Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens who would also die are just collateral damage?
I'll never understand the way you people think.
Your response to what Redraven said makes no sense.
What, exactly, do you expect him to do? He's in Montana. He said he would take a moment to pray for the lives lost...did you miss that part? What could he possibly do that would change what has happened?
Nothing.
So what is the point of your accusatory, nonsensical question?
Pro tip: If you are planning on getting things together after something happens you have already failed.
That's funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
So you didn't read the link and you are cluelessly blowing smoke up our butts that the writer doesn't know what he's talking about?
What kind of nuke?
Oh, I'm sorry...I didn't mean to trip up the idiot who thinks he knows something about "nukes."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof
My poll on political stance indicated there were twice as many liberals as conservatives on this forum, yet in this thread we see at least half of the posters are so rightwing that they would actually cheer the destruction of DC. Hmmmmmmm ....
They earned it and deserve it.
If they followed the Constitution, they wouldn't be in DC except for a few days each year. Congress was never intended to be a full-time job with salary, benefits, perks, a dozen staff members, retirement benefits and stuff.
Congress should not be paid anything; they only need to be there during the week of the State of the Union Address, and then for 3 days each quarter thereafter except for emergencies when a president calls Congress to assemble.
That would be like being on a street corner buying dope and then crying, "Foul!" because you got shot in a drive-by.
Oh well.
I worked in the MDW. There's nothing there. The only thing worth saving is the bridge that replaced the bridge the plane crashed into, and that's only out of sentimentality and respect for the passengers and crew who died, and their families.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof
The only kind of nuke that could be smuggled into DC would probably be a small tactical device, like our battlefield nukes (Davy Crockett), or a suitcase nuke.
Um....this is embarrassing, but the Davy Crockett was removed from inventory and disassembled in the 1960s, and the "suitcase nuke" was a Davy Crockett.
The US has no battlefield tactical nuclear weapons.
Russia and Israel are the only States known to have both back-pack nukes -- what you erroneously call "suitcase nukes" --- and tactical nukes.
It is highly probably China has back-pack nukes. It is possible North Korea has back-pack nukes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof
It would kill some thousands including many politicians...
You're flailing around conjecturing and speculating.
Damage cannot be assessed without knowing approximate yield and placement, including height of burst if applicable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof
I mean, it's not as if it's really all that high a technology, it was invented back in 1945, the main problem is in engineering and purifying. That's not a problem if a country such as Iran, Pakistan, or NKorea does the work and sells one or two. It seems almost inevitable to me. Iran might not even sell one, they might use a couple to destroy Israel! They've even said that they could accept bombardment from Israel's nukes in order to crush them.
Wow....a little less Hollywood and a lot more Reality would serve you well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven
Sure there are. If the device were to be delivered by an ICBM, they would have time to get to the bunkers, and might survive the blast.
Maybe....maybe not....depends on height of burst. What's the point delivering an ICBM when you can fire an SLBM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven
If the device was a suitcase bomb in a van near the white house or nearly anywhere in town for that matter, they would have no warning, and the bunkers would be useless.
Which do you think a terrorist would use?
Did you do the math?
2 psi will extend how far?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
it was once calculated that if a single five megaton bomb went off on the center of my city, that at five miles there would be survivors, which was interesting because at the time my house was just over five miles from the geographical center of the city. so unless you are with in five miles of the blast, and you could be even closer and still live by the way, then you are still living, and only have to deal with the fallout. radiation suit anyone?
I'll bet you got that from the Federation of Ass-Clown Scientists --- or Carl Sagan-god, so it's all wrong.
This thread is proof why presidents should not be elected through popular vote....
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,163,488 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
......They earned it and deserve it.
If they followed the Constitution, they wouldn't be in DC except for a few days each year. Congress was never intended to be a full-time job with salary, benefits, perks, a dozen staff members, retirement benefits and stuff.
Congress should not be paid anything; they only need to be there during the week of the State of the Union Address, and then for 3 days each quarter thereafter except for emergencies when a president calls Congress to assemble.
That would be like being on a street corner buying dope and then crying, "Foul!" because you got shot in a drive-by.
Oh well.
I worked in the MDW. There's nothing there. The only thing worth saving is the bridge that replaced the bridge the plane crashed into, and that's only out of sentimentality and respect for the passengers and crew who died, and their families.
Um....this is embarrassing, but the Davy Crockett was removed from inventory and disassembled in the 1960s, and the "suitcase nuke" was a Davy Crockett.
The US has no battlefield tactical nuclear weapons.
Russia and Israel are the only States known to have both back-pack nukes -- what you erroneously call "suitcase nukes" --- and tactical nukes.
It is highly probably China has back-pack nukes. It is possible North Korea has back-pack nukes.
You're flailing around conjecturing and speculating.
Damage cannot be assessed without knowing approximate yield and placement, including height of burst if applicable.
Wow....a little less Hollywood and a lot more Reality would serve you well.
Maybe....maybe not....depends on height of burst. What's the point delivering an ICBM when you can fire an SLBM?
Mircea
Congress should be part-time like when we had less than a million population? Good thinking, we should be an amateur third world country.
Good Lord, Mircea, you aren't dumb enough to think that someone would shoot a large nuke on a missile into DC, are you? There are plenty of reasons no country would do that, such as the likelihood of massive retaliation leading to the destruction of that country.
The only realistic possibility - and the one Obama referred to - is that terrorists would smuggle a small low-kiloton yield weapon in ...... something LIKE a Davy Crockett, suitcase, or backpack nuke - not necessarily those exact things. A miniature low-yield weapon. It would be set off at ground level (unless you with your secret connections figure it would be shot into the air with a catapult ) And by the way, no NKorea does not have small bombs that can be smuggled by one or two people.
So the situation would be relatively small damage, probably less than Hiroshima - some hundreds or thousands killed, but even worse the specter of mass panic. And the threat of another one delivered elsewhere if terms were not met.
Good possibility that I'd be in the fallout range. So I'd have to get my happy butt somewhere else rather quickly before I can even think about mourning losses. Granted, if there would be any safe place left in the country after such an event.
That's not a problem if a country such as Iran, Pakistan, or NKorea does the work and sells one or two. It seems almost inevitable to me.
Not to me.
Nations lack a luxury that terrorists have: We know where they live. If a nation was found to have sold a nuclear bomb to a terrorist group - or to any other non-state actor - the rest of the world would come down on them like a ton of bricks. We may not be able to locate a terrorist cell, but we can locate North Korea.
More importantly, nuclear weapons are the card to a very exclusive group of nations, and those already in the club may not agree on much, but they will agree that loose weapons are a Bad Idea, as it lowers the value of their super-expensive nuclear investment. Any regime handing off a nuclear device will find itself very lonely, very quickly.
Which leads to the final point: Nuclear weapons are strategic national security assets of the highest order. People may hand off conventional force multipliers like Stinger missiles or RPGs to unsavory characters, because while they may turn the tide of a small conflict, they're not going to be impossible to overcome, ever. But when the US allied themselves with the Mujahideen - whom we knew to be on our side only as long as we shared the Soviets as a common foe - we didn't give them the keys to a carrier group.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,163,488 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Not to me.
Nations lack a luxury that terrorists have: We know where they live. If a nation was found to have sold a nuclear bomb to a terrorist group - or to any other non-state actor - the rest of the world would come down on them like a ton of bricks. We may not be able to locate a terrorist cell, but we can locate North Korea.
More importantly, nuclear weapons are the card to a very exclusive group of nations, and those already in the club may not agree on much, but they will agree that loose weapons are a Bad Idea, as it lowers the value of their super-expensive nuclear investment. Any regime handing off a nuclear device will find itself very lonely, very quickly.
Which leads to the final point: Nuclear weapons are strategic national security assets of the highest order. People may hand off conventional force multipliers like Stinger missiles or RPGs to unsavory characters, because while they may turn the tide of a small conflict, they're not going to be impossible to overcome, ever. But when the US allied themselves with the Mujahideen - whom we knew to be on our side only as long as we shared the Soviets as a common foe - we didn't give them the keys to a carrier group.
I think Iran will soon start cranking out nukes by the dozens or hundreds, and they might be sophisticated enough to disguise the origins of one or two weapons eventually. They've as much as said that they would be willing to take retribution in order to destroy Israel ...... they are a theocracy, and their ultimate leaders are not the best and the brightest of theologians.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) And by the way, no NKorea does not have small bombs that can be smuggled by one or two people.