[Master Blaster]

I have read alot about the KGB making backpack nukes, and of course the story that they are missing some of them.

Why make a back pack nuke?

Well what is it a nuclear device that looks like two suitcases, and can be easily assembled and activated by the person carrying it. Its big enough to take out a whole city like NYC or Washington DC.

They are not designed to be dropped on a battle field, or fired out of a gun, or dropped from a plane.

It seems to me the purpose is to act as a deterent to a preemptive strike, or to be used as a tool of retaliation after a strike has been completed, or to take out the government of an enemy when it looks like a nuclear attack will be launched.


So Where would you Keep one??? Not in the Kremlin not much good there, Not at the General's house in his coat closet in Moscow.

My thought is that they would be transported to the enemies country many years before thier planned or unplanned use.

So imagine a Russian Gentleman in Washington DC who has one in his closet, at a private home, an infiltrator unknown to the US Govt. That would be the only logical use for this type of weapon.

So where are the Missing backpack nukes, and are they really missing, or just deployed in the most effective manner????

[Chris Rhines]

AFAIK, 'backpack nukes' were intended to be used by SF types to blow up really hard targets, like dams, suspension bridges, and railroad tunnels.

As to whether any are missing/deployed, the scenario you describe is unlikely in the extreme. No nuclear power would allow control over a nuclear weapon to rest in the hands of one person. As to whether any have been stolen, well, who knows?

- Chris

[Master Blaster]

AFAIK, 'backpack nukes' were intended to be used by SF types to blow up really hard targets, like dams, suspension bridges, and railroad tunnels.

Possible, so you would sneak this in after the war started or before? Sabateurs always try to sneak in undetected.

You are right the government uses two people to activate a minuteman missile silo, or the launch contols of a Nuclear Boomer (balistic missile sub) which in the event of an attack would be completely cut off from communication with Washington.

[buzz_knox]

Chris has it right as to the use. Special Atomic Demolition Munitions were designed for deployment by special operations troops to destroy enemy infrastructure that might be too difficult to take out by air (blowing dams and bridges via airstrikes can be difficult). Political considerations and improved strike capabilities have pretty much eliminated the need for them. And there's no way any were ever supplied to infiltrators for use in a first strike capacity. Spies and sleepers get popped, after all. Imagine a raid on a spy's house and you turn up a baby nuke. Oy vey!

As for when they'd be deployed, remember that the purpose is to eliminate items that are too hard to take out via airstrikes but must be eliminated. In a scenario involving a Russian invasion of Europe (which I think you're getting at), conventional saboteurs or airstrikes can do enough damage to infrastructure to tie up a Western response without the repercussions a nuke would involve. The SADMs would be used only later in a conflict, when you had to take out a dam, bridge, or other feature in the fact of active and aggressive defenses.

[Master Blaster]

Just curious do we regularly search the Russian embassy???

[buzz_knox]

I don't think we search the embassy at all, given that it is sovereign Russian soil. But I bet there is a radiological sensor or two in place near or below it (sewers make nice surveillance areas). And diplomatic couriers/pouches probably get "sniffed" once or twice. If we were to pick up anything like that, every agent we had on the inside would be squeezed beyond belief.

[Spark]

The thing to keep in mind is that a "backpack" or "suitcase" nuke is a tactical, not a strategic munition. It's not big enough to take out New York, or Atlanta, or even Louisville Kentucky. They are large enough, however, to destroy damn, rail yards, or other essential targets that might be well defended from conventional avenues of attack.

One of my squad leaders was a 12E (atomic demolitions) before they got phased out - he had some suprising stories to tell. And was a bit mental, but that's another story... :D

Kevin

[Justin]

Tinfoil hat on.

I did a bit of googling one idle afternoon a few months ago, and apparently a couple of years ago, supposedly reliable information surfaced that the Russians had indeed smuggled weapons caches into the United States in the event of WWIII or whatever.
The real kicker is that there were supposedly 7 secret caches in the US, and no one knows where they're at.

Anyway, some of this stuff makes for interesting reading. More info here:
http://www.cipherwar.com/news/00/russian_terrorism.htm

I think that Popular Mechanics also did an article on it, and supposedly the thing that really brought it all to light was a book written by a guy named Vasili Mitrokhin.

Whether or not any of this is true, I can't say, I haven't read the book.

[Master Blaster]

My dobuts about the utility of these as tactical Seel type weapons:

1. If a conventional war started and they snuck one into the US or Europe, and then detonated it wouldnt that start the Nuclear war, since we would be forced to retaliate (MAD Mutually assured destruction? doctrine) on behalf of our NATO allies or ourselves?

2. If a Nuclear war started there would be no need to use one of these.

They could use it against a lesser non Nuclear power like who?
One of their own republics?

It seems to me the best use for one of these is a preemptive strike at the nerve center of US or a european country.

:what:

[Hkmp5sd]

You have to remember that we didn't always have smart bombs and guided missiles that can be aimed at a specific window in a specific building to blow it up.

In WWII they would send hundreds of bombers over the target and hope that some of them would hit the target. Some of the more important targets were raided on missions using over 1000 bombers. In addition to great collateral damage, there were large losses among the bombers on the raids.

With the development of nuclear weapons, there arose the possibility of a small force sneaking into an enemy area and destroying the target with more precision than carpet bombing an entire city.

Now that we have nuclear tipped cruise missiles that can be launched from naval vessels and strike virtually anywhere in the world, I think there are very few if any reasons to maintain SADMs.

[buzz_knox]

It's SEAL, not "Seel".