silly ppl, if saddam ever got a nuke, he'd smuggle it out of his country.. to canada or mexico.. smuggle it in by truck into a large city.. kaboom! then laugh like a mad man
PalmettoTiger, I also was thinking about "Bullet Tooth Tony's" line when I read that Excellent Movie
I have some questions. What is destruction area of the Nukes we have these days? And how far would the fallout fall away from ground-zero? And, don't people live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today? How permenent is nuclear holocaust?
Excellent MovieI have some questions. What is destruction area of the Nukes we have these days? And how far would the fallout fall away from ground-zero? And, don't people live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today? How permenent is nuclear holocaust?
I have no doubt that Saddam has some sort of nuclear, and if not nuclear than chemical or biological, device. And I have no doubt he has the guts to use it, after all, the man is nuts. I do doubt, however, that he has any type of delivery system to get it to the US. I liked the idea about smuggling it to Mexico/Canada and then driving it in, that's possible, I mean as long as he can get it into Canada who's going to stop him from crossing the border? The mounties? It'd take him 5 mins to kill two border patrol gaurds and the floor it for the nearest American city. Then BOOM. Lots of people die. Then like it's been said, we'd carpet Iraq with high explosive material. But then, can we really prove it was Iraq? At ground zero of an explosion like that there won't be any evidence, if anyone can even get that close. So would it really be a politically safe thing to do to go destroying the country with no proof? What about if Saddam just nukes Irael? We aren't harmed but we have to retaliate of course, and again, lay his country to waste. I'm sure he really doesn't care about his own people and he'd just flee the country before he launches the weapon. So then he'll start over in some other place and we'll never get rid of him. Too bad America doesn't condone the assassination of foreign leaders. Heh. <--- Just some thoughts.
Unfortunately, some of you don't seem to be able to think in other cultural patterns than American.
First of all, nukes are bad, but you should be more scared by biological and chemical weapons. A modified flu virus, like Ebola, or other nasty disease like anthrax or tularemia would wipe out a city just as a nuke would. And since the disease takes a few days between first contact and first symptoms, it's even easier to sneak into a foreign country. A simple suitcase, or bottle, thrown into the water source of a large city, for instance, will very likely kill it.
As for nukes, Saddam can destroy the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and/or the United Arab Emirates. That's his deterrence, ace in the hole, and that's why nobody actually goes after him. The West hopes that he will die of old age, like Khomeini, or be taken out in a mutiny, like Ceausescu. Killing foreign leaders is one step that NO COUNTRY in the world should dare take, because it would destroy the very essence of democracy. Even if your adversaries are not democratic.
Do not kid yourselves, this game with Iraq is highly political, and it has less to do with "honor", "military" and "human rights" reasons than it does with "oil". The American media is very biased, and creates skewed public opinions, which is exactly what your government wants. European and Canadian sources are a little more objective, at least because thay take more details into consideration, and look at history rather than be persuaded by visceral, reptilian reactions. "Wag the Dog" was a good example of skillful propaganda work, despite the fact that it was a satire.
First of all, nukes are bad, but you should be more scared by biological and chemical weapons. A modified flu virus, like Ebola, or other nasty disease like anthrax or tularemia would wipe out a city just as a nuke would. And since the disease takes a few days between first contact and first symptoms, it's even easier to sneak into a foreign country. A simple suitcase, or bottle, thrown into the water source of a large city, for instance, will very likely kill it.
As for nukes, Saddam can destroy the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and/or the United Arab Emirates. That's his deterrence, ace in the hole, and that's why nobody actually goes after him. The West hopes that he will die of old age, like Khomeini, or be taken out in a mutiny, like Ceausescu. Killing foreign leaders is one step that NO COUNTRY in the world should dare take, because it would destroy the very essence of democracy. Even if your adversaries are not democratic.
Do not kid yourselves, this game with Iraq is highly political, and it has less to do with "honor", "military" and "human rights" reasons than it does with "oil". The American media is very biased, and creates skewed public opinions, which is exactly what your government wants. European and Canadian sources are a little more objective, at least because thay take more details into consideration, and look at history rather than be persuaded by visceral, reptilian reactions. "Wag the Dog" was a good example of skillful propaganda work, despite the fact that it was a satire.
Thelair - Israeli police confirmed that nerve gas was present at the site of one of the Scud shootdowns during the Gulf War. And I'm not so sure that they would invade Iraq. What would they do with it?
One thing that no one has mentioned is that Saddam is still in power because realistically there's not much alternative. He has destroyed all of his competent rivals. And given the CIA's track record with assassinations etc, if we took him out it would probably backfire. I don't suppose anyone would be very pleased to see Iran in charge of Iraq.
All you people worried about nuclear fallout, etc. if your city gets nuked are forgetting the most important thing! When that EMP goes out, your RC5 crackbox (join TA Cube join TA Cube join TA Cube) or your gaming rig will be fried!! Hmm... forget overclocking projects. Time to start working on EMP shielding projects!
One thing that no one has mentioned is that Saddam is still in power because realistically there's not much alternative. He has destroyed all of his competent rivals. And given the CIA's track record with assassinations etc, if we took him out it would probably backfire. I don't suppose anyone would be very pleased to see Iran in charge of Iraq.
All you people worried about nuclear fallout, etc. if your city gets nuked are forgetting the most important thing! When that EMP goes out, your RC5 crackbox (join TA Cube join TA Cube join TA Cube) or your gaming rig will be fried!! Hmm... forget overclocking projects. Time to start working on EMP shielding projects!
Uncouth, the absolute destruction area of a modern thermonuclear device varies widely by size (in kiloton or megaton yields). A single 20kt tactical weapon would destroy (phisically) around 8 and a half square miles completely, with an area about ten times that either burned or irradiated enough to end most (70% or so depending on actual distance) life. Structural damage would be significantly less. (This is a mile and a half radius of complete destruction with up to 5 mile radius of almost certain death, but not necessarily from the actual blast.) A 500kt device would yield a 65 square mile complete destruction zone with a significantly smaller (percentage wise) 400 square mile kill zone. A one megaton strategig device yields around 100 square miles of absolute destruction with up to 700 square miles of kill. (5.6 mile radius absolute, 15 mile radius kill) The larger bombs have to be detonated significantly higher than the smaller ones to achieve maximum destruction at ground zero, hence their percentages are lower in square miles of damage per kiloton.
Fallout varies also by yeild, wind patterns and weather.
Isotopes have half lives varying from milliseconds to billions of years. The period of time before any given area is habitable again would be a minimum of around 5 years. This does not mean safe, however. It will be at least 30 years before the damaging radiation will not be the largest cause of death, and maybe 300 or more years.
Fallout varies also by yeild, wind patterns and weather.
Isotopes have half lives varying from milliseconds to billions of years. The period of time before any given area is habitable again would be a minimum of around 5 years. This does not mean safe, however. It will be at least 30 years before the damaging radiation will not be the largest cause of death, and maybe 300 or more years.
EMP Shielding? How about I just add a few thousands of coats of lead paint like in the Simpsons? I'm a little more worried about my death and probably the incineration of my computer than the fact that after it's incinerated, it will also no longer work thanks to the EMP.
Playitagainsam, Most of the biological weapons you list cannot survive in a municipal water system. The exception may be Anthrax. Ebola is a poor biological weapon because it cannot survive outside the body for more than a few minutes. Chemical, and nerve agents are usually delivered as vapor (inhalants). But, there are quite a few chemical agents, and perhaps a few biologics that could survive the cold, and chlorine inside a municipal water system.
the idea that saddam insane might (probably does) have a nuclear weapon is just plain scary... this could spark us to fire nukes, and then we have nukes all over and nothing but dead people and radiation, which kills lots more people.. so.. what does it solve?
Ehh... the EMP shielding was a joke. An apparently futile attempt to make fun of the relentless tweaking and gotta-have-the-coolest-add-on mindset...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter