User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 11:06:32 AM EDT
[#1]
two chicken little threads in one day??
more tinfoild or less booze |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 11:22:08 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
two chicken little threads in one day?? more tinfoild or less booze If we can think of it, so can they. They have time... Sneak a little bit in at a time thru multiple ports and it'd 'eventually' add up to at least a dirty bomb. But it'd require keeping it quiet/hidden while they planned it, brought EACH little packet, and hid the cache, and that's multiple opportunities for us to catch a whiff. Complicated logistics for them, and time consuming, requiring lots of planning, luck, and stealth, but it ain't zero possible. I lean more towards 'several contagious Ebola carriers self detonate on a (or several) crowded subway platform(s) at rush hour on a hot summer evening in Manhattan' kinda of an op as easier for them. Less huge in itself, but complicated and causing us to chase our tails for a while. THEN they could pick off the first responders and crowds of panicked people in other ways/places. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 11:29:37 AM EDT
[#3]
That makes me angry. And when Dr. Evil gets angry, Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset. (Meow) And when Mr. Bigglesworth gets upset, people die!
 Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 11:39:46 AM EDT
[#4]
Well for starters - where are terrorists going to get suitcase nukes? It isn't like there is a "nukes-r-us" out there.
Secondly you might be exaggerating the impact. Suitcase nukes are not city levelers. I saw an article once on the subject and if they planted it high up it might take out a few city blocks. And maybe irradiate people a few further away. Not the end of the world or the economy crashing. And a dirty bomb would have less impact other than removing some real estate from use for a couple hundred years. Well and of course killing some people. Bad news to be sure, but the net result to the terrorists might be watching their home country turned into glass. They are well aware that it's a great thing to piss us off - in increments. We are irrational in response. Which is a good thing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 12:10:44 PM EDT
[#5]
NYC is a cesspool, that is all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 12:36:16 PM EDT
[#6]
Non issue. SADM's have a limited shelve life.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 12:40:54 PM EDT
[#7]
This sounds like about a dozen years ago when the warning went out about suitcase nukes.
Nothing came of it then either............. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 1:01:18 PM EDT
[#8]
I'd worry more about the ridiculous taxes and democratic politicians in NYC than I would a suitcase bomb.
Happy Trails! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 1:41:08 PM EDT
[#9]
_ is gonna _
They have detectors all over NY and DC so they will be alerted asap. Read stories about folks getting pulled over after radiation therapy for details. V |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 1:48:13 PM EDT
[#10]
So called "suitcase nukes" are simply miniaturized nukes. They aren't actually suitcase sized. The smallest man packable nuke the US made was the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) MK-54 and it weighed around 50 lbs, more if you include the equipment to carry it. It had to be carried in a large back pack size package.
The story of hidden "suitcase nukes" came from a Soviet defector, Stanislav Lunev. Bear in mind, Soviet and Russian defectors have been known to lie, and lie a lot. Lying and scamming is a Russian way of life so you have to verify everything a Russian defector tells you. The Soviets were known to cache equipment in various countries and Lunev said the Soviets "might" have cached small nukes on US soil. None were ever found and Lunev was known to exaggerate things he said. The technology to make a nuke so small is only understood by a few countries. What we do know about the small nukes is that if not religiously maintained, they will quickly cease to function as designed. Making a nuke is the easy part (and it's not really that easy). Making a deployable nuke is the hard part. North Korea managed to make nukes but they still haven't figured out how to make one that they can deploy on something other than in the back of a big truck driven by a suicidal driver. Small nukes in US cities is VERY low on our list of things to be concerned about. Stop losing sleep over it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 2:26:21 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So called "suitcase nukes" are simply miniaturized nukes. They aren't actually suitcase sized. The smallest man packable nuke the US made was the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) MK-54 and it weighed around 50 lbs, more if you include the equipment to carry it. It had to be carried in a large back pack size package. A mock up of a viable man-portable design was shown openly in a Congressional hearing some time back. The actual yield of such a device would likely be low. A more advanced design would be higher yield, say if they copied the primary from the W88, the design of which was lost to espionage in the 90's. All depends on the capabilities and detailed technical information possessed by the people making the weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 3:11:58 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Something to keep in mind is that the US SADM was intentionally not made as small as possible. It would have been readily possible to make something substantially smaller, but US "two man rule" policy dictated a design that would make it nearly impossible for a single person to transport and employ. A mock up of a viable man-portable design was shown openly in a Congressional hearing some time back. The actual yield of such a device would likely be low. A more advanced design would be higher yield, say if they copied the primary from the W88, the design of which was lost to espionage in the 90's. All depends on the capabilities and detailed technical information possessed by the people making the weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 8:08:43 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NYC is a cesspool, that is all. 
So maybe the simplest solution to the OP's premise ('suitcase nukes') is to be sure you're not where such devices are likely to be placed by the bad guys. Avoid densely populated Big-City cesspools: NYC, L.A., Detroit, Chicago, D.C., et al. Yeah, to some extent you're still 'playing the probabilities,' but I'll lay odds that Podunk Kansas isn't one of the Top Ten targets on ISIS's or the Taliban's Nuke List. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 8:15:48 PM EDT
[#14]
I'm not a fan of DHS as a concept, but you have no fucking clue OP. You are grossly wrong on many levels. And that's all I'm going to say on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 10:22:40 PM EDT
[#15]
Ignoring the emotional biases and poor analyses of many...
Yes, a miniaturized device should be a concern. Physical damage may be limited, but the damage to the generally poorly informed and ignorant American psyche would be terrible. Technology has come a long ways since the days of the first 'suitcase' devices. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 10:34:23 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Non issue. SADM's have a limited shelve life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2018 10:38:53 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
_ is gonna _ They have detectors all over NY and DC so they will be alerted asap. Read stories about folks getting pulled over after radiation therapy for details. V |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 2:44:48 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL!!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Non issue. SADM's have a limited shelve life. You can't cache one, wait 20 years, then get it back out and use it like you could with conventional explosives. Miniature nukes are a low concern. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 3:09:02 AM EDT
[#19]
On the priority of concern, this should be low. You are talking "nation state" resources just to get the material, much less precision manufacturing of exotic materials required to actually make it work.
A dirty bomb or chem attack is much more likely. Even then, the damage is mostly psychological (still bad though). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 3:10:08 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He's basically right. Without constant maintenance the theoretical suitcase nukes would not function as designed, given enough time. It's not like an unexploded bomb that can still explode decades later. You can't cache one, wait 20 years, then get it back out and use it like you could with conventional explosives. Miniature nukes are a low concern. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 3:43:07 AM EDT
[#21]
If nukes were for sale, Iran would have bought them, rather then spending billions in the costly business of trying to build their own.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 9:38:34 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You pretty sure about that, considering the neutron source is now electronic??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 9:44:30 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe that this is correct. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
_ is gonna _ They have detectors all over NY and DC so they will be alerted asap. Read stories about folks getting pulled over after radiation therapy for details. V Nyc dep does have air sniffers all over the city monitoring the air. NYPD officers and all almost fire apparatus have radiation detectors that are constantly on. Manhattan does have a pretty advanced surveillance system. Leave a package or bag unattended in the sidewalk and the computer alerts the control center. eta. More of a concern would be a dirty bomb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 11:45:55 AM EDT
[#24]
As said above, the threat is the damage done to the economy, to politics, and the fragile mental state of many in this country.
After 9-11, the small town where I worked had many people who were freaking out following the anthrax scare. An event as innocent as getting one's phone bill was sufficient to cause panic, the thought being that somehow the terrorists had put some spores in the mail. A lot of mail got Cloroxed. The actual damage done was not the issue. Also, it was widely known that there was a plot to fly airplanes into buildings and it was widely discussed and reported beforehand, just like the suitcase nuke theory. I have long ago learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 11:53:40 AM EDT
[#25]
DHS is made up of a lot more than TSA. I don't know why people think that DHS is just airline "security", but many do.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 12:14:32 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not a fan of DHS as a concept, but you have no fucking clue OP. You are grossly wrong on many levels. And that's all I'm going to say on the matter. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 12:15:52 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DHS is made up of a lot more than TSA. I don't know why people think that DHS is just airline "security", but many do. Is not stupid. He is fishing for info. OPSEC is your friend. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 12:17:24 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DHS is made up of a lot more than TSA. I don't know why people think that DHS is just airline "security", but many do. OPSEC is your friend.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 12:33:49 PM EDT
[#29]
I believe there are mitigations put in place for this sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 1:02:16 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2018 1:12:05 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Prior to 911, nobody really though of 911. After that, it became common knowledge. And they created the DHS which is completely worthless in terms of actually preventing anything. The reason is, they, like the French are fighting the last war. I think the "Bad Guys" aren't going to repeat 911. I think the most immediate concern is a suitcase nuke in some major city like NYC or DC. If I can think of it, so can bad guys. And the DHS, etc. are not prepared. If the "bad guys" sneak it across the border with Canada. Or just transport it via a boat and land somewhere hear on the east coast. The coast is not that well guarded. Put it in the car and park it somewhere. Now it's an expensive operation, orders of magnitude more so than 911 but if the Osamas of this world team up with some other major bad guys, like Iran or somebody, then they can pull it off. what about all the nukes floating around Kazahstan? That's why I am deeply concerned. Not that it will mean the end of the world but will seriously disrupt our lives, maybe collapse the economy half-way. They might even hit 2-3 places all at once. It's just the question of money really. I have no idea how much something like this will cost but if they find a sponsor, I suspect there won't be a lack of volunteers. Who is this nebulous 'they' you constantly refer to? What 'suitcase nukes' provably have ever been created? What 'nukes floating around Kazahstan'? Anyone can think of a plan. Implementing said plan becomes a whole lot less feasible or practical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2018 2:10:48 AM EDT
[#32]
Driving a truck down a crowded sidewalk would be far easier and have a much lower chance of being caught.
A suitcase nuke should be WAY down your list of things to worry about. If I gave you a billion dollars today, I bet you couldn't come up with a suitcase nuke in 6 months. No country would risk the retaliation that'd come from it's use, and no non-state actor has nukes available for sale. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2018 4:00:36 AM EDT
[#33]
Way too much squeeze, not enough juice. There are far simpler ways to inflict mass casualties. However, if you really want to see what it would look like, here is a pretty neat website to calculate the blast radius. Nukemap
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2018 9:45:30 AM EDT
[#34]
I think it's the bad guys came up with a suitcase nuke it would have to be used somewhere strategic like a damn or something as it would be wasted in a city outside of the emotional impact on the country.
I really don't understand why if our enemies as powerful as they claim outside of numbers why haven't a few of them come up with the Strategic attack against the US. Maybe our countermeasures are that good? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2018 12:37:07 PM EDT
[#35]
Biological and chemical warfare is so much cheaper - more than a factor of 10 times - and I would argue just as effective as a terror weapon.
"Suitcase Nukes" are relatively easy to detect. There are radiation sensors at locations all over NYC and DC. Detecting a bio or chemical weapon is far more difficult. Building a nuke requires controlled material, amazingly technical science, access to high-end machinery, and a bit of experience so one doesn't go boom themselves. Biological warfare not so much. In fact you used to be able to get samples of live cultures by mail-order from the US government. It takes but a few tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment and a simple bachelors of science holder can whip up some of the nastiest germs in a few weeks in an apartment. Delivery is not complicated and transport is impossible to detect. Chemical weapons are a step up in difficulty and complexity but are still easier than nuclear ones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2018 12:54:07 PM EDT
[#36]
Its just a science project...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2018 1:10:56 PM EDT
[#37]
I learned from a shoot-out long ago...
"Never put yourself in the mind of your Opponent" I also found putting on your best 3 piece suit before they haul you to jail, works marvels getting out on personal recognizance in about an hour. At least in the wee hours of the morning... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2018 8:37:00 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it's the bad guys came up with a suitcase nuke it would have to be used somewhere strategic like a damn or something as it would be wasted in a city outside of the emotional impact on the country. I really don't understand why if our enemies as powerful as they claim outside of numbers why haven't a few of them come up with the Strategic attack against the US. Maybe our countermeasures are that good? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2018 2:22:52 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it's the bad guys came up with a suitcase nuke it would have to be used somewhere strategic like a damn or something as it would be wasted in a city outside of the emotional impact on the country. I really don't understand why if our enemies as powerful as they claim outside of numbers why haven't a few of them come up with the Strategic attack against the US. Maybe our countermeasures are that good? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2018 7:09:38 AM EDT
[#40]
Dirty bomb would be much more of a concern to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2018 7:34:06 AM EDT
[#41]
Multiple coordinated attacks around the city would be more of my concern.
Suicide bombers on a Staten Island Ferry. More bombers on busy subway platforms and some truck attacks all happening together would set shit off in NYC for sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2018 7:38:40 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dirty bomb would be much more of a concern to me. Dirty bomb, actually, also not so much. 1) The reality is that the radius of a dirty bomb is limited to the physics of a conventional explosive - it relies on conventional explosives to spread the "dirt". 2) If the dirt can be spread, it can be cleaned, and not with expensive methods. 3) The number of people that can be impacted is limited due to 1 and 2. Those victimized do not die right away, some not at all and therefore the political/publicity factor is lower...more effective for a terrorist to use conventional devices for many reasons. 3) Using highly radioactive materials to counter 1 and 2 above will result in a much more risky, costly, complex and harder to manage situation - with higher chance of failure with only marginal improvement. 4) It is detectable by both explosives detection AND radiological detection methods so a project to do such is more likely to be compromised 5) Radiological materials can be traced back to their production source. This is also why using things like SADMs would be difficult to conceal - eventually someone will analyze the blast materials, determine country of origin, and fix blame. Countries of origin would be unwilling to knowingly let such materials get into the hands of people that would use it for fear of retaliation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/12/2018 8:20:00 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Suitcase nukes, meh, not so much. Besides the complexity of procuring such a unicorn, keeping it in the type of highly engineered state it needs for operational readiness, running from those who would chase you once you had it, the complexity of secretly moving such a device to the target area...yeah, other than that you can expect a dramatic, significant but not existential blow to the target. However, the resulting response you can absolutely guarantee would pretty much fry everyone who ever remotely participated in the supply chain of the device followed by a systematic national effort to eradicate the enemy actors, be they state or non-state, on a scale that would make the Desert Wars look like a Sunday lunch time with your old Aunt Betty. Just call it a bridge too far for the bad guys, at least for now. Dirty bomb, actually, also not so much. 1) The reality is that the radius of a dirty bomb is limited to the physics of a conventional explosive - it relies on conventional explosives to spread the "dirt". 2) If the dirt can be spread, it can be cleaned, and not with expensive methods. 3) The number of people that can be impacted is limited due to 1 and 2. Those victimized do not die right away, some not at all and therefore the political/publicity factor is lower...more effective for a terrorist to use conventional devices for many reasons. 3) Using highly radioactive materials to counter 1 and 2 above will result in a much more risky, costly, complex and harder to manage situation - with higher chance of failure with only marginal improvement. 4) It is detectable by both explosives detection AND radiological detection methods so a project to do such is more likely to be compromised 5) Radiological materials can be traced back to their production source. This is also why using things like SADMs would be difficult to conceal - eventually someone will analyze the blast materials, determine country of origin, and fix blame. Countries of origin would be unwilling to knowingly let such materials get into the hands of people that would use it for fear of retaliation.
To add to it....bio weapons are also a low risk/low probability terror weapon. Bio weapons have never been developed into a VIABLE and DEPLOYABLE weapon. Yes there have been lots of experiments and tests and there have been isolated uses of biological weapons (think smallpox infected blankets to Indians) but the problem with bio weapons is you can't pack a biological agent into a munition, store it in a munition magazine for 20 years, and then expect it to perform properly when fired. Also, you can't pack biological weapons into a munition and then detonate it. The explosion destroys much of the agent so you have to figure a non-explosive method of dispersal. As a deployable military weapon, bio weapons suck. The most likely terror chemical agent would be TIC/TIM, Toxic Industrial Chemical/Toxic Industrial Materials. For example, vent chlorine gas in a subway. Drive a semi tanker loaded with anhydrous ammonia into a crowded area and vent it. Look at the middle east. What chemical weapons are being used by terror organizations? TIC/TIM Traditional chemical and biological weapons are highly unlikely as terror weapons and especially in the US. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2018 7:05:23 PM EDT
[#44]
All I can say is if you live in NYC, be prepared to bug in because you aint getting out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2018 9:46:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is an excellent post with lots of factual information! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2018 8:52:25 AM EDT
[#46]
Hmm, NYC, having a hard time feeling sorry for them if this did happen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2018 9:42:43 AM EDT
[#47]
Ok, I’ll bite:
Where are they going to get a suitcase nuke? For the expense and difficulty of acquiring one, let alone building one... how many other effective plans could they have executed instead? How are they going to get around the fact that DOT and DOE can track the transmission of nuclear devices via radiological means VERY well? Just because “they can think it because I’m thinking it” doesn’t mean they can do it.  I can imagine us setting up a colony on mars, but that doesn’t mean it can happen any time soon. Trannies can imagine their genders aren’t what they be, but it do.
You really think Osama and them didn’t think about and investigate the possibility of some level of nuclear attack... yet the best they managed was box cutters and hijacked planes. OP might as well be worried with “what happens if ISIS gets a squadron of kitted-up F35s.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2018 12:38:27 AM EDT
[#48]
This is good timing. I'm just about to release a new novel in the next week that deals with suitcase nukes. I'm not a CBRN guy or a physics guy, I'm just an airplane guy and I had to do a lot of reading and research on the topic. All the guys who chimed in who are way more knowledgeable on the topic have already said everything my research said. I had to take a lot of poetic license to get these weapons to be a real threat for what I hope is an interesting read.
I read the testimonies and writings of Stanisla Lunev and Alexander Lebed and I believe, mostly, that they were lying. They had a lot to benefit from doing so, and lots of folks in US Gov't stood to benefit from exploiting their lies and the fear they created. My understanding is that the devices of 30 years ago would have had a minimum size, the Davey Crockett being at about that limit. In the novel I got around the maintenance requirement by having removable "physics packages" that were maintained by leftist physics professors at prestigious US universities. Buried Soviet weapons caches did exist. A few were found in Western Europe, one in Switzerland I believe was discovered and the self destruct mechanism detonated. As of 4 years ago the Brits were still convinced there were caches in the Isles. It was fun to imagine stumbling across a cache full of AKs, PKMs and RPGs in some remote corner of the US and I'm not going to say those caches don't exist here, but that I think it's unlikely. I can't remember if it was Lunev or Lebed that suggested the devices were brought to the US by some hair brained delivery method, some kind of secret sea launched thing that we would never detect, that pretty much told me there were no Soviet suitcase nukes on US soil, if they ever really existed. But propaganda can make for good fiction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2018 10:39:14 AM EDT
[#49]
Some people get fact and fiction confused.
All defectors have to be carefully vetted and their info cautiously used because they have a vested interest in creating "intel" that interests their handlers. Also, the Soviets would never have risked one of their nukes falling into US hands. Examining your enemies' most secretive and destructive weapons gives valuable insight into their capabilities and, more importantly, their limitations. The Soviets would never have risked that...nor would we. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
