<<<From the congessmans own mouth.>>>
Don't you mean hearsay from the congressman's own mouth?
<<<The defense minister of Russia told me to my face, 'Yes, congressman, we built these devices. Just as your country built them during the Cold War.'>>>
The part you missed is the waffle words. He could just as easily have said, "Yes, we ate green cheese from the moon, just as you ate green cheese from the moon.". The statement is true if neither party ate green cheese from the moon.
<<<In fact, the Department of Defense made a training video in the l960s, demonstrating how "small atomic demolition munitions" can be stuffed into parachutes and attached to Navy commandos, who then show how the weapons can be affixed to bridges and ships underwater.>>>
That was one of the Governor of California's movies. Yes? Has it ever crossed your mind to wonder why a nuke would be necessary to blow up a bridge, or punch a hole in a boat? C4 will work just fine, or is it that you think C4 is nuclear?
Nuclear devices are BIG. They don't fit in suitcases, they don't fit in backpacks and they don't fit in artillery shells.
Here's a picture of a "small" nuclear device:
childrenofthemanhattanproject.org
The problem is it takes one honey of a big bang to produce enough squeeze to get an explosion from a sub critical mass. It also takes one honey of a big bang to join sub critical masses together to form a critical mass. Either way, it takes tons of high explosives, not pounds.
There is no such thing as a suitcase nuke. It's a myth intended to dazzle idiots. |
