Potomac) and pop a water burst near the target. A radioactive wall of water roars up the river and contaminates the area beyond recovery. The end.

originally posted by: BS_Slayer
That being suggested, why is it that aerial delivery of nuclear bombs tends to remain the dominant part of national defense topics?

Reliability, access to target, and command and control. Owner of weapons maintains possession until last possible moment. The weapon will be checked out and known to be in top shape. An ICBM can put something on target anywhere in the planet. Obviously an accurate ICBM is very high technology (more difficult than the warhead), and so there must be significant reasons they were highly desired by the military. (They work and they're virtually undefendable)

Once you have ICBM's and SLBM's and air-launched cruise missiles, what else do you need? So if you have actual military scenarios, and not terrorist scenarios, that's what you want.

Otherwise, how reliable is the remote detonation? Could it be jammed? Discovered? What if it goes off accidentally in the middle of productive peace talks? How do you retrieve it?

And what would it accomplish in a military or deterrence scenario? It is just a weapon of mass provocation, like Hitler bombing London.

Does this mean however that if the element of complete anonymity were added to the equation, that such an act would be more viable?

Yes, but not for states, as they have too much to lose.

I would imagine that in a nuclear blast any type of evidence that could be used to identify its origin would be incinerated, if not in a normal blast than one designed to leave its maker disguised.

So, if the USSR planted and used 20 weapons, they'd have to take the risk that the USA wouldn't order retaliation with its SLBM's and bombers, with the USSR saying "who, me? wasn't us!!" How well would that work on a president with 10 million casualties and 250 million extremely angry constituents?

Finding locations within many major cities would be a simple as buying or renting space and working on the perfect housing. Again, I'm not educated on these matters but would presume that once the devices are detonated, there would be no reaction because no one would know what happened until it was too late.

There is some way to track back to manufacturing plant technologies with isotopic analysis.

Feasibly, with enough funding, planning and effort, this could be done in more than one country. Some could argue that there would be too much intel for such a plan to manifest, but I believe that could be dealt with relatively easily, especially with a country like China.

So I'm wondering what the pros and cons of this angle of attack would be, and why aerial delivery would even make sense in the 21st century?

The con: for any legitimate state, the threat of retaliation and devastation, or, at minimum global economic deprivation. What's in it for them?

The pro: only for terrorists with sociopathic bloodlust. Don't let them get nukes. But they probably wouldn't be able to get 50, maybe just 1 or 2, and that would only serve to enrage the population in the target. The terrorists wouldn't have the discipline to hold off for 15 years to make many more after they made one.

Not that I want this to happen, but is it possible suitcase nukes can be placed in say for example those lockers you can rent at railway stations, bus terminals etc. They can be stored there for decades and no one would notice. And I doubt regular security officers have the equipment to detect for radiation leaks etc

a reply to: BS_Slayer

I would bet my money on the likelihood of either an EMP attack or "ANOTHER" false flag incident. In either case there would be no tracing the isotopes back to their origin. They either couldn't, or wouldn't do it. Who would be blamed for a medium range missile fired from a cargo ship in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico to an altitude of 100 or 200 miles centered over, say, Oklahoma City and detonated? How many countries are there that begrudge the United States that have medium range missiles capable of pulling off an EMP? I would venture to guess at least a dozen or so. Just for the sake of discussion, If a nuclear false flag took place, who would instantaneously be blamed and start the war drums beating again? Iran, Russia, China or maybe even North Korea. Which one?

Yep, I'll bet my money on one of these 2 scenarios. Too much to go wrong trying to smuggle a nuke into the US and setting it off.