This is how easy it is to smuggle a nuke into NYC

[d1abolic]

I read an article in the paper a few days ago explaining how incredibly easy it is for a terrorist group to smuggle a nuke into NYC. All they have to do is acquire it, the rest is virtually fool-proof.

1. Ship to Halifax, Nova Scotia by sea: only 5% of arriving containers are inspected. Basically, the odds of it being found are 1/20.
2. Use a truck to deliver it to Manitoba: the truck will not be expected before leaving Nova Scotia.
3. Use an off-road vehicle to get it across the border from Manitoba: there are thousands of places where an offroad vehicle can cross unnoticed. Local residents said they see this happen all the time.
4. Load it on another truck and get it to NYC.

This is incredibly scary. And what's even scarier is that they know all this. As soon as Osama gets his hands on a nuke, you can kill New York goodbye. There is virtually no chance of us stopping him. And yet, the Canadian government won't change it's policy to inspect all containers. They never learn, do they?

 

[Aves]

I hope the U.S. Government doesn't monitor these forums too.

 

[MadRat]

Thats total b.s. - gamma radiation cannot be easily masked. If its only beta and alpha particles being radiated then you are talking a ridiculously low risk even when used as a "dirty" bomb.

 

[Antisocial Virge]

<< And yet, the Canadian government won't change it's policy to inspect all containers >>


So your saying that the US checks every container hard enough to find something that might be a little bigger than a suitcase? I hardly think so.



<< Ship to Halifax, New Brunswick by sea >>



Halifax is not in New Brunswick



<< Manitoba: the truck will not be expected before leaving New Brunswick >>


Nobody ever "inspects" trucks going in between Provinces or States

 

[d1abolic]

<< So your saying that the US checks every container hard enough to find something that might be a little bigger than a suitcase? I hardly think so. >>

Where did i say that?

 

[FalseChristian]

The point is neither Canada nor the Unites States can check every container. It'd be a death blow to the economy.
I think potential terrorists now realize the power and the will of the United States to fight back with all shes got.

Nobody's gonna f*ck with the United States now...count on it!

 

[Derango]

<< Nobody's gonna f*ck with the United States now...count on it! >>



Its this kinda attitide that lead to lax security, which leads to terrorist attacks.

 

[ElFenix]

<< So your saying that the US checks every container hard enough to find something that might be a little bigger than a suitcase? I hardly think so. >>

that assumes a suitcase nuke, of which there weren't many made, and the yield on them is about as small as physically possible. with the amount of structures in NYC it might cause less damage than the WTC attacks did, since much of the radiation would be absorbed by the buildings. the blast isn't all that large either. now... an actual full size warhead type nuke... that would be much easier to get ahold of, and would cause a heck of a lot more damage. light it off a few miles from the coast during a heat wave and let the EMP kill every air conditioner in NYC... well... it wouldn't be pretty.

 

[coolVariable]

You can bett your ass there are gamma radiation sensors in every major US city (and in every major port too).
I don't know about the border but maybe, just maybe, they even monitor that for radiation.

 

[911paramedic]

I just reported you to the FBI.

 

[StageLeft]

Canada and no country for that matter with a real economy can check everything...

 

[XZeroII]

why bother with a nuke? Biological weapons are the future. Anthrax can be distributed through the exhaust in your car and kill millions. It also has the added advantage of not destroying any buildings or anything, it just kills. Nukes are way too much trouble (and hardly that). If I wanted to smuggle a nuke in and detonate it, I would probably bring it in through mexico. Then I'd drive it myself to wherever and detonate. Probability of success, 98%. Not sure why everyone is afraid of nukes though when bio warfare is much worse.

 

[Phuz]

<< Not sure why everyone is afraid of nukes though when bio warfare is much worse. >>



Neither are worse. Do some search on Cherynobyl (sp?). A Nuclear winter would devistate more people than a few bio/chem weapons.
A nuke in New York would cause an evacuation of every surrounding state, as well as Ontario and Quebec.

Bio/Chems are horribly effective, but i'd rather try my chances with the way the winds moving.

 

[shikhan]

<< I All they have to do is acquire it, the rest is virtually fool-proof. >>



I dont know but it seems to me like your skipping the hardest part. This is one of the weak links in your story besides the fact you got your information from a newspaper [I'm sorry, but do you think any of the agencies would be stupid enough to tell a newspaper what they do? thats just border patrol you are talking about.] I would pretty much bet we have a line and a telescope [figuratily speaking] on everyone who has a nuke and everyone who is looking for a nuke. Its not that "easy" and it's sure as hell not easy to get one without getting on the agencies radar.

 

[LostHiWay]

It would be really easy to smuggle in a nuke. They could do it the same way people smuggle drugs into the country.

How you ask?

Mulch

We get huge shipments of mulch from other countries everyday at sea ports. Basically all you have to do is put the nuke in the middle of the 20ft high pile of mulch and nothing will detect it.

 

[Novgrod]

Bio warfare is clearly, clearly not much worse.

1) it's not tested. heh, why do you think the gub-ment tested a nuke in arizona before dropping it on Hiroshima?

2) if the anthrax attacks last year taught us anything, it's that anthrax doesn't spread like wildfire as we'd like to believe it does. This was military grade, super-easily contracted anthrax, and it killed fewer than twenty people. That's a bad rate of success.

3) there are diseases that are worse than anthrax by an order of magnitude, but you can't just go somewhere and pick up a suitcase full of ebola or even whooping cough. It's much harder to obtain these diseases. Don't forget there's now an immense stockpile of vaccienes for smallpox.

4) likewise with nerve gas. When the crazy japanese cult spent over $1 000 000 to nerve gas the japanese subway, they killed six. Six. You might be able to kill six people with a $20 baseball bat if you try hard enough.

Anyway it's a threat, but it's not as easy to pull of or as foolproof as some talking heads want everybody to believe.

 

[PsychoAndy]

<<

<< Not sure why everyone is afraid of nukes though when bio warfare is much worse. >>



Neither are worse. Do some search on Cherynobyl (sp?). A Nuclear winter would devistate more people than a few bio/chem weapons.
A nuke in New York would cause an evacuation of every surrounding state, as well as Ontario and Quebec.

Bio/Chems are horribly effective, but i'd rather try my chances with the way the winds moving. >>


Nuclear winter with one warhead in NYC? ROFL

 

[Amused]

<< Thats total b.s. - gamma radiation cannot be easily masked. If its only beta and alpha particles being radiated then you are talking a ridiculously low risk even when used as a "dirty" bomb. >>



Bingo. They have to slip by the radiation screen we've thrown up at most points of entry. Plus, if I recall correctly, we can track that sort of thing by satallite

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

It is my understanding from my U.S. Import Regulation class that only 1 in every 21 containers is inspected by the US Customs Service.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Not sure why everyone is afraid of nukes though when bio warfare is much worse. >>



Neither are worse. Do some search on Cherynobyl (sp?). A Nuclear winter would devistate more people than a few bio/chem weapons.
A nuke in New York would cause an evacuation of every surrounding state, as well as Ontario and Quebec.

Bio/Chems are horribly effective, but i'd rather try my chances with the way the winds moving. >>



This assumes the largest, highest yield war head exploding over NYC. Do you have any idea how low of a yield a bomb small enough to smuggle into the US would be? We're only talking ten city blocks at worst. Less if they detonate on the ground, or underground, more if they detonate higher up in or on a building.

And one Nuclear bomb --no matter how big-- will NOT start "nuclear winter." If that was the case, the hundreds we set off in Nevada would have us in an ice age.

Speaking of underground blasts... I remember watching a 700 club show many years ago. It was spreading the fear of these mythical "suitcase mombs" at the time and had a little play acting of a terrorist detonating one in the subways of DC or NYC. They level of damage they claimed would occur was ridiculous. Most of the blast in a subway would be contained within the subway, and radiating out to the subway exit points... with at most, a two block area above completely destroyed. Yet they showed DC and NYC completely destroyed.

I just sat there and laughed.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

AmusedOne is right.

Unless the terrorists can get the bomb airborne... miles over the target, a nuke would have minimal effect. 2 square for a typical dirty bomb from what I've read. This would be less in NYC due to the sheer density of the city (Concrete buildings, steel superstructures and the like) .

In any event -

NYC would still be there. Nuclear winter would not result from one expolsion (moron).

 

[ElFenix]

airborne would put out a long range EMP. that would be better than the ship. but getting a plane with a nuke on it is a little harder than a ship off the coast. of course, you don't need a nuke to make a good-sized EMP. you could light one off from a cessna...

 

[Amused]

<< airborne would put out a long range EMP. that would be better than the ship. but getting a plane with a nuke on it is a little harder than a ship off the coast. of course, you don't need a nuke to make a good-sized EMP. you could light one off from a cessna... >>



Airborne blasts increase the over all blast radius as well and negates the dampening effects of both natural and man made masses on the ground. I believe the ideal blast point is 2000 feet above ground?

 

[MadRat]

Could you imagine how fast a few terrorists would get sick handling even a quarter-pound of cesium? The sheer weight of the shielding necessary to survive any meaningful transport of uranium/plutonium would be awfully prohibitive. Then to stage the material as a bomb without getting caught would be unthinkable. If they had managed to gather a suitcase bomb from Russia it would be pretty difficult to affect more than a single city block because of their low output. Those bombs were designed to thump long-span bridges and other highly-prized targets, not for destroying cities of any size.

 

[PsychoAndy]

<< airborne would put out a long range EMP. that would be better than the ship. but getting a plane with a nuke on it is a little harder than a ship off the coast. of course, you don't need a nuke to make a good-sized EMP. you could light one off from a cessna... >>


Like you said earlier, if you set off a nuke and created massive EMP during a heat wave, you'd probably do more damage than if you set off a nuke and destroyed a block or 10