From Grok:
Suitcase nuclear bombs, often depicted in fiction as portable, self-contained nuclear devices, raise interesting questions about practicality—both in terms of long-term storage and immediate deployment. Let’s break it down.
For a nuclear weapon to work, it relies on fissile material—like highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium-239—reaching critical mass to sustain a chain reaction. Over time, material degradation could indeed pose issues. HEU is relatively stable, with a half-life of about 700 million years, so radioactive decay isn’t a major concern on human timescales. However, plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,110 years, undergoes alpha decay, which can damage surrounding components and produce heat. This heat could degrade the high explosives or electronics in a compact device if not properly managed. Additionally, tritium (used in some designs to boost yield) has a half-life of 12.32 years, meaning it would need regular replacement to maintain effectiveness in a stored weapon. Without maintenance, a decades-old suitcase nuke might fizzle rather than detonate fully.
Physical design adds further complications. A bare-bones device, like a gun-type bomb (think Little Boy), requires about 50-60 kg of HEU—far too heavy for a suitcase. More sophisticated implosion designs (like Fat Man) use less fissile material (around 6-10 kg of plutonium), but need precise explosives and electronics, which are sensitive to aging, corrosion, or radiation damage over time. Shielding to hide the weapon’s radiation signature (e.g., gamma rays from plutonium) would also add weight, pushing it beyond what’s easily portable. A realistic “suitcase” might weigh 100+ pounds and require a small team to move, not a lone operative.
Now, if newly built and planted just before use, many of these issues vanish. Fresh fissile material, properly assembled explosives, and modern electronics would sidestep degradation concerns. The challenge shifts to construction and delivery. Enriching uranium or producing plutonium requires industrial-scale facilities, not something you whip up in a garage. Even non-state actors would need significant resources—think state sponsorship or a rogue supply chain. Once built, sneaking it into place is tricky but not impossible; radiation detectors at borders aren’t foolproof, especially with shielding. The bomb could be practical in this scenario, assuming the maker solves the engineering hurdles (e.g., miniaturization, reliable detonation).
Historically, the Soviet Union allegedly explored small nuclear devices (like the RA-115) during the Cold War, with yields as low as 0.3 kilotons—suitcase-sized in theory, though evidence is shaky. Modern designs could plausibly achieve this, but no public, verified example exists. Weight, maintenance, and logistics remain the sticking points.
So, over time? Impractical without regular upkeep—materials and components degrade, and it’s bulky for covert storage. Newly planted? Feasible if you’ve got the resources and expertise, but it’s still a logistical nightmare. Either way, it’s less “James Bond” and more “team of engineers with a truck.”
Not a nuke. I've seen this before. It is clearly a chemical explosion. No overwhelming flash of nuclear detonation, no blast wave, and no rapidly rising fireball. It was an ammo dump that went off and the "sparkling" are small munitions that are second-order detonations. (Not to mention the fact that the sparkling is NOT on the center of the explosion, if they were actually radiation effects.)
Holy Moses! That's awful. I looked up what type of plasma would cause a red color. The answer is neon gas. Neon is an inert gas. So I'm thinking that maybe it isn't a plasma, but something else?
Investigative journalist John Burt Caylor was always looking for the missing nuke in a suitcase
called nuke in a suit.
Is investigation let him to a company in Oviedo Florida in 2001. The Yang Corp. It was there going through papers whistleblower Clint Curtis approached him. Flint was the man commissioned at the company to create the first prototype for the touchscreen voting machine, used to flip the two columns of numbers from winner to loser.
I would not be surprised if they were in every city now along with these goons, starting protest.
A suitcase nuke can be a traditional explosive like c4 with nuclear material inside. A dirty suitcase nuke. If it was to go off on a windy day or in a crowded area it could be very harmful.
From Grok: Suitcase nuclear bombs, often depicted in fiction as portable, self-contained nuclear devices, raise interesting questions about practicality—both in terms of long-term storage and immediate deployment. Let’s break it down.
For a nuclear weapon to work, it relies on fissile material—like highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium-239—reaching critical mass to sustain a chain reaction. Over time, material degradation could indeed pose issues. HEU is relatively stable, with a half-life of about 700 million years, so radioactive decay isn’t a major concern on human timescales. However, plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,110 years, undergoes alpha decay, which can damage surrounding components and produce heat. This heat could degrade the high explosives or electronics in a compact device if not properly managed. Additionally, tritium (used in some designs to boost yield) has a half-life of 12.32 years, meaning it would need regular replacement to maintain effectiveness in a stored weapon. Without maintenance, a decades-old suitcase nuke might fizzle rather than detonate fully.
Physical design adds further complications. A bare-bones device, like a gun-type bomb (think Little Boy), requires about 50-60 kg of HEU—far too heavy for a suitcase. More sophisticated implosion designs (like Fat Man) use less fissile material (around 6-10 kg of plutonium), but need precise explosives and electronics, which are sensitive to aging, corrosion, or radiation damage over time. Shielding to hide the weapon’s radiation signature (e.g., gamma rays from plutonium) would also add weight, pushing it beyond what’s easily portable. A realistic “suitcase” might weigh 100+ pounds and require a small team to move, not a lone operative.
Now, if newly built and planted just before use, many of these issues vanish. Fresh fissile material, properly assembled explosives, and modern electronics would sidestep degradation concerns. The challenge shifts to construction and delivery. Enriching uranium or producing plutonium requires industrial-scale facilities, not something you whip up in a garage. Even non-state actors would need significant resources—think state sponsorship or a rogue supply chain. Once built, sneaking it into place is tricky but not impossible; radiation detectors at borders aren’t foolproof, especially with shielding. The bomb could be practical in this scenario, assuming the maker solves the engineering hurdles (e.g., miniaturization, reliable detonation).
Historically, the Soviet Union allegedly explored small nuclear devices (like the RA-115) during the Cold War, with yields as low as 0.3 kilotons—suitcase-sized in theory, though evidence is shaky. Modern designs could plausibly achieve this, but no public, verified example exists. Weight, maintenance, and logistics remain the sticking points.
So, over time? Impractical without regular upkeep—materials and components degrade, and it’s bulky for covert storage. Newly planted? Feasible if you’ve got the resources and expertise, but it’s still a logistical nightmare. Either way, it’s less “James Bond” and more “team of engineers with a truck.”
A micronuke in Yemen. The sparkling you can see is radiation hitting the cameras sensors. https://files.catbox.moe/pxbjgv.mp4
Not a nuke. I've seen this before. It is clearly a chemical explosion. No overwhelming flash of nuclear detonation, no blast wave, and no rapidly rising fireball. It was an ammo dump that went off and the "sparkling" are small munitions that are second-order detonations. (Not to mention the fact that the sparkling is NOT on the center of the explosion, if they were actually radiation effects.)
Can you imagine living in a place like that?
The flowing red streams are the plasma produced.
I can't access catbox files.
Try again.
Holy Moses! That's awful. I looked up what type of plasma would cause a red color. The answer is neon gas. Neon is an inert gas. So I'm thinking that maybe it isn't a plasma, but something else?
It's called combustion of carbonaceous materials and the production of soot. Notice the dense black clouds.
https://scienceandnature.com/plasma-ball/#:~:text=The%20colour%20of%20the%20plasma,create%20a%20visually%20striking%20display.
Interesting, and cutting to the chase, doable.
Investigative journalist John Burt Caylor was always looking for the missing nuke in a suitcase called nuke in a suit.
Is investigation let him to a company in Oviedo Florida in 2001. The Yang Corp. It was there going through papers whistleblower Clint Curtis approached him. Flint was the man commissioned at the company to create the first prototype for the touchscreen voting machine, used to flip the two columns of numbers from winner to loser. I would not be surprised if they were in every city now along with these goons, starting protest.
A special forces parachutists container: https://files.catbox.moe/whbxki.jpg
A suitcase nuke can be a traditional explosive like c4 with nuclear material inside. A dirty suitcase nuke. If it was to go off on a windy day or in a crowded area it could be very harmful.