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

[MadRat]

<<I believe the ideal blast point is 2000 feet above ground?>>

It depends on the power of the nuke. The 2000 foot mark would be poor for a sub-megaton bomb, but would be a good choice for multi-megaton warheads. The smaller warheads would disperse their energy too quickly at that heighth. I'd think more around 5-600 feet for 100 kiloton warheads. Perhaps 8-900 feet for 300 kiloton warheads. You'd be around 1200 feet at the megaton range. The city-killers that were in the 2-5MT range would probably be aimed at somewhere between 1200 and 2000 feet, but the latter seems awfully high. Blast raduii just do not grow hugely in diameter as the power increase like alot of people assume.

Alot of modern warheads lie in the 100-300kT range simply because even these sizes are overkill for the type of accurace they are assured with today's technology.

 

[Amused]

Well, the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs (20 kilotons) were detonated at a height of around 550 meters. That's about 1800 feet. They were pretty damn effective.

I was working from that.

 

[Novgrod]

I think that the 2000 foot level is said with the assumption that yon warhead will be coming down to earth at a rate of 5 mi/sec.

Or maybe i'm entirely wrong.

 

[rahvin]

<< 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. >>



You need to take into account that NYC is in Earthquake zone 1 or 2a (I'm not gonna look). An underground nuke generates a shockwave very similar to an earthquake. If you take buildings that aren't designed for earthquakes and subject them to an earthquake like shockwave they will in all probability fall down. The most damage would be in the unreinforced masonry that is common on the east coast. These structures are not seismicly designed.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< 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. >>



You need to take into account that NYC is in Earthquake zone 1 or 2a (I'm not gonna look). An underground nuke generates a shockwave very similar to an earthquake. If you take buildings that aren't designed for earthquakes and subject them to an earthquake like shockwave they will in all probability fall down. The most damage would be in the unreinforced masonry that is common on the east coast. These structures are not seismicly designed. >>



But a "suitcase" nuke isn't going to be that powerful. Hell, the WTC towers falling produced more energy then something so small would.

 

[rahvin]

<< It depends on the power of the nuke. The 2000 foot mark would be poor for a sub-megaton bomb, but would be a good choice for multi-megaton warheads. The smaller warheads would disperse their energy too quickly at that heighth. I'd think more around 5-600 feet for 100 kiloton warheads. Perhaps 8-900 feet for 300 kiloton warheads. You'd be around 1200 feet at the megaton range. >>



The effective height of nuke detonations doesn't vary much, the destructive power is in the creation and collapse of the vaccuum.

 

[rahvin]

<< But a "suitcase" nuke isn't going to be that powerful. Hell, the WTC towers falling produced more energy then something so small would. >>



I would tend to agree but I would need to see a seismic study of the New york area before I believed it. There are soils that amplify wave forms because of resonance, eg El Centro.

 

[MadRat]

Nagasaki was actually a dud. The blast should have been around 200 kT if it had detonated correctly. Instead it was estimated at about 1-10th to 1/5th that energy output. Horishima was detonated too high and it actually missed a city block of area directly underneath its detonation point becuase of its poor timing.

<<The effective height of nuke detonations doesn't vary much, the destructive power is in the creation and collapse of the vaccuum.>>

The reason you detonate above ground is for maximum effect of the heat, not for the vacuum. Sure the rushing of air out and back in is tremendous, but we are talking dispersing maximum effect of the radiation. You have to take into account the curvature of the earth when plotting maximum dispersal of radiation energy. The heat from the radiation can create hurricane level winds at twenty miles away and gale force winds over a hundred miles away if you focus the energy right. Take into account the secondary effects of the electromagnetic pulse and the heighth of detonation becomes critical to be low but not too high.

 

[Amused]

<< Nagasaki was actually a dud. The blast should have been around 200 kT if it had detonated correctly. Instead it was estimated at about 1-10th to 1/5th that energy output. Horishima was detonated too high and it actually missed a city block of area directly underneath its detonation point becuase of its poor timing. >>



That's funny, I'd never heard that. Do you have a link?

I heard the lesser damage radius of the Nagasaki blast was actually caused by the terrain. Nagasaki was in a valley, and the surrounding hills deflected the blast upward. I never heard any claims of mechanical malfunction.

And from every picture I've seen of ground zero at Hirosima, it was flattened.

 

[nihil]

i hope they'd spare us poor bastards in nyc. we've been through enough already..

 

[freebee]

Being that this is a computer hardware forum, all the opinions seem to be from a mechanical perspective. The immediate point of terrorism isn't to destroy infrastructure, or to enslave whole populations...they merely want to create terror. The possibility of a nuclear weapon is enough to do so, which is why even a small scale nuclear explosion/chemical weapon attack directed at a center of commerce (or even a public school) would cause an enormous amount of anguish and despair.

 

[Amused]

<< Being that this is a computer hardware forum, all the opinions seem to be from a mechanical perspective. The immediate point of terrorism isn't to destroy infrastructure, or to enslave whole populations...they merely want to create terror. The possibility of a nuclear weapon is enough to do so, which is why even a small scale nuclear explosion/chemical weapon attack directed at a center of commerce (or even a public school) would cause an enormous amount of anguish and despair. >>



Agreed. I was simply debunking over hyped estimates of damage, that's all.

 

[ElFenix]

<< The immediate point of terrorism isn't to destroy infrastructure, or to enslave whole populations...they merely want to create terror. >>

eh, talking about the physical destruction is more fun in a morbid sense. gets the mind working a bit more. i mean, if a random al'qaeda walked into a school with a bomb strapped to him during lunch hour at schools all across the country in the same day... that would be horrendous.

 

[StinkyMeat]

<<

<< 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. >>

 

[spanner]

"All they have to do is acquire it"

This is what is and should remain the hard part.

 

[MadRat]

I was pretty liberal on the destructive power of the bombs. It appears that most sources see the initial blasts as much smaller than the popular 40 kT figure of the 1970s.

Quote: "As many know, atomic bombs have been used only twice in warfare. The
first and foremost blast site of the atomic bomb is Hiroshima. A Uranium
bomb (which weighed in at over 4 & 1/2 tons) nicknamed "Little Boy" was
dropped on Hiroshima August 6th, 1945. The Aioi Bridge, one of 81 bridges
connecting the seven-branched delta of the Ota River, was the aiming point of
the bomb. Ground Zero was set at 1,980 feet. At 0815 hours, the bomb was
dropped from the Enola Gay. It missed by only 800 feet. At 0816 hours, in
the flash of an instant, 66,000 people were killed and 69,000 people were
injured by a 10 kiloton atomic explosion.

On August 9th 1945, Nagasaki fell to the same treatment as Hiroshima.
Only this time, a Plutonium bomb nicknamed "Fat Man" was dropped on the city.
Even though the "Fat Man" missed by over a mile and a half, it still leveled
nearly half the city. Nagasaki's population dropped in one split-second from
422,000 to 383,000. 39,000 were killed, over 25,000 were injured. That
blast was less than 10 kilotons as well. Estimates from physicists who have
studied each atomic explosion state that the bombs that were used had utilized
only 1/10th of 1 percent of their respective explosive capabilities."

This link estimates it at 10 kT for both Horishima and Nagasaki. Go about 1/3 the way down the page and they give a textual chart of destructive powers from airburst detonations. link

Alot of details can be found here: link

A priest's account of Horishima talks about survivors at ground zero: link

Eerie picture of temple that survived among the epicenter of Horishima: link

 

[kgraeme]

This is just freakin' weird. How many of you are old enough to have lived through the Cold War? I ask because this thread is a deja-vu headtrip back to that time.

We did duck and cover drills in school. We had long discussions about what cities were major target areas. Heck, I can recall one teacher bringing out maps that showed blast effects and damage estimate radii. Where I lived in proximity to the target city, we were comfortably crispy instead of wall-shadows and dust. Of course, there were extensive debates about which ring of effect was the "best/worst" to be in when the bomb dropped. And the bomb was going to drop, it was just a matter of when.

I honestly feel sorry that this generation isn't getting to escape the paranoia and fear of that era. Fortunately, so far it's only a shadow of the fear of that time.

 

[Amused]

<< This is just freakin' weird. How many of you are old enough to have lived through the Cold War? I ask because this thread is a deja-vu headtrip back to that time.

We did duck and cover drills in school. We had long discussions about what cities were major target areas. Heck, I can recall one teacher bringing out maps that showed blast effects and damage estimate radii. Where I lived in proximity to the target city, we were comfortably crispy instead of wall-shadows and dust. Of course, there were extensive debates about which ring of effect was the "best/worst" to be in when the bomb dropped. And the bomb was going to drop, it was just a matter of when.

I honestly feel sorry that this generation isn't getting to escape the paranoia and fear of that era. Fortunately, so far it's only a shadow of the fear of that time. >>



I was a little late in the game (I remember the 70s and 80s) but we used to do the duck and cover drills in school as well. It freaked us out. They gave up on that nonsense by the time I reached middle school. (Jr High)

 

[LaBang]

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




WRONG!!!

 

[LaBang]

Don't you guys think that terrorists can fly planes. If you know that a bomb needs to explode in the air, so do they.

 

[GooberPHX420]

Ahh dont worry guys! The arabs cant read the english writing on the sides of the nukes!

 

[Nocturnal]

<< 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? >>



Just remember that Osama might be dead.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I'm not sweating it.....I don't live in NY

 

[d1abolic]

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

Couldn't disagree more. Remember, these people are suicidal, they don't really care if the US retaliates.



<< 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. >>

Once again, i disagree. There are thousands of nuclear warheads in the world, and the disappearance of 1 wouldn't even be noticed. And if it is, it would just be denied. A few months ago, some military official in Russia admitted that they are missing a few warheads. They could be anywhere by now. And even if they know that Osama has a nuke, what are they gonna do? There is 101 ways to get it into the country.



<< 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. >>

And you too are wrong my friend. They interviewed a scientist who works for a Level 4 (i believe this is highest security in the world) lab in Canada. He said that he could literally take Ebola home with him if he wanted to. He said he could order anything into the lab, work on any projects. No one would ever ask questions. No one would ever search him when he left or entered.



<< The immediate point of terrorism isn't to destroy infrastructure, or to enslave whole populations...they merely want to create terror. >>

Voila! Imagine if the government announced that they believe a nuclear warhead (even the smallest one) is on the way to a major city. That alone would do far more economic damage than 9/11.

 

[GermyBoy]

<< 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. >>



LOL. Thanks for telling me your plans, Osama. I'm gonna wait for you with the rest of my G.I. Joe buddies down in Texas and we'll mess you up, punk.

Actually, what would be way worse would be what would happen....another plane rlies into New York, aimed for a building, and just before it hits, a Nuke on the inside of the plane is set off. I'd love to see the pretty lights.