Osama bin Laden planning American Hiroshima

[JTsyo]

I nuclear attack would be worst thing for the terrorist to use. After that the gloves would be off and other countries wouldn't be so critical of American actions in the hunt for terrorists. Would Pakistan stop US troops from crossing the border in search for terrorist after a nuclear attack, I think not.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Socio
Well you probably won't want to quit your job but you might want to get something like this and keep it stashed at the office just in case.

Wow, are you too afraid to come out of your underground bunker ever because you worry about this sort of stuff?

The reality is that you are *way* more likely to get cancer and die, get in a car accident and die, get hit by lightning and die, etc.....then get killed in any sort of terrorist event.

If you want to worry about something, worry about your food. The minor salmonella outbreak that happened a week ago is a great example of how easy it is to cause trouble if someone wanted. I guess this means you won't ever be able to eat at a restaurant anymore now.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: JTsyo
I nuclear attack would be worst thing for the terrorist to use. After that the gloves would be off and other countries wouldn't be so critical of American actions in the hunt for terrorists. Would Pakistan stop US troops from crossing the border in search for terrorist after a nuclear attack, I think not.

pretty sure obama and the dems would even be on board (again) for some ass-whuppin' if this happened...

it's amazing how folks go from doves to hawks when they are directly affected by some evil... and those directly affected seem to stay hawks long after the folks who were just sympathizing with them get bored of the work that vigilence and enforcement require...

and of course there are backpack nukes - didn't u see the clooney/kidman classic "the peacemaker"??? actually it's an ok bucket o'popcorn flick...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: JTsyo
I nuclear attack would be worst thing for the terrorist to use. After that the gloves would be off and other countries wouldn't be so critical of American actions in the hunt for terrorists. Would Pakistan stop US troops from crossing the border in search for terrorist after a nuclear attack, I think not.

pretty sure obama and the dems would even be on board (again) for some ass-whuppin' if this happened...

it's amazing how folks go from doves to hawks when they are directly affected by some evil... and those directly affected seem to stay hawks long after the folks who were just sympathizing with them get bored of the work that vigilence and enforcement require...

and of course there are backpack nukes - didn't u see the clooney/kidman classic "the peacemaker"??? actually it's an ok bucket o'popcorn flick...

Actually that's not true at all. Look at New York, the place actually attacked on 9/11. (ok the Pentagon was too but you know what I mean) New York as a whole has gotten over it and has been over it for years. That's what's so funny about all the people in middle America who are petrified about a terrorist attack, because no terrorist would want to bother attacking where they live. The people in the actual targets, DC, NYC, LA, etc. are far less concerned about it as a general rule.

So no, the hawks in our case seem to be the people least affected by terrorist attacks.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
ROFL. If he had them he'd have used them already. Why let us keep killing Taliban and AQ? I highly doubt he has one, let alone several.

As far as the bombs themselves, a suitcase bomb will be extremely low yield and probably doesn't even have a quarter the power of either WW2 atomic weapons. It wouldn't "cripple" the US, nor would it put us into the stone age. People using this type of hyperbole really need to get a grip.

A suitcase bomb, from what I know of the definition, isn't really a nuclear explosion, rather it's just radioactive material that is detonated with conventional explosives to cause a spread over an area (of a few blocks at most), so more on the level of being threatened with a biological or chemical weapon. Still would be a pretty devastating attack though, but I wonder about the whole "sneaking over the Mexican border" thing. While I'm not sure how hard/easy it is to enter the country through unpatrolled sections of the border with nuclear material, you definitely wouldn't get through a border check point with any.

I believe you are thinking about a "dirty bomb".

A suitcase nuke is supposed to have a roughly 1KT nuclear yield in a 50ish pound package. The explosion is relatively small on modern nuke scales but they can still do a heck of a lot of damage when strategically placed.

A kiloton eh? That's probably at least 2 orders of magnitude beyond a truckload of TNT. The MOAB comes in at around a 40 ton yield, and that thing weighs about 10 tons.

For comparison the bomb we dropped on Nagassaki "Fat Man had a 41 KT yield. 1KT is very small when your talking about nukes but at the end of the day it can still pack a big ass punch.

Not that I buy the OP or anything. Just pointing out the fact that its still a big ass bomb... if they exist and still work.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: bamacre
What is completely ironic is this fear-mongering actually says two things.

One, the current dumbass in the oval office hasn't done anything to "protect us from terrerrists," and two, we have squandered way too many resources fighting fake enemies, instead of actually doing whatever it takes to nab and/or kill our real enemies who have been living the good life in Pakistan while we run our imperialistic adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For a change, bamacre and I agree totally.

This sure sounds to me like a typical case of the Republican version of
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Does this change our terror alert status to orange? Do we need to get out the plastic sheeting and duct tape again?
Remember to vote Republican and you'll all be safe...:roll:

 

[conehead433]

The suitcase nuke scenario is a bit farfetched, but this thread does make me think of a couple of things. After 9-11 and it was determined that OBL was behind it, the President should have demanded to have his head on a platter. Our borders are so porous that it is only a matter of time before we have an incident related to terrorists coming over the border. We won't be able to blame Bush or the next President entirely since this problem goes back for quite a few administrations.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: bamacre
What is completely ironic is this fear-mongering actually says two things.

One, the current dumbass in the oval office hasn't done anything to "protect us from terrerrists," and two, we have squandered way too many resources fighting fake enemies, instead of actually doing whatever it takes to nab and/or kill our real enemies who have been living the good life in Pakistan while we run our imperialistic adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I've got to give it to your media. They've managed to make a person that sounds sane on this forum into believing that Pakistan is the problem. Readying yourself for another invasion? First it was Afghanistan; then Saddam's nukes that 99% of Americans were made to believe he had; then the Iran threat until they realize Iran was too strong to be messing around with. Now you have Pakistan. Your real enemies are your rulers who start wars for oil and wealth which causes the rest of the world to hate you.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: conehead433
The suitcase nuke scenario is a bit farfetched, but this thread does make me think of a couple of things. After 9-11 and it was determined that OBL was behind it, the President should have demanded to have his head on a platter. Our borders are so porous that it is only a matter of time before we have an incident related to terrorists coming over the border. We won't be able to blame Bush or the next President entirely since this problem goes back for quite a few administrations.

The whole porous borders thing is bad, but remember, the 9/11 terrorists got here through legal channels.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Actually that's not true at all. Look at New York, the place actually attacked on 9/11. (ok the Pentagon was too but you know what I mean) New York as a whole has gotten over it and has been over it for years. That's what's so funny about all the people in middle America who are petrified about a terrorist attack, because no terrorist would want to bother attacking where they live. The people in the actual targets, DC, NYC, LA, etc. are far less concerned about it as a general rule.

So no, the hawks in our case seem to be the people least affected by terrorist attacks.

One of the most annoying things is when people from Bumblef*ck, Wyoming say they are worried about a terrorist attack and want Bush to keep them safe. Come on! They live in the middle of f*cking nowhere. To paraphrase the words of Lewis Black, a terrorist wouldn't bother killing them, since seeing where they live, they're already dead.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: bamacre
What is completely ironic is this fear-mongering actually says two things.

One, the current dumbass in the oval office hasn't done anything to "protect us from terrerrists," and two, we have squandered way too many resources fighting fake enemies, instead of actually doing whatever it takes to nab and/or kill our real enemies who have been living the good life in Pakistan while we run our imperialistic adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I've got to give it to your media. They've managed to make a person that sounds sane on this forum into believing that Pakistan is the problem. Readying yourself for another invasion? First it was Afghanistan; then Saddam's nukes that 99% of Americans were made to believe he had; then the Iran threat until they realize Iran was too strong to be messing around with. Now you have Pakistan. Your real enemies are your rulers who start wars for oil and wealth which causes the rest of the world to hate you.

You're making my post something it surely, and clearly, isn't.

I never apologized for nor applauded the mess in Iraq. This is clear in my post.

Our initial reasoning for invading Afghanistan had merit. Our nation building there now does not.

Pakistan is now a problem, as we foolishly allowed OBL and Al-Zawahiri to escape there. Pakistan needs to apprehend them, or suffer the consequences of us doing the job ourselves.

As for your last sentence, I couldn't agree more. And I have been advocating a different foreign policy for the USA. That however is not easy, since both the major parties support the same old foreign policy, arguing only the details.

 

[yllus]

Rule #1 of dealing with stolen property as a criminal: Get rid/use your stolen goods as soon as possible, because every second you don't use them you run the risk of exposure and confiscation. This is hilariously improbable.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: JTsyo
I nuclear attack would be worst thing for the terrorist to use. After that the gloves would be off and other countries wouldn't be so critical of American actions in the hunt for terrorists. Would Pakistan stop US troops from crossing the border in search for terrorist after a nuclear attack, I think not.

pretty sure obama and the dems would even be on board (again) for some ass-whuppin' if this happened...

it's amazing how folks go from doves to hawks when they are directly affected by some evil... and those directly affected seem to stay hawks long after the folks who were just sympathizing with them get bored of the work that vigilence and enforcement require...

and of course there are backpack nukes - didn't u see the clooney/kidman classic "the peacemaker"??? actually it's an ok bucket o'popcorn flick...

Nothing personal, but this is a great example of just how effective the BushCo brainwashing machine is (or how dumb many Americans are, take your pick). The Dems as a whole have never had a problem with actually going after terrorists. Indeed, Obama specifically said he favored limited action in Pakistan to get al Qaida, and was immediately attacked by the Bush camp. The objection is invading a country with no material connection to al Qaida, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings (including over 4,000 American soldiers), squandering upwards of a trillion borrowed dollars, inflaming hatred against the United States (thus increasing the legions of potential terrorists), and justifying it as the "War! On! Terror!" Nonetheless, millions of Americans still somehow see the Democrats as weak on fighting terror, and Bush & friends as strong. It boggles the mind.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
ROFL. If he had them he'd have used them already. Why let us keep killing Taliban and AQ? I highly doubt he has one, let alone several.

As far as the bombs themselves, a suitcase bomb will be extremely low yield and probably doesn't even have a quarter the power of either WW2 atomic weapons. It wouldn't "cripple" the US, nor would it put us into the stone age. People using this type of hyperbole really need to get a grip.

It could be pretty damn devastating if there are one or two in nine major cities and one Washington DC set to go off in the middle of the day during the week, particularly if timed when Congress is in session, and Bush, Cheney, McCain and Obama are all in DC.

Nuking DC? Might be the best thing to happen to the US in decades.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Socio

Originally posted by: Fox5

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
ROFL. If he had them he'd have used them already. Why let us keep killing Taliban and AQ? I highly doubt he has one, let alone several.

As far as the bombs themselves, a suitcase bomb will be extremely low yield and probably doesn't even have a quarter the power of either WW2 atomic weapons. It wouldn't "cripple" the US, nor would it put us into the stone age. People using this type of hyperbole really need to get a grip.

A suitcase bomb, from what I know of the definition, isn't really a nuclear explosion, rather it's just radioactive material that is detonated with conventional explosives to cause a spread over an area (of a few blocks at most), so more on the level of being threatened with a biological or chemical weapon. Still would be a pretty devastating attack though, but I wonder about the whole "sneaking over the Mexican border" thing. While I'm not sure how hard/easy it is to enter the country through unpatrolled sections of the border with nuclear material, you definitely wouldn't get through a border check point with any.

If drug smugglers can smuggle bails of marijuana across the border they could easily smuggle 20 suitcase/backpack sized bombs.

However you are right about trying to cross at border crossings as many of the border crossings down here have been fitted with radioactive detectors. They look kind of like those things you pass through when you exit a department store and detect if someone steals something. Only instead of you passing though, your whole vehicle passes through it.

In fact, a about a year ago after one of the first one of the detectors had been installed they caught a dump truck coming across with radioactive medical waste which they were planning on dumping in one of our landfills.

Then stop supporting a political party intent on spreading our military across the world rather than on our borders.

Remind me, why do we have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed around the world?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Socio
I am sure these suitcases are here they are shielded, lined, and sealed so they won?t just glow with radiation like a beacon in the night making them obvious to beat cops.

Radioactive materials don't glow except in the movies. :laugh:

Critical mass for plutonium is about 4 kg or 9 lbs. Your suitcase nuke has to start from about that weight. Then there's the other materials and the complex explosives required for an implosion-type fission bomb. Then there's the fact that plutonium is the most toxic element there is, so that heavy shielding is needed to protect the life of the terrorist carrying it (at least until he detonates it), but still couldn't possibly be enough to block the distinctive alpha particle radiation signature of plutonium.
By this time, you're looking at more of a 100 lb backpack instead of a suitcase. That's gonna draw attention at the airports. And due to all these constraints of size and weight, yield would probably be in the 1 kt range, or less than 1/10th of Hiroshima.

The practicality is just not there. Powerful nations struggle to build nuclear weapons, but according to Socio, a terrorist group like Al Queda can not only build them, but a 'suitcase nuke' design better than what the US Army can make. No way.

 

[Genx87]

I was under the impression you have a critical mass with nuclear material that is in the hundreds of pounds. Vic says 9 with the surrounding equipment bringing it to 100 pounds. Either way these suitcase bombs imo were always rubbish. For any kind of devastating blast the device is going to weigh hundreds if not thousands of pounds.

If I see 8 ME looking men carrying a bag in the middle of NYC. Ill shat myself. But the chances of that happening are rather low.

Thankfully while nuclear devices are terrible weapons they also have development and maintenance costs that have been outside organizations like AQ. But dirty bombs can be pretty devasting on a morale level.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I was under the impression you have a critical mass with nuclear material that is in the hundreds of pounds. Vic says 9 with the surrounding equipment bringing it to 100 pounds. Either way these suitcase bombs imo were always rubbish. For any kind of devastating blast the device is going to weigh hundreds if not thousands of pounds.

If I see 8 ME looking men carrying a bag in the middle of NYC. Ill shat myself. But the chances of that happening are rather low.

Thankfully while nuclear devices are terrible weapons they also have development and maintenance costs that have been outside organizations like AQ. But dirty bombs can be pretty devasting on a morale level.

Plutonium blows up more easily then uranium, so you need less of it. I don't think you need hundreds of pounds for uranium either... more like 50lbs or so. So... I'm going to guess any portable nuke will be a plutonium based one.

Of course then you need to have all the other stuff necessary to safely transport and detonate it. No matter what your bomb is going to be heavy, probably too heavy for a suitcase. Again, that's why even the small yield 'suitcase' nukes were actually 'backpack' nukes, and those only had a yield of about 1KT. Sure that's pretty awful still, but it's a small fraction of the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima.

Again, these things require upkeep in order to maintain their potency. After 20 years of neglect there's a good chance they don't work at all anymore and if they do they probably have a reduced yield. And I'm sorry, but if Osama had access to nukes he would have used them on us a long time ago.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I was under the impression you have a critical mass with nuclear material that is in the hundreds of pounds. Vic says 9 with the surrounding equipment bringing it to 100 pounds. Either way these suitcase bombs imo were always rubbish. For any kind of devastating blast the device is going to weigh hundreds if not thousands of pounds.

If I see 8 ME looking men carrying a bag in the middle of NYC. Ill shat myself. But the chances of that happening are rather low.

Thankfully while nuclear devices are terrible weapons they also have development and maintenance costs that have been outside organizations like AQ. But dirty bombs can be pretty devasting on a morale level.

Hm, I thought you would know this.

Vic is talking about Pu. U, otoh, you need about 60kg for critical mass.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
And I'm sorry, but if Osama had access to nukes he would have used them on us a long time ago.

I disagree. Fear of pain is many times over more powerful than the actual pain itself.

If this is indeed Pu we are talking about, then I severely doubt they have the implosion device in a suitcase.

But uranium nukes are so ridiculously simple. Getting the uranium, otoh, is not. If Iran doesn't have the uranium-235 for a single bomb, then Al-Q sure doesn't have enough for 20.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
For comparison the bomb we dropped on Nagassaki "Fat Man had a 41 KT yield. 1KT is very small when your talking about nukes but at the end of the day it can still pack a big ass punch.

Not that I buy the OP or anything. Just pointing out the fact that its still a big ass bomb... if they exist and still work.

Link to proof of 41KT yield? It's common known fact that both of the WW2 bombs yielded in the low 20s.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: eskimospy
And I'm sorry, but if Osama had access to nukes he would have used them on us a long time ago.

I disagree. Fear of pain is many times over more powerful than the actual pain itself.

If this is indeed Pu we are talking about, then I severely doubt they have the implosion device in a suitcase.

But uranium nukes are so ridiculously simple. Getting the uranium, otoh, is not. If Iran doesn't have the uranium-235 for a single bomb, then Al-Q sure doesn't have enough for 20.

Sure, but very few people in the US actually believe that Osama has a nuke... only the lunatic fringe and the paranoids do. If Osama were to use one nuke on us, then a lot more people would be willing to entertain the idea that he might have two or more. So so much more fear there then just some nebulous (and largely discredited) idea that he might have one in a cave somewhere.

If he had one he would use it in a second.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Then stop supporting a political party intent on spreading our military across the world rather than on our borders.

Remind me, why do we have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed around the world?

To protect and promote our economic interests in other parts of the world.

 

[Socio]

Here is a very good read on Suitcase nukes, rough size, design, yield capacity ect?;

Suitcase Nukes

Looking at how they are designed it appears the basic up keep would just be replacing the battery when you are ready to use it, if so then I am sure they would be quite usable still today.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm surprised nobody posted this-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

http://nuclearweaponarchive.or.../Weapons/Allbombs.html

The information is a little vague wrt yield, being somewhere between 10T and 1KT, with some versions having user selectable yield... add the effects of radiation, and any of them would probably kill anybody within ~1/4 mile... weight ~51-52 lbs.

Soviet models were probably quite similar...

The small size is possible only in fusion-boosted designs, requiring more technological expertise and periodic replacement of the radioactive tritium gas required to create the effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...sign#cite_ref-dud_36-1

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Socio
Here is a very good read on Suitcase nukes, rough size, design, yield capacity ect?;

Suitcase Nukes

You must be a very scared person to frequent those sites.