Stolen USSR suitcase nuke used on 9.11??

Before september the 11th 2001. I saw a program on Discovery Channel that then the USSR collapsed 10 suitecase nukes went then missing from a KGB storage facility around 1992. Then suitecase nukes were never found again....

What would have had the worst impact had one of these been used in Washington or New Yor? And what if it had been done by radical Russian Nationalists insteed of terrorists from the Midle East?
 
Well, such a suitcase nuke would have a yield of around one kiloton so it'll wipe out a few blocks, killing about as much as in the attacks on the World Trade Centre though this depends on where it goes off since not every place has the same population density. Due to butterflies, alt 9/11 might well be in LA or whatever. LA has a lower population density than Manhattan.

effects of nuclear blasts, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions#Summary_of_the_effects

According to this, urban areas would be leveled in a radius of 200 metres (about 625 feet). Destruction of most civilin buildings in a radius 600 metres (almost 1900 feet) and moderate damage in a radius of 1.7 kilometres (little over a mile). This, however, is assuming the height of the burst is 200 metres. If the terrorists explode it on street level, damage will be reduced substantially, but let's assume they get into a skyscraper.

Then there's the question of whether to attack Washington or NY. An NY attack will do the US economy no good, but Washington is the capital and perhaps more symbolic than Wall Street being ruined or something.

As for political consequences. I don't see Russian nationalists doing this, they'd want to bomb Chechnya with it and not cause a nuclear war in which both are destroyed. Remember that each bomb comes from a bomb factory and each factory makes them differently. The US can tell from isotopes they find after they attack where it came from. If it's from Al Qaeda which I find more plausible, expect Bush to pull out all the stops when he invades Afghanistan. In Taliban and Al Qaeda strongpoints I expect them to use a healthy number of bunker busters and tactical nuclear weapons and a much larger troop deployment. In the meantime, the US would 'coerce' Pakistan to let US forces cross the border to hunt Taliban fighters and to find Bin Laden. Bush would probably also demand that something is done about by Pakistan itself against radical elements.

Maybe we wouldn't see an Iraq invasion if America is so heavily committed in Afghanistan. Maybe just some cruise missiles, but not Iraqi Freedom.
 
Obviously, the US would nuke Mecca, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Singapore in response to this dastardly attack. And then Russia, China, Israel, and France would nuke the US in response. And then the US would have to nuke those countries in response. So Brazil would end up dominating whatever remains of the world, and would likely conquer Venezuela to ensure that they have a steady supply of oil. And South Africa, of course, conquers all of Africa just because they can. And Kim Jong Il declares that he is the Great Grand High Poohbah of the Eastern Sea and tries to invade Japan, but gives up after watching some of their television programming. And I would get killed of course, when the Yellowstone Caldera explodes...
 
Obviously, the US would nuke Mecca, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Singapore in response to this dastardly attack. And then Russia, China, Israel, and France would nuke the US in response. And then the US would have to nuke those countries in response. So Brazil would end up dominating whatever remains of the world, and would likely conquer Venezuela to ensure that they have a steady supply of oil. And South Africa, of course, conquers all of Africa just because they can. And Kim Jong Il declares that he is the Great Grand High Poohbah of the Eastern Sea and tries to invade Japan, but gives up after watching some of their television programming. And I would get killed of course, when the Yellowstone Caldera explodes...

Why does Brazil always end up as a superpower in these things? I should make a 20th century timeline about that.
 
Why does Brazil always end up as a superpower in these things? I should make a 20th century timeline about that.

The same way that the US wound up as a superpower after WWII. As in all of the competition just destroyed itself, leaving them behind.
 
One major problem with the suitcase nuke. Let's assume they were freshly made, brand-spanking new in 1992 when they went missing. It's now nine years later...how much of the material is still Uranium? How much has decayed into Lead or other elements? (And, do the electronics still work? How about the explosives?)
 
So-called "suitcase nukes" have a shelf life measured in months because their nuclear material and other components deteriorate so rapidly. Unless the owner has a nation-sized and scientifically sophisticated support system behind him, the chances of a suitcase nuke from the early 1990s still be viable in 2001 are somewhere between zero and none.
 
The 'suitcase nuke' is probably a myth. The smallest nuclear weapons that were developed were the W54 used in the Davy Crockett and the Mk-54 SADM. The smallest Soviet weapons were apparently the size of a small fridge.

I think somebody might notice you lugging something this size about. :D

SADM28cropped29.jpg


Smuggling a nuke into a country is also probably a lot harder than we might imagine.
 
What would have had the worst impact had one of these been used in Washington or New York?
Think about the amount of fear and terror the original attacks cause and multiply that by a number of times I would think. The real choice becomes where to use it - if I were them and hand waving away the mentioned deterioration of the device I'd use it during the State of the Union Address, drive/walk up as close to the Capitol Building and then detonate it. Granted you've still got the designated survivor so you wouldn't be able to end the government but taking out the President, Vice President, Supreme Court Justices, Joint Chiefs of Staff and most of Congress and the Senate would be a pretty good result.

Assuming that the attack took place in 2001 instead of the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and checking wikipedia for the designated survivor for that year it was Anthony Principi, United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Say hello to the 44th President of the United States.
 
Well, such a suitcase nuke would have a yield of around one kiloton so it'll wipe out a few blocks, killing about as much as in the attacks on the World Trade Centre though this depends on where it goes off since not every place has the same population density. Due to butterflies, alt 9/11 might well be in LA or whatever. LA has a lower population density than Manhattan.

Using the same figures from the wiki, if it was in Manhattan the area in which people would receive a lethal dose of radiation would (the radius being 800 m) extend to 2 km2. If the population density of Manhattan is 27,490.9/km2, that suggests around 55,000 dead from radiation or other causes within that zone.
 
I think somebody might notice you lugging something this size about. :D
I don't see why.
Put it in the back of a van, drive the van to Manhattan and set it off.

Smuggling a nuke into a country is also probably a lot harder than we might imagine.
With the current US border security?
I hardly think so.

1. Smuggle it across the Mexico-US border.
Or even better:
2. Put it in a freighter ship bound to any US/Canadian harbor. Meet up with the freighter in international waters 50 miles or so from the US coast and offload it on a private fishing boat/yacht/small boat.
 
Such a weapon would probably have been sitting around for a decade or longer at this point--and would probably be a partial fizzle. Something on the scope of perhaps 300 to 500 tons of TNT going off.

This may well cause less damage than 9-11, but it would almost certainly cause massive internal purges in Russia and similar events to OTL.
 
I don't see why.
Put it in the back of a van, drive the van to Manhattan and set it off.


With the current US border security?
I hardly think so.

1. Smuggle it across the Mexico-US border.
Or even better:
2. Put it in a freighter ship bound to any US/Canadian harbor. Meet up with the freighter in international waters 50 miles or so from the US coast and offload it on a private fishing boat/yacht/small boat.

Technology does exist for detecting nuclear weapons being smuggled into a country. What has been seen in the public eye is pretty sophisticated, which suggests that what is on the secret list (and probably in use) is even more so.
 
Technology does exist for detecting nuclear weapons being smuggled into a country. What has been seen in the public eye is pretty sophisticated, which suggests that what is on the secret list (and probably in use) is even more so.

Certainly true after 9/11. Not so true before. I attended the joint Homeland Security Committee hearing on the need for installing radiation and other sensors at port facilities -- in 2005. By the time of Obama's inauguration this year, the highways leading into D.C. and the Beltway were all equipped with multiple levels of sensor gear. I assume the same is true for NYC.

As for the Mexican border, you could move divisions across it piecemeal without being detected, as well as multiple tons of equipment. After all, thousands of tons of marijuana and hundreds of tons of cocaine cross it every year.
 
Top