Talk:Special Atomic Demolition Munition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

New Source and Answers[edit]

I hope this is not considered abusive but I'm putting this at the top as this article seems to have answers to most of the questions here. When elite US forces strapped nukes to their backsJohnvr4 (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


SADM use[edit]

Had a friend who's assignment in the Army had to do with SADM & MADM. He said that he had helicopter assigned to him. If the Soviets attacked through the Fulda Gap, he was to take these "explosives" to bridges and choke points, set the timer and hopefully be gone when it blew up. Due to the helicopters having high engine failure rates when on exercises with live "devices", the practice after crash landing was to run for cover. This was because if the chopper caught fire, the chemical explosives might go off, spreading the radio active material around. Apparently the device would not go critical unless triggered, but enough heat would result in the chemical explosives going off. Saltysailor (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

SADM Current Locations[edit]

Where are the SADMs currently located? Have they been stocked or decomissioned? It seems to me that they could easily be seen as a matter of National Security if they are just stored in a weapons depot. Crisco 1492 18:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Globalsecurity.org states that these weapons are no longer in the stockpile. If I had to guess I would imagine that the things have been disassembled. --Robert Merkel 12:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no more of these in the enduring stockpile. The only remaining systems are the B61,B83, W76, W78 and the W88. That is not to say they are completely gone. 174.228.1.60 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Variable Yield?[edit]

What does the term variable yeild mean? It sounds like there's a dial on top that you set for how many tons you want. I'm assuming it means you can make it with different amounts of nuclear material.

Nope, it means dial-a-yield. I've updated the page to reflect this. Yes, I find this kind of disturbing.--Robert Merkel 08:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The SADM (W54) never had DAY. It had two yields, not user or field selectable. W54-0/1/2.

Tactical nuclear rifle thingy[edit]

Is "Davey Crocket" the name of the project, the rifle or the projectile? --Gbleem 05:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DAVY CROCKETT was the system name, and also referred to the nuclear system.174.228.1.60 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Weight sounds fishy

>Mk-54 weighed 68 kilograms

Sixty-eight kilograms is the weight of an average non-obese adult male person. That means 68 kilograms is definitely not man-portable, not even by two soldiers carrying it. Maybe you meant 68 pounds (some 32 kilogramns)?

[1] says 163 pounds.--Patrick 13:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

W54 weight was closer to 60 pounds.174.228.1.60 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The mechanism to change the yeilds has to do with a swith that changes the amount of tritium injected into the weapon and the weight was around 60 pounds. I'm possitive on this..:) jim graves >>Say there Jim: If you've been in the room where that photo was taken ("FB")... I just don't understand why you'd be comfortable with this article, or the playful banter about the technical details,... even if it's been totally declassed (and don't just assume that it has.. completely) , why would ya wanna talk about it? Go ahead and feel special, cause ya' are, but that's why you gotta leave this alone and just smile... ;) "Another Echo"

Hey Echo - who are we hiding this data from? The Russians? ...oh, wait. The Chinese/North Koreans/Pakistanis? who?174.228.1.60 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Jim, you're confusing the SADM with the W30 MADM configuration. There was zero LLC in the SADM. Only removable part besides the lid was the plane wave generator. No T bottle. 174.228.1.60 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


The weight and size are not the same than in the article regarding the W54. 195.72.71.68 12:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)François Zofel

    i noticed it as well... need a fix or another sources. 109.160.158.25 (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
       

Strategic Area Denial Munition?[edit]

I've read that SADM may also refer to a "Strategic Area Denial Munition", or neutron bomb, but only in the context of Repo Man (film). Can anyone confirm or deny? --beefyt (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Google suggests that's the only place where the term has been used. I suspect it's something they just made up for the movie and has no existence outside of it.  Xihr  06:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture Uses[edit]

There is a claim that the device in the opening of Everything or Nothing is a SADM, but the device looks nothing like the one pictured and the in-game dialogue clearly indicates it is a Soviet Suitcase nuke. (Please see the 1:40 and 2:20 marks at [2]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.240.97 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

Does anybody have a rationale for keeping this indiscriminate collection of random popular culture mentions? It's been removed three times now. --John (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I was getting ready to take it back out also when you edit conflicted with me. None of it is sourced and none of it is beneficial to the understanding of SADMs. I do not see any reason at this point for the information to be included in the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 19:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not trivia, it's appearances of the SADM in Popular Culture. See WP: POPCULTURE for more info on how to deal with this. Popular Culture sections, if properly contained (and NOT branched out into general trivia), serve to demostrate the integration of an otherwise low-key item into the awareness of the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.130.51 (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Some third party references for these and you might have a point. --John (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting essay, I had not seen it before. Just starting with the "This page in a nutshell" at the top:
"In popular culture" sections should be carefully maintained and should contain only properly sourced examples that are bona fide cultural references. When such sections grow too long, they may be split into subarticles, but this should be done with caution.
None of the items in the section had any references at all. The essay goes on to say:
Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference. Furthermore, when the primary source in question only presents the reference, interpretation of this may constitute original research where the reference itself is ambiguous.
From my look at these, the source for most of them will probably be a primary source and that is not enough to say they are a significant impact on the popular culture. This essay does not provide to me any additional reason to override the Manual of Style on trivia sections. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 21:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. It's utter trivia, it's not very interesting, and it doesn't contribute much of anything useful to the subject. "In popular culture" sections are somewhat controversial on Wikipedia since they rub up against WP:TRIVIA problems, not to mention other guidelines such as just being meaningless lists rather than being usefully written prose. WP:POPCULTURE is just an essay -- in other words, it's someone's opinion. WP:TRIVIA is a guideline, which means it's established as accepted behavior for Wikipedia.  Xihr  01:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Decommissioned[edit]

The web page should note that the 200-300 or so SADMs/W54s didn't stay in the stockpile long and there should be a decommissioning date. It's designer (Ted) didn't care for them, and the US military didn't care much for them either. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The only reference I could find http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html states that they were retired between 1967 and 1989. This is vaguely alluded to on the W54 page. Do you have any better sources? Rwessel (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Was the ADM eventually also used at 9/11 on WTC 1,2 & 7 ?[edit]

There are claims that suitcase bombs could have been used to demolish these buildings:Why use dynamite, when can use atomic bomb?! --171.96.247.53 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I recall reading something about airplanes. Herostratus (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)