terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

Palomar · 2005-08-26 11:06:59

you know, i just checked out space.com to see if there is anything more of interest(sometimes they do have interesting things, other times . . . well!), and one guy points out the civil war about to erupt in Iraq, and another guy gives some conservative slant and says the other guy isn't facing facts. I've already shown how you guy's(gals?) have thought non-scientifically, what do you do? You play your social games.
The fact is change happens in human societies because a new generation is born every fifteen to twenty years and 99% of them are to shortsighted to see what the logical and factual thing to do is, so they are really like ants in solving their problems. Today, we think that we think scientifically about solving our problems, but if that was the case, we would have colonized space by now by those who actually thought about things(the original rocket pioneers). This is what happens when you just follow whatever the incrowd says.

*You make some good points, flash. I'll reaffirm being an agnostic who is not the least interested in religion.

Unfortunately too many people are short-sighted, foolish, whatever. They mainly care only about what they can put in their mouths and pockets today.

There is the "lone voice in the wilderness" aspect to this. In the past it wasn't uncommon for monarchs to have messengers stoned to death (if the message was "undesirable"). Human nature has changed little, it seems (unfortunately): Tell it like it is and you'll get the door slammed in your face; passed over for someone else who says what others want to hear; accused of exaggerating or being a troublemaker, etc., etc. You can talk...most people won't listen.

It seems that unless there is a major overhaul in human nature itself, people are going to continue plowing into brick walls. I don't like it either...and your frustration is understandable.

--Cindy

John Creighton · 2005-08-26 11:14:30

I see we are letting flashgorden hijack this topic. I was going to suggest a moderator delete his posts and response or move them to a new thread entitled something like “believing in what you social group tells you”.

In response to that what other choice do you have. The simple fact is outside of science there aren’t many or any reliable sources of information. So you have a choice of believing those that are working in your interest or believing those who are woking against you interest. A person once told me if we knew what the truth was then it wouldn’t be politics. To flashgordern where is this sacred oracle you have that reveals all what is true and just.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-26 11:33:41

Back on topic, I have concerns that for all the doom scenarios about nuclear terrorism we may be missing the big problem.

If a terrorist group has one nuke they may well blow up one American city. It may not be the most effective tactical use of such a weapon, but terrorists don't look at the conflict through the same lense we do.

Americans always fail to realize that. We always look at avoiding war as the goal. All too often our enemies look to winning a war as the objective. Heads up our asses.

So terrorists blow up a city, in the grand scheme we can cope with that. But what if they blow up four or five? New York, Washington, LA and Chicago. I'd add Detroit to the list but I question whether anyone would notice.
Because we have made essentially no preparations for either large-scale nuclear defense or long-term war fighting, a small group of terrorists could conceivably deliver a crushing blow to this country. A situation that other powers will exploit to their benefit and our detriment.

Okay, step further up the "what if" ladder. Let's entertain for a moment the idea that some nation already possessing nuclear weapons chooses to attack the US in part by offering clandestine support to those terrorists?

Call it paranoid, call it "war gaming", call it being prepared for all contingencies, just run with me on this. A few major cities are hit by smuggled nukes. Millions dead, massive communications failures, mass chaos. Add in a hacker attack to shut down further chunks of the telecom and financial networks just for shits and giggles. Any second-rate power in the world suddenly has a free hand to do whatever the hell they want. China taking Taiwan, easy. North Korea invading the South, you're all clear Kim. Russia. . . doing some crazy Russki stuff, just do it.

Point being, aside from taking steps to prevent a nuclear terrorist attack we also need to prepare to endure one, minimize casualties and infrastructure damage, maintain communications and remain a fully responsive global military force during and after the attack(s) however the severity.

John Creighton · 2005-08-26 11:42:54

Back on topic, I have concerns that for all the doom scenarios about nuclear terrorism we may be missing the big problem.
If a terrorist group has one nuke they may well blow up one American city. It may not be the most effective tactical use of such a weapon, but terrorists don't look at the conflict through the same lense we do.
Americans always fail to realize that. We always look at avoiding war as the goal. All too often our enemies look to winning a war as the objective. Heads up our asses.
So terrorists blow up a city, in the grand scheme we can cope with that. But what if they blow up four or five? New York, Washington, LA and Chicago. I'd add Detroit to the list but I question whether anyone would notice.
Because we have made essentially no preparations for either large-scale nuclear defense or long-term war fighting, a small group of terrorists could conceivably deliver a crushing blow to this country. A situation that other powers will exploit to their benefit and our detriment.
Okay, step further up the "what if" ladder. Let's entertain for a moment the idea that some nation already possessing nuclear weapons chooses to attack the US in part by offering clandestine support to those terrorists?
Call it paranoid, call it "war gaming", call it being prepared for all contingencies, just run with me on this. A few major cities are hit by smuggled nukes. Millions dead, massive communications failures, mass chaos. Add in a hacker attack to shut down further chunks of the telecom and financial networks just for shits and giggles. Any second-rate power in the world suddenly has a free hand to do whatever the hell they want. China taking Taiwan, easy. North Korea invading the South, you're all clear Kim. Russia. . . doing some crazy Russki stuff, just do it.
Point being, aside from taking steps to prevent a nuclear terrorist attack we also need to prepare to endure one, minimize casualties and infrastructure damage, maintain communications and remain a fully responsive global military force during and after the attack(s) however the severity.

I’ve always thought better preparations should be made for nuclear attacks be they just a few city or a large scale possible world ending attack. Same issue as giving up gas cars instead of electric. It is going to require people to make sacrifices that I don’t think they are prepared to make. Just like people don’t want to drive low powered electric cars they don’t want to spend money on, backup power, life-support systems and emergency bunkers. Or how about the increased living cost by requiring buildings in an urban setting to resist the shock wave caused by a nuclear blast.

clark · 2005-08-26 11:49:59

Prioritize. Triage.

Situation as you describe, our back is to the wall- use of nuclear weapons becomes more probable in order to maintain the status quo. No funny business or we use first strike. [shrug].

You can't really do all that much against nuclear weapons. Our ability to minimize risk is limited.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-26 12:04:57

You can't really do all that much against nuclear weapons. Our ability to minimize risk is limited.

Sure it's limited, but we can do far more than we have been. We have virtually no civil defense apparatus in place. Many communities have no structures suitable for surviving an attack, no fallout shelters, if they do they often don't know where to go. The vast bulk of the population doesn't know what to do and has nowhere to go even if they survive the initial attack. They simply die. Our industry has no precautions taken to keep it functional after an attack, our entire financial structure could be cleansed by a few well-placed EMP bursts. We don't have protected food and water supplies, the Soviets used to (and by some accounts Russia still does) have giant grain bunkers for such an event, we've got whatever a person has in their cabinet and whatever FEMA brings assuming they can respond.

Essentially what we need is a segment of government and industry to get together and look at the problem as how can we win a nuclear war rather than assuming that the prospect terrifies the rest of the world as much as it does us and dismissing it. There is so much we could do, some of it insanely simple. Just having the Department of Homeland Security launching a campaign to encourage people to have some food and water and rudimentary sheltering would do tremendous good should the need ever arise. Educating people about the real effects of nuclear weapons would help immensely, they don't vaporize everything and leave the air and water radioactive for 10,000 years.

In short, this is one of many cases where we have become so comfortable in our position and so sure that nobody would ever want a war that we've made ourselves grossly vulnerable to fairly simple attacks that would have devastating effects. We're climbing up on a giant pile and it only takes a couple midgets kicking the base to knock us on our ass.

While we need to watch for those midgets, we should also be prepared to get up and fight should we ever find ourselves in that scenario.

clark · 2005-08-26 12:26:14

HaHa.

CC, arguing for the government to teach responsibility.

HaHa.

Thank you.

Palomar · 2005-08-26 12:27:11

Essentially what we need is a segment of government and industry to get together and look at the problem as how can we win a nuclear war rather than assuming that the prospect terrifies the rest of the world as much as it does us and dismissing it. There is so much we could do, some of it insanely simple. Just having the Department of Homeland Security launching a campaign to encourage people to have some food and water and rudimentary sheltering would do tremendous good should the need ever arise. Educating people about the real effects of nuclear weapons would help immensely, they don't vaporize everything and leave the air and water radioactive for 10,000 years.

*But isn't fear a good thing in this respect? Fear is a good motivator...to often not do something. Humans have a tendency to minimize/shrug off what they aren't afraid of. Can we risk nurturing a "ho-hum" response?

In short, this is one of many cases where we have become so comfortable in our position and so sure that nobody would ever want a war that we've made ourselves grossly vulnerable to fairly simple attacks that would have devastating effects. We're climbing up on a giant pile and it only takes a couple midgets kicking the base to knock us on our ass.
While we need to watch for those midgets, we should also be prepared to get up and fight should we ever find ourselves in that scenario.

That's true. But we need to avoid people becoming comfortable with the idea of nuclear war, and even accepting of the inevitability. We can't risk this becoming a "self-fulfilling prophecy" or something along those lines.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-26 12:39:38

CC, arguing for the government to teach responsibility.
HaHa.
Thank you.

Hey, there are a handful of things that government is required for. Winning a nuclear war isn't something the average Joe can properly prepare for.

*But isn't fear a good thing in this respect? Fear is a good motivator...to often not do something. Humans have a tendency to minimize/shrug off what they aren't afraid of. Can we risk nurturing a "ho-hum" response?

I would prefer fear based on reality, it has a thread of hope that way. In popular misconception a nuclear war would mean the end of human civilization, probably of all human life, maybe killing every living thing on the planet and just perhaps cracking the globe in half. Rubbish for the most part. Particularly given that any adversary we'd face would be counting on us backing down. We're so squeamish when it comes to apocalypse.

I don't think accurate information would lead to a "ho-hum" attitude about nuclear war at all. It would however better prepare us to survive it if i ever occured.

That's true. But we need to avoid people becoming comfortable with the idea of nuclear war, and even accepting of the inevitability. We can't risk this becoming a "self-fulfilling prophecy" or something along those lines.

A fine line perhaps. One could argue that if we prepare we make the event we're preparing for more likely, but at the same time there's a question of prudence. At the moment the US is like a big fat guy sitting on a pile of donuts with a .357 while a thousand hungry savages mill about with weapons of their own, all the while saying to himself "They'll never attack me and besides, I'm invincible." Not a good place to be.

clark · 2005-08-26 12:59:41

At the moment the US is like a big fat guy sitting on a pile of donuts with a .357

To misappropriate your analogy... America is a Cop.

America. F*ck, Yeah!

Discussing the end of the world and we find the ever vigilent optimist among us.

John Creighton · 2005-08-26 13:44:30

At the moment the US is like a big fat guy sitting on a pile of donuts with a .357
To misappropriate your analogy... America is a Cop.
America. F*ck, Yeah!
Discussing the end of the world and we find the ever vigilent optimist among us.

That is hilarious.

BWhite · 2005-08-26 15:02:57

A quote from Wesley Clark said to have been spoken at a Georgetown commencement address:

You (we) will determine whether rage or reason guides the United States in the struggle to come.

It's our choice.

srmeaney · 2005-08-26 16:58:27

Perhaps another example is better. In 1490 or so, the Portuguese supported an exploration to find another way to the orient to gain an empire; they almost did; actually, the Spanish ended up winning, at least for a century; why a century? Because they ended up waisting all the wealth they gained from their explorations of the America's on petty wars at home. The fact is change happens in human societies because a new generation is born every fifteen to twenty years and 99% of them are to shortsighted to see what the logical and factual thing to do is, so they are really like ants in solving their problems. Today, we think that we think scientifically about solving our problems, but if that was the case, we would have colonized space by now by those who actually thought about things(the original rocket pioneers). This is what happens when you just follow whatever the incrowd says.

So what you are saying is: If Spain had simply used the Americas as a dumping ground for its poor and its aristocracy, and had activley pursued colonization, It would have all been different?

Stormrage · 2005-08-27 12:13:41

Are you telling me to die because i use a message board? :shock:

srmeaney · 2005-08-27 19:05:01

Lets assume that Al-Quaeda has managed to get its hands on a soviet Suitcase Nuke through black market brokers out of Istanbul. They couldnt move it without increasing the risk of detection.

They would need to verify its ability to detonate, but they would also need to be able to increase their knowledge. So they would reverse engineer the device.

That gives them the blueprints to a sophisticated nuclear weapon.

They could now make those prints available to a nation such as North Korea in technological trade. This would get them nukes that they could simply smuggle into Japan the same way they abduct its Citizens: straight off a fishing boat, up the beach and into the nearest city.

That would put either North Korean agents or Al-Quaeda operatives in any Japanese City with a Suitcase Nuke. That puts them within distance of any US base in Japan and any of its cities.

Considering the nasty realization that a North Korean ship was found off the Australian Coast with the sort of Illicit drug volume that might have been traded to them by Al-Quaeda for such technological services as the construction of a dozen Suitcase Nukes, the prospect of a Suitcase nuke on a private jet landing at JFK or whichever airport and detonating on the tarmac, or comming in to a coastal city in a shipping container and detontaing in port is a possibility.

Based on current security processes, aviation, and maritime practices, the ability of an individual nuke to get into any US coastal city by air or sea is one hundred percent.

Grypd · 2005-08-28 06:46:02

Making a suitcase bomb is a lot more difficult than just designing one and only a very good equipped facility can do it. Sorry to say what im scared about is that Al-Qhaeda gets its hands on materials to make what is called a dirty bomb. This is a normal bomb that is contaminated with nuclear material. This is a lot easier to do.

Any Bomb so used would prove to not only do a lot of damage but the long term cleanup (years) would prove to be very very expensive not to mention there are targets that could simply cause the US economy to nosedive with the damage.

And nuclear material is unfortunatly very easy to get hold of. Look at the incident in Mexico a few years back when dozens of people died when a container of nuclear material was opened in a junk yard.

srmeaney · 2005-08-28 17:06:07

And reverse engineering a suitcase bomb and placing that know how with a nuclear power such as North Korea is a lot easier than one might think. A dirty bomb is unreliable by comparison. Where as simply providing the plans to North Korea in partial trade would Get AlQuaeda and North Korea a "assumedly tested" weapon system.

John Creighton · 2005-08-28 17:27:10

And reverse engineering a suitcase bomb and placing that know how with a nuclear power such as North Korea is a lot easier than one might think. A dirty bomb is unreliable by comparison. Where as simply providing the plans to North Korea in partial trade would Get AlQuaeda and North Korea a "assumedly tested" weapon system.

Would AlQuaeda trust north Korea to give them a bomb and would North Korea trust AlQuaeda to not use it against them. More importantly would North Korea fear retaliation form the us for an association with AlQuaeda.

Grypd · 2005-08-28 17:31:29

And reverse engineering a suitcase bomb and placing that know how with a nuclear power such as North Korea is a lot easier than one might think. A dirty bomb is unreliable by comparison. Where as simply providing the plans to North Korea in partial trade would Get AlQuaeda and North Korea a "assumedly tested" weapon system.

But you just dont get it the knowhow to make a suitcase bomb is already "out there". It is the capability to make them that is not. We are talking of some of the hardest science there is as the device has to be small enough for a single person to be able to carry and still have enough explosive to be able to smash the Plutonium/Uranium mix together to be able to detonate the device. This is very hard science to manage and very hard to make (thank God)

But a dirty bomb can be a simple device and it really works on the KISS principle and actually a large truck filled with fertiliser that is rigged as a dirty bomb can spread long lived radioactive material just as bad as the suitcase nuclear bomb. Even worse for people dealing with a dirty bomb is that the materials exploded across a city have a much greater life than those of a nuclear device and are more likely to be absorbed into a human body. A Nuclear suitcase bomb would do more damage and kill a lot more people but it can be cleaned up easier than a really dirty bomb.

All I can hope is that this never ever happens and that this comparison remains purely academic

srmeaney · 2005-08-28 21:01:35

Oops!

http://www.ransac.org/Projects%20and%20 … 01.html#1c

A group of Georgian Customs officers treated in 1997 for deep brown legwounds provides a case in point. They had confiscated several phials ofhighly radioactive caesium and pocketed it in the hope of finding abuyer. Instead they found that the caesium, which cannot be used inbombs, ate into their flesh.

The following year, according to an Afghan refugee from Mazar-i Sharifnow living in London, an entire family fell ill when a smuggler buried alarge quantity of what was believed to be uranium in their garden. "Someof them were paralysed from the waist down and all the vegetation intheir garden died," the refugee says. "The uranium probably came fromTaliqan or Kunduz province, near the border."

or if you prefer:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic … E_ID=29109

Palomar · 2005-08-28 21:57:39

*Much as I hate to say it, I've told my husband a couple of times since 9/11 that I expect to see a nuclear device/bomb detonated in the U.S. within 10 years and would be surprised (but happy and relieved of course!) if it didn't happen. :?

But wouldn't "they" rather explode something over different parts of the U.S. to knock out computers and electrical grids? You know, wreak havoc on oil production/pipelines and everything else we depend on for day-to-day necessities which are inextricably tied up with computers nowadays?

It'd be awful in a different sort of way. I've read/heard that's more likely to happen than a ground-based nuclear blast.

What cheerful thoughts.

--Cindy

srmeaney · 2005-08-29 07:23:32

US Army recruiters target school leavers.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=3889

so much for ethics. just ship the poor kids to Iraq with a gun in their hands.

Ya suppose under such policies, AlQuaeda could march straight in as liberators of the oppressed?

Grypd · 2005-08-29 17:35:44

Australians find "Dirty bomb" material

The Australian investigators have found large amounts of material that could make for extremely dirty bombs in very unsecure facilities. Just great :x

srmeaney · 2005-08-30 18:51:06

Worst case scenario, AlQuaeda detonates a dirty bomb in Singapore.

No loss. They nuke the worlds biggest shopping mall...heh!

idiom · 2005-09-06 03:57:22

Imagine if the Terrorists got a hold of a hurricane. The federal government would be powerless to respond! Oh wait...

Or, if you have multiple warheads, place them strategically across the Eastern Ice Sheet in Antartica.

If you were to set them off in the States, and not Israel, you would be obliged to begin with conventional explosives, floated down the river to the Hoover, and at the base of carefully selected high tension transmission lines. Or maybe even two weeks of snipers teams deployed in each state.

If you thought about it, it might be two weeks before anybody outside the U.S. knew nukes had been set off.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-08-26 11:06:59

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#27 2005-08-26 11:14:30

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#28 2005-08-26 11:33:41

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#29 2005-08-26 11:42:54

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#30 2005-08-26 11:49:59

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#31 2005-08-26 12:04:57

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#32 2005-08-26 12:26:14

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#33 2005-08-26 12:27:11

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#34 2005-08-26 12:39:38

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#35 2005-08-26 12:59:41

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#36 2005-08-26 13:44:30

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#37 2005-08-26 15:02:57

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#38 2005-08-26 16:58:27

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#39 2005-08-27 12:13:41

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#40 2005-08-27 19:05:01

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#41 2005-08-28 06:46:02

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#42 2005-08-28 17:06:07

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#43 2005-08-28 17:27:10

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#44 2005-08-28 17:31:29

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#45 2005-08-28 21:01:35

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#46 2005-08-28 21:57:39

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#47 2005-08-29 07:23:32

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#48 2005-08-29 17:35:44

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#49 2005-08-30 18:51:06

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

#50 2005-09-06 03:57:22

Re: terrorist nukes already in the u.s.?

Board footer