• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Possible Nuclear Attack on Saturday

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: dwell
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Actually, me and dwell are buddies. 😀 :beer:
Click to expand...

Hey yeah! :beer: TTT when the sh*t hits the fan, I'd rather have Crazyfool on my side with his arsenal than jpeyton who'd be getting fit for a burka 🙂


:beer::beer::beer:
Click to expand...

I'd rather have intelligence and logic by my side, thanks.
Click to expand...

let us know when you find it.
Click to expand...

Won't find it in this thread, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Then back to P&N you go!
 
What I can't understand is why people think nuclear weapons are tiny little things. Plutonium required for a nuke weighs 10 kilos (25 pounds), to get it to explode you have to pack explosives around it, many many pounds of explosives, they have to be very special explosives with many layers of fast and slow burn layered so that the implosion is uniform or all you will do is blow the polutonium around and not into a supercritical mass. If you don't have access to high tech explosives you have to use a lot more of the lower grades. A hand built plutonium nuke is going to weigh a couple hundered pounds without shielding and without that shielding anyone around the thing is going to die of radiation exposure, with a probable lethal exposure in hours. With shiedling the thing is going to weigh a half a ton.

And that's if you have plutonium, critical mass for uranium is IIRC around 100 pounds. Everyone talks about "suitcase nukes" but even the low yield tactical nukes that the US planned to use against a soviet invasion of europe weighed in excess of 250 pounds (and they were a lot higher tech than something Al Queda would be able to build). The idea of them smuggling a nuke in is quite silly. I'm not going to deny it's possible (ala what happened in true lies) where a large nuke is smuggled in, but the probability is just miniscule and frankly where I live I don't need to be worried at all.
 
Originally posted by: rahvin
What I can't understand is why people think nuclear weapons are tiny little things. Plutonium required for a nuke weighs 10 kilos (25 pounds), to get it to explode you have to pack explosives around it, many many pounds of explosives, they have to be very special explosives with many layers of fast and slow burn layered so that the implosion is uniform or all you will do is blow the polutonium around and not into a supercritical mass. If you don't have access to high tech explosives you have to use a lot more of the lower grades. A hand built plutonium nuke is going to weigh a couple hundered pounds without shielding and without that shielding anyone around the thing is going to die of radiation exposure, with a probable lethal exposure in hours. With shiedling the thing is going to weigh a half a ton.

And that's if you have plutonium, critical mass for uranium is IIRC around 100 pounds. Everyone talks about "suitcase nukes" but even the low yield tactical nukes that the US planned to use against a soviet invasion of europe weighed in excess of 250 pounds (and they were a lot higher tech than something Al Queda would be able to build). The idea of them smuggling a nuke in is quite silly. I'm not going to deny it's possible (ala what happened in true lies) where a large nuke is smuggled in, but the probability is just miniscule and frankly where I live I don't need to be worried at all.
Click to expand...

Actually, the likely scenario wouldn't be the actual CONSTRUCTION of one, but the procurement of one from the abyss created by the fall of the soviet union. We already know very well that there are some crooked fsckers working in the Russian military - they were just steps away from selling a submarine and it's crew to the Russian mafia when we broke the whole damn thing up.
 
why would they choose sf and not LA anyway?

edit* nm i think that was some other thread that said it was going to be sf
 
Originally posted by: rahvin
What I can't understand is why people think nuclear weapons are tiny little things. Plutonium required for a nuke weighs 10 kilos (25 pounds), to get it to explode you have to pack explosives around it, many many pounds of explosives, they have to be very special explosives with many layers of fast and slow burn layered so that the implosion is uniform or all you will do is blow the polutonium around and not into a supercritical mass. If you don't have access to high tech explosives you have to use a lot more of the lower grades. A hand built plutonium nuke is going to weigh a couple hundered pounds without shielding and without that shielding anyone around the thing is going to die of radiation exposure, with a probable lethal exposure in hours. With shiedling the thing is going to weigh a half a ton.

And that's if you have plutonium, critical mass for uranium is IIRC around 100 pounds. Everyone talks about "suitcase nukes" but even the low yield tactical nukes that the US planned to use against a soviet invasion of europe weighed in excess of 250 pounds (and they were a lot higher tech than something Al Queda would be able to build). The idea of them smuggling a nuke in is quite silly. I'm not going to deny it's possible (ala what happened in true lies) where a large nuke is smuggled in, but the probability is just miniscule and frankly where I live I don't need to be worried at all.
Click to expand...

What I want to know is how well the chemical explosives used in nuclear weapons stand up to aging. Presumably they would buy an existing one on the market from probably Russia, whose nuclear arsenal isn't being maintained. Any nuke they acquired would probably be around 20 years old if not older which I wonder if the detonating mechanism on it would even still work.

If we're going to buy into this scenario even a little bit, I think the best terrorists can do is smuggle in a couple of dirty bombs which would be real sucky but not really a nation endangering attack.
 
Old Bin isn?t going to nuke. He's reanimated Mothra and Godzilla and will have them trample New York with their big feet. Rumor is Bin is also in talks with the Smog Monster.
 
Originally posted by: OS
What I want to know is how well the chemical explosives used in nuclear weapons stand up to aging. Presumably they would buy an existing one on the market from probably Russia, whose nuclear arsenal isn't being maintained. Any nuke they acquired would probably be around 20 years old if not older which I wonder if the detonating mechanism on it would even still work.

If we're going to buy into this scenario even a little bit, I think the best terrorists can do is smuggle in a couple of dirty bombs which would be real sucky but not really a nation endangering attack.
Click to expand...

It would still go off - but not likely properly, and would essentially BE a dirty bomb.
 
😛 😛 😛 😛 😛

I'm not going anywhere. Guess what. 60 year anniversary since the nuclear bomb was used, right? 60 years before that six-shooters ruled the open plains and were high-tech. WTF does Osama and the Gang think that awaits their host nations (host chosen intentionally as in a parasitic relationship) if they succeed in a large scale attack? Did he forget that immediately post-9/11 the world was with the US in hunting his little punk ass? Had U.S. leaders not insisted on going into Iraq, Al-Queda would be a memory well buried.

I am certain that some truly modern yet remarkably midevil technology exists that would greatly change the topography of the world--it's just a matter of time and it's not Al-Queda who has the capability.

...And I think I saw that very interesting serial fiction mentioned in a movie starring Mel Gibson.
 
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: mwmorph
im tired of people telling me im gonna die. I live around 30 miles from DC but let's face ti, bin laden is now but a shadow of what he was. wth would he get the uranium or plutonium required? The russians? this guy si just making crap up to save his own skin.
Click to expand...

Bin Laden has placed portions of his soul into multiple Horcruxes safely hidden around the caves of Afghanistan. He may only be a shadow of his former self at the moment, but he will return and be a stronger wizard than any of us could imagine.

Oh wait...
Click to expand...



Best post in the entire thread. 😀

Thank you for making what started as a complete waste of time (reading this thread) into a waste of time that was at least somewhat amusing. 😉
 
while I regard this report to be bogus - I would have to guess that normal media outlets would have picked up on something....are any of our government's leaders traveling now? Bush is in Texas, the House and the Senate are on a break...all pre-scheduled though.....and would you pick a Saturday to maximize targets?

the premise isn't that far-fetched or ridiculous.

I completely agree that Al-Q isn't capable of making their own nukes - but I would certainly think that they would have been able to afford buying a few from any number of rogue sources with access to the former Soviet Union's arsenal, or from their close friends in Pakistan. It is also likely that any degredation of the timers/detonators could be rather easily repaired by any number of Pakistani weapons experts, who have their own little nuclear arsenal.

I can't say with any certainty how hard it would be for someone to get a small truck across the southern US border and into one of the cities listed here, but I'd guess it's quite possible.

As for suitcase nukes, I'm not sure their existence has ever been verified, but if it's true, then that just makes a weapon such as that much easier to get into this country.

Sadly, I think that tomorrow isn't going to be an 'American Hiroshima', but I think that some point in the near-future (next 6-10 years) we may well see such a device used to in a major city..and god help us all after that.
 
I can't wait for this. I have some friends coming up from the city tonight. We can watch in awe from a distance as there homes areduced to ruble.
 
I think we had better call Keifer Sutherland and see if he is able to help us out...

Maybe he can yell a lot and save the USA with 3 seconds to spare!
 
The first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 8/6 at 8:15am. It's now 8/6, 2:29 am in Japan, so around 7:15 EST tonight can we expect the bombing to begin?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top