wrote in message

On Dec 9, 4:01 pm, Ian Jelf wrote:
I doubt that you could get a nuclear
bomb into a briefcase either.

If indeed inaccurate, I for one am mightily relieved.

Unfortunately not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...ition_Munition


Did you actually see the programme? In it, the nuclear bomb was
apparently squeezed into a fairly ordinary looking leather briefcase,
casually carried by someone purporting to be just another commuter. It
certainly didn't weigh 68kg, nor was it the size of a large backpack.
So my statement stands.

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 04:56:47 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Did anybody else see all the London Underground stuff in Spooks last
night?

That train they walked through looked very old and reminded me of my
childhood!

IIRC it looked like one of the Piccadilly Line trains usually parked
on the Aldwych branch which had been "untidied".

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 04:56:47 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Did anybody else see all the London Underground stuff in Spooks last
night?

That train they walked through looked very old and reminded me of my
childhood!

IIRC it looked like one of the Piccadilly Line trains usually parked
on the Aldwych branch which had been "untidied".

I think it was a 1972, not 1973, stock (half) train (1973 stock doesn't
have full red ends). I don't think they park a 1973 stock in the
Aldwych branch any more.

On Dec 9, 5:14 pm, "Recliner" wrote:
Did you actually see the programme? In it, the nuclear bomb was
apparently squeezed into a fairly ordinary looking leather briefcase,
casually carried by someone purporting to be just another commuter. It
certainly didn't weigh 68kg, nor was it the size of a large backpack.
So my statement stands.

Right, because a commuter carrying an explosive backpack on the tube
would immediately be clocked as suspicious.
Anyway , that was 30 years ago - who knows what classified munitions
they have now that could fit in a suitcase.

B2003

wrote in message

On Dec 9, 5:14 pm, "Recliner" wrote:
Did you actually see the programme? In it, the nuclear bomb was
apparently squeezed into a fairly ordinary looking leather briefcase,
casually carried by someone purporting to be just another commuter.
It certainly didn't weigh 68kg, nor was it the size of a large
backpack. So my statement stands.

Right, because a commuter carrying an explosive backpack on the tube
would immediately be clocked as suspicious.
Anyway , that was 30 years ago - who knows what classified munitions
they have now that could fit in a suitcase.

In the Spooks story, this was an old Russian (pretending to be American)
bomb, placed with a sleeper. And it was in a briefcase, not a suitcase.

I suspect that there's only so far you can miniaturise a nuclear bomb.
You need a certain mass of the fissile material (presumably enriched
uranium), plus various other essential components, including shielding
and conventional explosives. The only thing that may have got smaller in
recent years is the electronics, if any.

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:01:24 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote:

I doubt that you could get a nuclear
bomb into a briefcase either.

If indeed inaccurate, I for one am mightily relieved.

Unfortunately, I believe it is possible. I have watched documentaries
about the subject in the past.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Recliner" wrote in
:

wrote in message

On Dec 9, 5:14 pm, "Recliner" wrote:
Did you actually see the programme? In it, the nuclear bomb was
apparently squeezed into a fairly ordinary looking leather briefcase,
casually carried by someone purporting to be just another commuter.
It certainly didn't weigh 68kg, nor was it the size of a large
backpack. So my statement stands.

Right, because a commuter carrying an explosive backpack on the tube
would immediately be clocked as suspicious.
Anyway , that was 30 years ago - who knows what classified munitions
they have now that could fit in a suitcase.

In the Spooks story, this was an old Russian (pretending to be American)
bomb, placed with a sleeper. And it was in a briefcase, not a suitcase.

I suspect that there's only so far you can miniaturise a nuclear bomb.
You need a certain mass of the fissile material (presumably enriched
uranium), plus various other essential components, including shielding
and conventional explosives. The only thing that may have got smaller in
recent years is the electronics, if any.



But have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass and you will
see that there are some isotopes that have a critical mass that could very
definitely fit into a briefcase. Hopefully these isotopes are not available
in Woolworths.

In message , at 21:17:33 on
Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Recliner remarked:
In the Spooks story, this was an old Russian (pretending to be American)
bomb, placed with a sleeper. And it was in a briefcase, not a suitcase.

I suspect that there's only so far you can miniaturise a nuclear bomb.
You need a certain mass of the fissile material (presumably enriched
uranium), plus various other essential components, including shielding
and conventional explosives.

The "Uranium" part seemed to be inside a stainless steel globe the size
of a tennis ball.

The only thing that may have got smaller in recent years is the
electronics, if any.

And possibly the battery - it seemed fully charged even after being
buried for 20 years.
--
Roland Perry

But have a look athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_massand you will
see that there are some isotopes that have a critical mass that could very
definitely fit into a briefcase. Hopefully these isotopes are not available
in Woolworths.

And if they are, they won't be much longer.

But you can probably get 50% off at the moment ;-)

On Dec 10, 9:42 am, Phil C wrote:
But have a look athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_massandyou will
see that there are some isotopes that have a critical mass that could very
definitely fit into a briefcase. Hopefully these isotopes are not available
in Woolworths.

And if they are, they won't be much longer.

But you can probably get 50% off at the moment ;-)

You could call it a mass reduction.

*cough*

B2003