Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/10/2006 7:56:56 AM EDT
I don't know if it is a dupe, but I ask your opinion what can happen if a bunch of islamofascists succesfully managed to detonate a briefcase nuke or even a small tactical nuke in one of the following target:

- New York (AGAIN!!!)

or

- London (AGAIN!!!!!!!)

or

- Rome (to hit S. Peter...)

What will be the reaction seriously speaking?
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:57:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 7:58:36 AM EDT by Mr45auto]
A nuclear response to the sponsoring state. No other action would be acceptable. They'd figure out where it came from, you dont just pop a nuke together from spare parts. Once a sponsoring nation is found, they're gonna be a big smoking hole.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:59:01 AM EDT
What: Is your favorite color!
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:02:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
A nuclear response to the sponsoring state. No other action would be acceptable. They'd figure out where it came from, you dont just pop a nuke together from spare parts. Once a sponsoring nation is found, they're gonna be a big smoking hole.



I can believe this if they hit NY.

The Brits also when pissed off can press the red button to fire their submarine based ICBM.

What if the center of the christianity would be tranformed in a glass parking lot? We Italians don't have means to "prosecute diplomacy with other means..."
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:02:37 AM EDT
I think a dirty bomb is more of a chance than a suitcase nuke
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:04:30 AM EDT
what is a "suitcase nuke"?
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:05:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 8:05:34 AM EDT by Mr45auto]
Oh and a nuke to Iran just for the hell of it, even if they didnt do it you just know that they'd like to.

And we owe em one anyhow.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:10:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JFP:
what is a "suitcase nuke"?



The nuclear boogeyman du jour.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:10:09 AM EDT
That may well be what happens from a military point of view. On the political side of things I would predict new 'emergency' laws to enhance our 'national security.' (Translation: the legislators will see another opportunity to restrict our freedoms and trample on the Constitution.)
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:11:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JFP:
what is a "suitcase nuke"?



It's a small nuclear explosive device built in a suitcase size container and much more easily activable and concealable.


Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:14:39 AM EDT
Never happen. We have Jack Bauer.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:15:25 AM EDT
How does that cartoon go?

"You know what this means, Right Bob?.....Screw the size requirements, and the bag limit...."

Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:21:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PaoloAR15:

Originally Posted By JFP:
what is a "suitcase nuke"?



It's a small nuclear explosive device built in a suitcase size container and much more easily activable and concealable.







It also doesn't exist.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:22:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 8:36:02 AM EDT by Group9]

Originally Posted By PaoloAR15:

Originally Posted By JFP:
what is a "suitcase nuke"?



It's a small nuclear explosive device built in a suitcase size container and much more easily activable and concealable.





see SADM

http://www.johnmtaylor.com/foe/sadm.htm
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:24:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
A nuclear response to the sponsoring state. No other action would be acceptable. They'd figure out where it came from, you dont just pop a nuke together from spare parts. Once a sponsoring nation is found, they're gonna be a big smoking hole.




We couldn't do that, well we wouldn't. The left would eat us alive for targeting "Clearly innocent woman and children who had nothing to do with it"

Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:25:10 AM EDT
Well, I know I'll leave work early.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:25:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:

Originally Posted By PaoloAR15:

Originally Posted By JFP:
what is a "suitcase nuke"?



It's a small nuclear explosive device built in a suitcase size container and much more easily activable and concealable.







It also doesn't exist.



Correct.

www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007478


As for the small size of the weapons and the notion that they can be detonated by one person, those claims also been authoritatively dismissed. The only U.S. government official to publicly admit seeing a suitcase-sized nuclear device is Rose Gottemoeller. As a Defense Department official, she visited Russia and Ukraine to monitor compliance with disarmament treaties in the early 1990s. The Soviet-era weapon "actually required three footlockers and a team of several people to detonate," she said. "It was not something you could toss in your shoulder bag and carry on a plane or bus"

Lebed's onetime deputy, Vladimir Denisov, said he headed a special investigation in July 1996--almost a year before Lebed made his charges--and found that no army field units had portable nuclear weapons of any kind. All portable nuclear devices--which are much bigger than a suitcase--were stored at a central facility under heavy guard. Lt. Gen. Igor Valynkin, chief of the Russian Defense Ministry's 12th Main Directorate, which oversees all nuclear weapons, denied that any weapons were missing. "Nuclear suitcases . . . were never produced and are not produced," he said. While he acknowledged that they were technically possible to make, he said the weapon would have "a lifespan of only several months" and would therefore be too costly to maintain.

Gen. Valynkin is referring to the fact that radioactive weapons require a lot of shielding. To fit the radioactive material and the appropriate shielding into a suitcase would mean that a very small amount of material would have to be used. Radioactive material decays at a steady, certain rate, expressed as "half-life," or the length of time it takes for half of the material to decay into harmless elements. The half-life of the most likely materials in the infinitesimal weights necessary to fit in a suitcase is a few months. So as a matter of physics and engineering, the nuclear suitcase is an impractical weapon. It would have to be rebuilt with new radioactive elements every few months.

Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:26:39 AM EDT
The biggest problem for any target country's leadership would be to identify the sponsoring state. Al Qaeda is stateless...an amorphous gaggle of terrorists from many countries who are just dying to get their hands on a nuclear bomb to use on a Christian state and begin the apocopalyptic war they so badly want. They would gladly sacrifice just about any Muslim city (With the possible exception of Mecca) to start a nuclear war. In the meantime, they are holed up in some shithole cave way up in the Hindu Kush.

So...what do we bomb if attacked? Is it good, smart, logical policy and in the USA's best interests to turn Mecca into a giant pile of radioactive rubble? If we nuke the holy city of Qom in Iranifuckistan...is that the correct "payback" for say...50,000 American dead?

I certainly don't have the answer...and this is one tough problem for anyone. Which is why I suspect that Bush and his crew are pushing SO damn hard to keep nukes from Iran - Hezbollah - Al Qaeda, etc.

Someone here posted a good scenario a few months ago: Tell the entire world that if ONE Islamofacist terrorist bomb goes off in the USA...Mecca, Medina and Qom simply disappear. Then see what happens.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:30:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By falaholic1:
What: Is your favorite color!



Blue. No yel-- Auuuuuuuugh!
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:32:06 AM EDT
I read somewhere that ANY nuclear explosive is not manufactured the same way, maybe due to the quality or provenience of the Uranium used.

It's a sort of recognizable "fingerprinting" of the device after the blast.

Ís this a urban legend or there is something true?

Can be this of help in identifying WHO nuked us?
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:35:58 AM EDT
Even if we couldn't identify the responsible country, I believe that our response would be the most devastating that the world has ever seen.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:40:48 AM EDT
People would start panicking, afraid that more attacks would come. They would rush the grocery stores and riots would ensue. Many people would start to flee the cities and every truck driver out there would turn his rig around and head home to protect his family. Police and Guardsmen would be more interested in protecting their families than reporting for duty.

Roads would be clogged and no goods would move. There would be widespread looting and panic with far too few police to control the situation. Millions of people who fled the cities would realize that they have no supplies and nowhere to go. They will attempt to steal supplies and shelter in small communities and get shot for their troubles.

Eventually order would be restored but the chaos and destruction would take a decade to repair. Perhaps millions of people would die.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:41:22 AM EDT
IF the politicians (most of whom are libtard politically correct clowns) have any thing to do with a response, and they will, we will probably do nothing overt because the USof A has become a dumping ground for pansies, gutless wonders and sheep!!!!

Pointing fingers and invading a third world country may be the extent of our actions, while our politicos sit around and posture/preen for the cameras.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:45:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunner1X:
Well, I know I'll leave work early.



BIG plus 1 !
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:58:28 AM EDT



if terrorists set off a nuke pretty much anywhere, it would be game-on.

i think even the UN and EU would be give the victimized nation a fair ammount of leeway in dealing with their attackers.


Link Posted: 3/10/2006 8:59:03 AM EDT
Suitcase nukes don't exist? Since when?

People REALLY understimate what a large government can come up with when time and money are given...........America has admitted several times to having nukes suitcase sized , as well as the possibility of nukes in-country waiting for on ground detonation.

I know no one in here saw it but...............Around 10 years ago , 20/20 (yes , the tv show) did a special on the possibility of terrorists with 'superweapon's one of the people brought onto the show was able to build a device that was suit cased sized , out of junkyard/radio shack parts that could shut down one block's worth of anything electronic. It was noted that his device could crash airplanes , damage cars, computer systems , IV pumps ect..........Mysteriously , i've NEVER heard anything about that specific tv show afterwards......
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:06:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
Suitcase nukes don't exist? Since when?



Since we started living in the real world instead of the make believe hollywood world.

Read the opinion journal link. The closest thing to a suitcase nuke is about the size of a few footlockers an would take several people to deploy / maintain.

There is no 'suitcase nuke' out there.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:08:24 AM EDT
I don't profess to know anything about the atomic demolition munition, but the atomic cannon had a bore of 280 mm (11 inches), and the warhead was probably not more than a couple of feet long, so draw your own conclusions about the size issue.

atomic cannon link
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:16:45 AM EDT
I was just gonna post that link but you beat me to it........It was a 280mm cannon made in...........1953! That's a long time ago , obviously minturization has come a little way since then. If they could put it in a 23cm ( that's around a foot) wide device 50 years ago ,what do you think they could of done 20,30,40 years ago? We're not talking about little little nukes that produce 20kt , 100kt , more like .5kt or 1kt. They're not only possible , but the russian defence ministers admitted to having them.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:17:41 AM EDT
I would go to the grocery store and buy milk and bread.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:17:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By home_with_kids:
I don't profess to know anything about the atomic demolition munition, but the atomic cannon had a bore of 280 mm (11 inches), and the warhead was probably not more than a couple of feet long, so draw your own conclusions about the size issue.

atomic cannon link



And that is old technology.

There are nukes that are very small. Not all nukes are made to have the destruction power to take out an entire city or smiliar area. Tac nukes have been around, used to take out an airfield area and that is it...or a fleet of ships...etc..
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:19:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 9:23:00 AM EDT by Spyda]
Suitcase nuke?

Probably not, but a conventional warhead hidden in a packing crate, yes. Imo, it's not a matter of if, but of when. These criminal clerics will not stop trying to hurt us. Ever. As said, a dirty bomb will be the easiest to deploy, with the most minimal chance of it being traced. But even if a warhead's radiation signature is traced to Russian, or Pakistan's reactors, the leaders of those countries and the majority of their people wouldn't have anything to do with it. I could see retaliation only in the case of states sponcering terrorism, Iran, N. Korea, etc.

That is why winning this war is so important. These criminal clerics and their sponcers must never be allowed to gain access to nukes or bio weapons. They must be neutralized or killed. This will take a long time, perhaps decades, so I see little chance we won't be hit in all that time. I'd imagine our response to a stateless attack would be tactical nukes aimed at terrorist rescorces. It will be ugly, and will take a president with more balls than any contemporary democrat has.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:22:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 9:22:46 AM EDT by LRRPS]
Leave the earth for another planet on another galaxy.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:22:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PaoloAR15:
I read somewhere that ANY nuclear explosive is not manufactured the same way, maybe due to the quality or provenience of the Uranium used.

It's a sort of recognizable "fingerprinting" of the device after the blast.

Ís this a urban legend or there is something true?

Can be this of help in identifying WHO nuked us?




This is true. There would be a radioactive signature that would help determine where the plutonuim came from but that doesn't mean it was detonated by such country. What if the ROPer's used some old Russian nuclear material to build a bomb? Do we hammer Russia? I think not.

Even if we know the nuclear signature, it's still going to be a challenge to fing the group of nutbags that pulled the trigger.

Remember this however, the WHOLE WORLD knows our response policy. If a terrorist group from Iran pulled the trigger (not affiliated with the official Iranian government, you can bet the Iranian government would piss their pants as they themselves gave the scumbags to the US. It's a way to avoid getting nuked themselves yet still getting the result that they'll cheer about behind closed doors.

CMOS
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:26:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
Suitcase nukes don't exist? Since when?



Since we started living in the real world instead of the make believe hollywood world.

Read the opinion journal link. The closest thing to a suitcase nuke is about the size of a few footlockers an would take several people to deploy / maintain.

There is no 'suitcase nuke' out there.




So the devices shot out of our Howitzers weren't tactical nuke devices? You mean we don't really have nuke warheads that are small enough to be carried by cruise missles? Well......damn.....I guess I have been fooled again.



The fireball ascending at Frenchman's Flat, Nevada from a test of history's first atomic artillery shell. The shell was fired from the Army's 280-mm Atomic Cannon. The MK-9 artillery shell was propelled a distance of seven miles, culminating in a 15 kt. airburst. Hundreds of high ranking military officers and members of the U.S. Congress were present, including Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson and designated Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Arthur W. Radford. Operation Upshot-Knothole, Test Grable, 25 May 1953.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:34:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:37:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:41:03 AM EDT
I am afraid to search 'Suitcase Nuke' in google.

Someone else do it for me and tell me what Images come up.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:52:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 9:58:45 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:57:08 AM EDT
Sure, it was a movie, but....




The Manhattan Project (1986)

Paul Stevens' (Christopher Collet) high school science project has gotten a little out of hand. He just built an atomic bomb. Now he's got 11 hours to make sure it doesn't work. The switch is set... The clock has started... Time's running out!

"I never thought I'd say this to anyone, but I have to go get the atomic bomb from out of the trunk of the car." - Paul Stevens

"Hey, Mister, I betcha can't guess what I've got in this box. An atomic bomb." - Paul Stevens
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 9:57:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
Suitcase nukes don't exist? Since when?



Since we started living in the real world instead of the make believe hollywood world.

Read the opinion journal link. The closest thing to a suitcase nuke is about the size of a few footlockers an would take several people to deploy / maintain.

There is no 'suitcase nuke' out there.



Perhaps you should start reading Fact Journals...
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 10:10:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pcsutton:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
Suitcase nukes don't exist? Since when?



Since we started living in the real world instead of the make believe hollywood world.

Read the opinion journal link. The closest thing to a suitcase nuke is about the size of a few footlockers an would take several people to deploy / maintain.

There is no 'suitcase nuke' out there.




So the devices shot out of our Howitzers weren't tactical nuke devices? You mean we don't really have nuke warheads that are small enough to be carried by cruise missles? Well......damn.....I guess I have been fooled again.

img.photobucket.com/albums/v732/pcsutton/280mm_shell_atomic_exp.gif

The fireball ascending at Frenchman's Flat, Nevada from a test of history's first atomic artillery shell. The shell was fired from the Army's 280-mm Atomic Cannon. The MK-9 artillery shell was propelled a distance of seven miles, culminating in a 15 kt. airburst. Hundreds of high ranking military officers and members of the U.S. Congress were present, including Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson and designated Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Arthur W. Radford. Operation Upshot-Knothole, Test Grable, 25 May 1953.



Different tech, different uses. Different storage, maintenance, and transporting requirements. Again, read the opinion journal article.

I've the many 'suitcase nuke' stories I've read, not one has mentioned them being nuke artillery pieces. Not even the people who tried to hype the story (mainly the russian guy who had a flare for drama) even hinted to them being related to artillery nukes.

Link Posted: 3/10/2006 10:10:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
Suitcase nukes don't exist? Since when?



Since we started living in the real world instead of the make believe hollywood world.

Read the opinion journal link. The closest thing to a suitcase nuke is about the size of a few footlockers an would take several people to deploy / maintain.

There is no 'suitcase nuke' out there.



Perhaps you should start reading Fact Journals...



Have been. The ones who check their FACTS and are interested in facts instead of hype have thoroughly debunked the suitcase nuke myth.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 10:24:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By Shockergd:
Suitcase nukes don't exist? Since when?



Since we started living in the real world instead of the make believe hollywood world.

Read the opinion journal link. The closest thing to a suitcase nuke is about the size of a few footlockers an would take several people to deploy / maintain.

There is no 'suitcase nuke' out there.



Perhaps you should start reading Fact Journals...



Have been. The ones who check their FACTS and are interested in facts instead of hype have thoroughly debunked the suitcase nuke myth.



Uh huh. Then kindly explain how our military was able to shoot one out of a cannon in the Fifties...? Did they debunk that one too?
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 10:40:21 AM EDT

What if a Terrorist detonated a briefcase nuke?


What would happen is that a great number of Americans would rush to defend Islam as a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few bad seeds, and our collective gaze would turn toward examining what we did to deserve the attack.

Candles would be lit. Tears would be shed. Guilt & self loathing would flourish. Concessions to the "arab street" would be made.

Like it or not, that's what would really happen.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 10:42:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:

What if a Terrorist detonated a briefcase nuke?


What would happen is that a great number of Americans would rush to defend Islam as a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few bad seeds, and our collective gaze would turn toward examining what we did to deserve the attack.

Candles would be lit. Tears would be shed. Guilt & self loathing would flourish. Concessions to the "arab street" would be made.

Like it or not, that's what would really happen.





True...true...oh..and don't forget the pictures of their hands.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 10:45:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Nephilim:

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:

What if a Terrorist detonated a briefcase nuke?


What would happen is that a great number of Americans would rush to defend Islam as a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few bad seeds, and our collective gaze would turn toward examining what we did to deserve the attack.

Candles would be lit. Tears would be shed. Guilt & self loathing would flourish. Concessions to the "arab street" would be made.

Like it or not, that's what would really happen.





True...true...oh..and don't forget the pictures of their hands.




Sorry... you are right. I also forgot the gnashing of teeth.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 10:52:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 10:55:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 11:32:41 AM EDT by copenhagen]
More likely a simply weapon such as the gun-bore type bomb we took out Hiroshima with. These weapons have very little maintenance and are much more easily constructed than a small implosion device. If AQ got small nukes from the Soviets these implosion type bombs would have had to be maintained to be reliable. This is a real technical job.If you guys are interested in this possibility there is a book that has came out.
The book is call The Rings of Allah. www.amazon.com/gp/product/1418427276/103-2417190-5321434?v=glance&n=283155

Book Description
Al-Qaeda obtains old Soviet nuclear test devices left over from the late 1940s, "Little Boy" type nuclear devices that can be disassembled and then reassembled. The devices become Usama bin Laden’s most secret ace in the hole. Only three people, including bin Laden know of the devices, code named "Allah’s Rings." Mohammed, bin Laden’s lieutenant, is in charge of the project. The U.S. cell leader, Ralph Eid, a native borne citizen formulates a plan to bring the components of the devices into the U.S. and hide them in plain sight in the target cities. General Alexander becomes aware of the plot in the eleventh hour attempts to stop Muraaqibu al-Khawaatim (Keeper of the Rings) from executing the plan. The technology is real, the plot entirely feasible, and the consequence is predicted in the 9/11 Commission Report, "Another attack is probably coming; it may be terrible." A realistic story showing that, yes, it can be done. The author has the background and knowledge to write a realistic, technically sound plot that will leave no doubt as to the vulnerability of western civilization to terrorism and the threat of weapons of mass destruction. The Rings of Allah provides a thrilling and realistic story of one such plan.

From the Publisher
A NOVEL THAT PREDATES THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT

A frightening story, which could have been taken from the pages of The 9/11 Commission Report, presents a realistic and frightening picture of how simple atomic weapons could be smuggled into and hidden in America. The author has the background and knowledge to write a realistic, technically sound plot that will leave no doubt as to the vulnerability of western civilization to terrorism and the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Yes, it can be done, and the Rings of Allah provides a thrilling and realistic story of one such plan.

"Boyland’s novel hits the nail on the head. I can still happen today," A retired NSA official.

The main characters include a sharp, old Soviet nuclear weapons test engineer; an idealistic young American drawn into the Afghanistan Jihad, who later becomes a conflicted soul; the al-Qaeda cell leader, who slowly slips into insanity; a beautiful blond venture capitalist, who is unwittingly ensnarled into the terrorist plot; an enterprising KGB officer and member of The Group; and General Alexander, who becomes aware of the plot in the eleventh hour and attempts to stop Muraaqibu al-Khawaatim (Keeper of the Rings) from executing the plan.


Boyland has a degree in nuclear engineering. Has actually worked on our nuclear weapons programs. Ex-Navel intel-After reading this book you will have a real good idea on what it would take for terrorists to get one of these bombs,and get it into our country. Part of the book is very technical,but he doesn't tell you how to make a weapon. You will be able to spot the much BS that the press puts out about this scenario.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 10:58:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PaoloAR15:

Originally Posted By Mr45auto:
A nuclear response to the sponsoring state. No other action would be acceptable. They'd figure out where it came from, you dont just pop a nuke together from spare parts. Once a sponsoring nation is found, they're gonna be a big smoking hole.



I can believe this if they hit NY.

The Brits also when pissed off can press the red button to fire their submarine based ICBM.

What if the center of the christianity would be tranformed in a glass parking lot? We Italians don't have means to "prosecute diplomacy with other means..."



Rome isn't a logical target - their beef isn't with Christiantity, it's with western liberal-democratic culture, vis-a-vis USA & secular Europe...

Link Posted: 3/10/2006 10:59:26 AM EDT
We would take harsh action, most likely against the wrong group, as was planned/expected by the actual perpetrators.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top