Why do people always expect an nuclear explosive to always be delivered by missle or plane??

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


Jan 23, 2002
Originally posted by: cpumaster
Originally posted by: Amused
The opposition to a MDS is purely political and ideological. IMO, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is insanity. We have every reason and right to defend ourselves, and cover all possible bases in doing so. The main political opposition to MDS is not that it wont work, and not that it's too expensive. That's just the BS they spoon feed the sheep. The reason an MDS system is opposed is because it gives the US an edge, and ends the MAD senerio we've lived under for so long. That brings fear of another arms race. But an arms race is a joke. No other country can compete, so the point is moot. MAD is an outdated policy, and there is no reason whatsoever to continue with it.
you mean the democrats refused to give US an edge? Damn those french wussies traitors...we should spends trillions of dollars to gain any edge we could even if it doesn't work the first, second, third, or hundred times, as long as it enriched the military and DoD contractors, who cares about a couple of trillion dollars? it's chump change compare to our safety and the safety of our rich corporate master right? plus when we have the MDS, we could get the money back by blackmailing those nations without MDS, give us couple of billions a month, or stop assesing tax on our exports or we'll nuke you, essentially creating a world class mafia system. see, who is the genius now? BUSH Almighty
Wow, you're nuts.. No offense but you started with an ok opinion then it just went crazy, you need to work on your sarcasm.


Golden Member
Nov 21, 1999
IMO, if there is going to be a nuclear attack on US soil it will most likely be:

1) Some guy walking into Central Park or something with a nuclear suitcase bomb.
2) Delivered via cargo ship....

That movie "Sum of all Fears" comes to mind, as close to realistic and possible as those movies go.



Jan 25, 2000
If they can sneak in 100 Hombres from Mexico unnoticed, why not a nuke? But hey, we wouldn't want to inconvenience free trade. Let's build missile defense and call it a day.


Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
so just because we're attempting to guard against one form of a nuke being used against us means we're not guarding against the others? its not like they're mutually exclusive. in fact, you might say they were complementary.


Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2003

The people who think that a missle defense shield will save us from the rest of the world.[/quote]

the missile defence shield isn't for terrorists and other rouge states (North Korea..etc) the truth to it is it for contries like China, they are the big threat over the next 30 or 40 years.


May 13, 2002
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Singing letter bomb - collect.
Sign here........x

Realistically - the most devastation from a rogue nuke would be a west coast detonation just a few miles off-shore - outside U. S. Teritorial limits.
The 'Other' countries have not taken the effort to refine thier fissionalbe material to the purity that we have, so anything used by those nations
would essentially be of a 'Dirty' variety, releasing tremendous amounts of radioactive fallout, manufactured during the thermonuclear event.

Salt water, the delivery vehicle itself, all other material within the CEP, or ground zero footprint, would be engulfed in the fireball, and rise to
an altitude easily exceeding 50,000 feet - well over 10 miles. Heavier particulates would fall upon the immediate coastline communities,
and the lighter materials would be distributed across the country by perdominate weather patterns, and would eventually wrap the planet
several times, with more debris coming down and lighter elements falling out over expanding areas for months.
Half-lifes of some these materials go into the 20,000+ years, so effects would linger for 100,000+ years.

With the shipping lanes throughout the world, and the cargo volumes being moved everyday finging one such vessel
would be more luck than not,as there are ways to shield the source from detection if it is in fact a sophositcated device.
Delivery method need not be fast, just deliberate. They have all the time in the world on their side.
great story, probably the most effective way to cause massive destruction, create a Tsunami.

I highlighted that part because that was the only thing off target, it does not matter the device, shielding radiation is still the same. One inch of lead will reduce the intensity of the radiation by 1/2, generally speaking. Shielding is not very difficult to achieve, especially in the hull of a steel ship. 2.5 inches of steel will have the same effect on reducing the intensity. Distance is also a factor, the farther you are the less there is to detect. Use a submarine and you wouldn't have a chance.


Jul 25, 2002
The sophisticated device, which you have so eloquently provided backup information to - would easily be shielded.
The 'Dirty-Bomb' with sloppy workmanship and a trail of contamination would be much easier to detect.

The 'Tsunai' would be limited in effect by the relative coastline and contor, bays would be especially suceptable.

As I was writing the original post and again upon this reply thread, I remember details that I saw on some pictures
and prints from the Kwajalien Atoll (Bikini) tests from back in the 50's & 60's that I had the opportunity to study.
Holding the pictures in your hand and seeing what was going on in a series of 5 second exposures for a 30 second
time lapse puts Nuclear Power in a diferent perspective, and those were only 30KT - 50 KT devices.
Our standard generic Mark II is 150KT.
Nuke Pics
(I cannot supply the classified ones, obviously)