[Rockrivr1]

I was reading the "Ultimate SHTF" post by Chopinbloc and as I thought about it I indicated that a Nuclear Attack on US soil was probably the worst that I could think of realistically.

Unfortunately I believe that this will happen in my lifetime in a major US city. Probably Washington DC, NYC or Los Angeles. It could be anything from a Dirty Bomb on up to a full Nuke.

You figure that the former USSR cannot account for all of it's nuclear arsenal, rogue nations are discovering the method and technology to build their own, add the deep pockets of terrorists just itching to get one or more and things look look grim.

Unless there's a super top secret way our government can identify nuclear material in the country, our intellegence community better keep on their toes.

So what do you thing? Will happen, possible or no way?

[50 Freak]

I don't think it will come in the form of missiles but rather some terrorist with a backpack nuke sneaking into one of our major cities. Like Washington DC.

Other than all the innocent people dieing, I think it kind of would be a good thing. All our politicians wiped out in one day. :evil: :evil: :evil:

Seriously, it will throw our country into total disarray and the American people will be screaming for blood, not like our "calm" after 911. I pity the country that harbors the terrorist group that would do that. Cause I believe we would reduce that country into a flat glassy plain. :fire: :fire: :fire: (the hell with the Saudi oil)

[Waitone]

Will happen without question.

NY, DC, LA, Vegas and perhaps San Diego. All except San Diego are symbolic of America. Since islamofascists are into attacking symbols, my bet is they will be targeted. San Deigo is a target because of its proximity to the border.

[Bruce H]

Well since I don't believe our intellegence apparatus could find their collective posterior with both hands and a blueprint yes I think it will happen. We have had too many years of " what is good for me " thinking.

[bamawrx]

I hope we are ready to pull from the Union as that would be a great time to do it.

[rick_reno]

While I remain convinced that there are those in power who would like us to believe it will happen to promote their agenda - I seriously doubt it will happen. It takes too many ducks to line up right to do this.

[R.H. Lee]

I think it's inevitable. Between the "compassionate conservative" :rolleyes: open border policy, and the bureaucratic/legislative nightmare that is the Patriot Act/Dept Homeland Security, it's just a matter of time.

CNN/CBS/NBC/FOX/MSNBC will have a field day running the carnage 24/7. Blame and recrimination will abound. Price gouging and shortages will be rampant. Our other enemies will use the opportunity to do whatever damage they can, here and overseas. People will look to the government for salvation and safety. That same government will use the opportunity to curtail even more of our freedoms and liberties.

[357wheelgunner]

"I think it's inevitable. Between the "compassionate conservative" open border policy, and the bureaucratic/legislative nightmare that is the Patriot Act/Dept Homeland Security, it's just a matter of time."

I totally agree with you. I do not believe that there will be a full force nuclear blast, more likely a "dirty bomb" (much easier to obtain, less expensive) that will cause more panic than actual damage.

[jefnvk]

IMHO, it is going to be something like a dirty bomb at a big sporting event.

[TallPine]

I'd put it in the "not likely" category.

Look, the perpetrators of the 9-11 Atrocity used box cutters to hijack airplanes - how low tech can you get ??? :rolleyes:

I would expect something more like suicide bombers in the USA. I'm still not sure why that has happened yet :confused: I certainly don't attribute it to some supposed vigilance of DHS :rolleyes: Actually, I think that the desertion rate of of muslim "terrorists" is pretty high once they arrive on US soil and experience our high standard of living. Who knows ... if I lived in the middle east, I might blow myself up too, just for relief :p

OTOH, it wouldn't be that hard to smuggle a nuke inside one of the thousands of shipping containers that enter the US every day :uhoh:

[Bwana John]

Does our own goverment setting them off above ground out in Nevada count?

[Greg L]

:uhoh:

I'm rereading The Sum of All Fears at the moment so I may be a little paranoid :what: :D .

Yes I do think that there will be something similar at some point in time. You can't guard everything all the time. However I don't think that it will be in NYC, DC (I wouldn't mind the loss of the politicians but I would miss the Smithsonian :D ), LA, SF, etc. Most of those cities seem to have their general security fairly well in hand. I would expect to see a detonation somewhere in one of the 2nd tier level of cities along either the northern or southern border area (Tampa, Austin, Phoenix, Spokane, Madison, Albany, etc). Much like OKC the impact will be that much greater as "things like that just don't happen here".

[walking arsenal]

Dont think so.


I could se the nuke thing happening, it would be really easy after all. Security of course is just an illusion.

[GEM]

Matter of time. Our government's inability to stop the Korean and Iranian programs, the spread of knowledge from Pakistan (our allies), perhaps loose weapons from the USSR, will lead to one getting to the USA and being driven into a large city.

I saw a bunch of conservatives bellyaching about how Bush has no program to stop Iran or NK. Just wait for the flash, duck and cover.

[petrel800]

Greg L - you're right about the 2nd tier thing. If terrorists really wanted to scare the bejesus out of people, they would attack a smaller more personable city. LA, NY and DC are large and almost countries among themseleves. If you don't live there you are angered, but the images are soon forgotten. However, if a small midwest or southern city was wiped out, I think a lot of people would cower in fear and would take more of an appeasement attitude. It would hit closer to home.

As for the nuclear attack, as we have read, the most devestating attack would be the upper atmospheric detonation. I would give that a 5-10% chance in my lifetime right now. It would be very difficult to get a bomb or missile up above our country without spending huge amounts of dollars which is easily trackable with todays computer banking systems.

As for a conventional attack, at this point, I don't think the N. Koreans have the nads or the permission from China to do so. The last thing the Chinese want is an American presence in that area of the world with there lust for control of Taiwan. Plus, w/ Walmart we are doing a good job of lining their wallets.

As for Iran, I doubt that they're really online with a bomb yet, and I trully believe the Isrealis will take out the reactor before they can harvest the weapons grade plutonium. However, if this does not happen, our chances of Nuclear attack go up greatly. Possibly a joint attack against a US city and Isreal. If they can fly two planes into buildings within a few minutes of each other, they definatly have the capability to detonate to weapons within seconds of each other.

As for a dirty bomb, I think a Chemical or Biological attack would be more effective in the sense of hitting a highly populated area. Not sure about that, but would be curious to know which would be more effective?

[jobu07]

I dunno, I remember reading an AP story back in December about how DHS found a "radioactive tablet" in an old paper mill in upstate New York and made a big deal out of how some of there newest technology was able to detect it. This supposed tablet was the size of an aspirin and was used in some capacity at the paper mill before it went out of business.

Maybe they do the technology to find the stuff. But I don't doubt how easy it would be for a deteremined terrorist to get the stuff through our borders and use them.

[db_tanker]

how many plain-jane, normal-looking panel vans have you seen in the past few days? You know...the ones with no windows? If I remember correctly, a true atomic or hydrogen device isn't somthing you can really pack off in a suitcase....but you can get a warhead that weighs about 500 lbs...and that will easily fit in even a mini-van. When someone is determined enough...there is no security that can stop an attack like that...problem is, you don't even really need a nuke....just a home-made FAE would be nasty enough...but the nuke would be a greater symbol for the radical Islamist movement striking a blow against the great satan and the land of infidels.


Believe me...I hope and Pray that somthing like this doesn't happen...I live about 75 miles from petroleum USA...Texas City, Pasadena and Crosby...makes me shudder....

Darrell

[feedthehogs]

.

[YammyMonkey]

I voted yes, but I think it would be more in line with either a backpack nuke or a dirty bomb, not a full-bore modern uber-missile-nuke.

[jefnvk]

I guess, now that I think about it, I wonder if anyone would be dumb enough to set one off. I don't think any country would do it, as it would mean immediate nuclear strikes on their country. They may take out a city, but we can take out their country.

Then again, if it were some terrorist that just went from country to country, it probably wouldn't be prudent to drop a nuke on that country.

[2nd Amendment]

Getting a small nuke into the country. Easy. Getting it where you want it? Easy. Getting the nuke in the first place... Maybe not so easy. I'd suggest that that is the hinge. IF a terrorist group can get one(or two or five...) then we will see large mushrooms growing. I'm just not certain I believe they can get the goods.

What I DO believe they can get and what would be more effective is a biological. Take a strain of ebola(or your infection of choice) that is making human inroads, infect a willing host and send him to NYC. Then have him hop a plane to Chicago. Then another to LA. He should be good and sick by then. Now hop one last flight to Dallas, where he winds up in a hospital which spends critical moments figuring out he's not drunk, poisoned or even physically assaulted.

Four airports, one entire hospital staff, all directly infected. The entire country struck in a matter of hours. Flights literally everywhere, infection spread all around before the threat is even identified. Now let's say CDC et al are exceptionally effective and the strain of bug isn't as virulent as expected. So we only lose 40% of the country, plus 30% globally.

Anyone care to forecast just what it would be like, living in such a post infection world?

[foghornl]

My 1/50th of $1 . . .

I suspect it will be in the form of a so-called "backpack nuke" driven up from Mexico.

I'm not saying that Mexico will be involved, just that I think that is the route.

[Arc-Lite]

when the USSR changed its name to russia..... they did a check on all outstanding weapons... the count was 60ish suitcase size nukes...unaccounted for, considering they did the count, am guessing 100+..... 30ish have been "found" the designers, are now working at the poverty level, looking for ANYONE to hire them. The chances are high, sometime in our life, a nuke, AGAIN will go off, in a populated area, some where in the world, and that event will AGAIN, change the face of life as we know it. The nuclear genie is out of her bottle.

[Waitone]

Since we've had a slight change to the thread I'll participate. I think there will eventually be a detonation. Too many Russian nukes on the open market. Too much evidence OBL at al have been shopping. Yes, there are technical obstaclesbut nothing that could not be overcome with time.

In the shorter term I suspect we will see a dirty bomb event. The advantages are all the components are readily available in the US. Explosives, transportation and radioactive material. It can be low level alpha particle emitters found in universities, hospitals and corporations around the US. The other component readily available is an aggressive, technically ignorant, and unprincipaled mass media. A geiger counter set on sensitive will sound like the gates of hell just opened up. Cameras and ignorant reporters will get bug-eyed at the obvious danger. Then combine it with a 24 hour news cycle and you've got a major disaster on your hands when it is nothing of the such.

I think there will eventually be a bang but in the near term we can expect something not nearly as noisy.

[Arc-Lite]

2nd..... brought up another good point... a simpler scenario... how many people have you had contact with today, how many people did those people have contact... do the math, and figure this in a 12-24 hour period.

[bosshoff]

Hey if the gov'mnt can't keep track of a laser guided laws rocket that took out flight 800, even when they found the launch tube in Jersey
:scrutiny:

I do think there will be an attack in my lifetime. I fear that this century is doomed to be remembered as one stuffed with terrorism. To stike at the hearts and minds of Americans, they could attack a target like Disneyland which would just leave us raw. This is what the Chechens did at that school not too long ago. To inflict the most damage, I don't think Cedar Rapids need worry, Chicago, or New York are more likely targets. Think of the money infastructure in those two places. NYSE, CBOT etc. Major shipping ports, as well as population centers. I think the end response would be a nuclear destructuion of Mecca, & Medina, and a destruction of the Mosque on the temple ruins in Israel. At that point you better hope you are well stocked with Twinkies cakes, the only food which will survive!.

[Husker1911]

I fear it will happen in our lifetimes. Here's the scenario I don't like. I work in Bellevue, NE, two miles from Offutt AFB. Air Force One flew here after the 9/11 attacks. The goblins smuggle a nuke device here, then attack DC. Wait for Air Force One, and then detonate. Like I said, I don't care for that at all............

[Arc-Lite]

Husker...the chance of AF-1 coming back is slim to none, and during 911, with AF-1 at OFFUTT...you were close to the safest place on earth.

[nemesis]

Watch for a SADM on a small ocean going vessel as it traverses the Houston ship channel. It will devastate one of America's major cities, major seaports and major petroleum refining centers.

It will take years to recover and we lack any ability to shift the load to other ports or refineries. Pity the poor people.

[moa]

One recent study of detonating a "dirty bomb" in Washington DC, on the Mall in front of the Capital building in May in a mild breeze would not do much damage at all for nuke contamination. Easiest method to avoid exposure is go into the nearest building. Conclusion: dirty nuke bombs are overrated.

Bigger problem is large nuke device brought into the USA in a ship, in a shipping contain, or otherwise. A large nuke device could come from any number sources in today's world. Sail ship into large city harbor an detonate. NYC, Baltimore, Boston, Miami, etc., the list of major port cities goes on.

Another problem that has been around for years and is an obvious target for terrorists is ships loaded with liquified natural gas. Tens of thousands of tons of that stuff detonated on a ship could make one heck of a mess.

[mfree]

Heh, here's a thought.

Why don't we reverse things :) Pool enough money, go get a suitcase nuke black-market, smuggle it into the middle east and nuke someone worthwhile...

[Sean Smith]

There won't be a nuclear attack by ballistic missile. NORAD will just trace it back to the source, we'll kill a few hundred million people in retaliaton with MX and Trident D-5 missiles, and it will be over with.

I think that Al-Qaeda and their ilk aren't interested in using terrorism as a practical tool. It is kind of a theatrical ideological wank-fest for them. I think they'll always go for the biggest, most symbolic target, as opposed to the one most likely to "work" in the sense we are thinking of, which may not be the same thing at all. Al-Qaeda could have followed up 9/11 with, say, a bunch of smaller-scale massacres across the country pretty easily, and produced a tremendous terror effect, but they never tried. It probably never occured to them. Killing everyone at a mall in Alabama might have been great terror tactics, but it would have been lousy as a "Look how much Allah loves us and hates you!" gesture.

Nerve gas and anthrax have already been used in terror attacks. They weren't too effective, but that's just because they were first attempts. I think we'll see more of that sort of thing, with refined technique and bigger kill counts, first. Dirty bombs are pretty easy, so one of those wouldn't surprise me, but other than scaring people who didn't pay attention in science class, they won't actually do much of anything.

Actually building a useful nuke is alot harder for all kinds of reasons. But I think it is pretty inevitable that a random a-hole will get one at some point, simply because we are talking about 1940s technology here.

[RevDisk]

Full scale nuke attack? No. Not very likely. Radiological bomb? Maybe, but I also think not very likely.


Nerve gas and anthrax have already been used in terror attacks.

The anthrax letters were not the work of Islamic terrorists, nor where they from any foreign sources. Just an FYI.

[Arc-Lite]

the focus of many of the posts seams to be on primary destruction.... stopping things works just as well. 911 destroyed buildings, and killed many people, and that result, froze all activity for 3 full days....in the US...and still has effects today. Keep in mind, a single act, usually results in multi repercussions, and sometimes these repercussions exceed the original act.

[gulogulo1970]

Sad to say, it's not if but when. God help the US and world when it happens.

I'm just hoping Dallas/Fort Worth is not a primary target. I would think NYC, DC, Houston and LA would be high on the list.

I too think a dirty bomb will be first but I also believe an atomic bomb has our name on it, one day.

[2nd Amendment]

As Arc-Lite says, it's not about primary destruction. OTOH I do believe they see it as a practical tool, if from a much different perspective than we would. Offing a sizeable portion of the populace, even if it means getting many of their own, to permanently alter our social, economic and political order is perfectly fine. In the chaos they won't even really need credit, since claiming "Allah's will be done" will be good enough. So while I can see dirty bombs and cheap Soviet nukes ahead I remain with my opinion, I think some nasty little bug will pay us a visit first.

[hso]

A "Dirty Bomb" (radiological contamination weapon) and a Nuclear Weapon are so terribly different that the poll should have been open to differentiating betweent Neither, Dirty, Nuclear, Either, or Both.

A radiological contamination weapon is a possibility, but of very limited value. The potential for a Nuclear Weapon is very small.

[moa]

The way some doctors who are experts on epidemics are talking, we may be short time to a world wide pandemic of some sort. Most likely something from Africa or Asia, such as Ebolla virus or bird flu. Most likely will kill many millions world wide in a short period time akin to the 1917-18 Spanish/Swine flu pandemic.

That could be the will of Allah in some folks book.

[Combat-wombat]

Ditto what RileyMc said. Especially about the sheep going to the government for protection.

It's what Alex Jones calls a "Problem-Reaction-Solution"
(Yeah, yeah, I know he's a nutjob.. :rolleyes: )

[Standing Wolf]

Given that we're doing virtually nothing to destroy Islamic terrorist savagry at its roots, I think further attacks against the United States are everything but inevitable.

[J Miller]

I think that there is a very good possibility it could happen.

I also think the easiest target would be Chicago. A bomb in a cargo ship from Canada and sail it right up to the docks. KABOOM.

Much of Chicago is right near the lake so such an occurance would be devestating.

Jwhowouldhatetoseesuchathing,butwouldnotmissDalyorhiscronysatallMiller


OH, dumb question. Are hypothetical threads like this giving info to the enemy? Just a question, not being critical of it.

[2nd Amendment]

I'd guess A) They are as smart as we are, so if we can think it up they already have, and B) They ain't reading any place called "The High Road" anyway. :evil:

[Arc-Lite]

J...I think all of the possibilities and realities have been explored....and now it is just a matter, of the equipment and time and place.

[torpid]

This is all very scary...

Here's a "warm fuzzy" thought to take off the edge. :)

We have electricity, hot running clean water, shelter, income, medical availability, instant communications, unlimited food/goods selection from all over the globe, and the ability to travel hundreds of miles in mere hours. Congratulations, you and I are the envy of even the most privileged kings of yesteryear!

Luckily, if you read about life during times like the thirty years war in Europe, we can at least appreciate that we have enjoyed the highest standard of living of all times during our comparatively peaceful lifetimes- even if eventually the other shoe does drop on us.

So, keep in mind that no matter how bad it gets, somebody's already had it worse that we will.

Chins up, mates!


.

[larry starling]

No! I don't have all my faith in our goverment, but I don't think we will have to experience the horrors of a nuclear attack on our soil! at least I hope im right! :o

[Deadman]

Anyone familiar with Col.Stanislav Lunev (Soviet military defector) will know that he refered to the placement of Soviet suitcase nukes on U.S. soil during the cold war.

[AZLibertarian]

Voted "Yes", but really I think a low-tech operation like mall shootings is the next thing. Regarding WMDs, I also think that we'll first face a bio/chem attack before a nuclear, as the technology required isn't nearly so demanding. But yeah--eventually we'll get hit.

Sean Smith...Al-Qaeda could have followed up 9/11 with, say, a bunch of smaller-scale massacres across the country pretty easily,... I've always been puzzled by this too. I spoke with a number of LEOs during the "Beltway Sniper" thing, and said that if those guys kept their mouths shut and just melted away, they'd have never been found. The LEOs didn't like hearing that ("Bad guys are always dummies. We always find them eventually"), but that's what I believe none-the-less. The Bad Guys aren't always dummies (and AQ certainly found a way inside our system). I mean an idiot and a kid kept Fed and State Law Enforcement from 3 states all tied up in knots for weeks until they finally "asked" to be caught by demanding $1m to a stolen credit card.

[RevDisk]

Anyone familiar with Col.Stanislav Lunev (Soviet military defector) will know that he refered to the placement of Soviet suitcase nukes on U.S. soil during the cold war.

I heard a rumor from an old grizzy intel guy. I took it with a grain of salt. Supposedly the Sovs had a very large nuke at their embassy during the Cold War. No need for ICBM's, instant detonation. That which the nuke wouldn't destroy, the fallout and EMP would take care of.


The suitcase nukes are technically called "atomic demolition munitions" (ADMs). These usually have a yield of around 1 kt. The larger scale ones, are usually called tactical nukes (15kt), designed by the US weighed 400 lbs. Very maintaince intensive. A lot of people think the Sov design for a 15kt battlefield tactical nuke was bigger and heavier than the US tac nukes. I personally agree with them.

The real "suitcase" nukes are 0.02-1 kt ADM, and weigh 160 lbs or so. Again, very maintaince intensive, leak rads like no tomorrow, etc. Again, this is the US version. The Sovs did have nuclear arty rounds, with a payload of .1 kt or so weighing 70 lbs.

You'd be better off with a truckload of homemade RDX, really. Cheaper, easier to get yer hands on, no rads, easier to handle, etc.

Some US ADM's - http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/madm.htm


Voted "Yes", but really I think a low-tech operation like mall shootings is the next thing. Regarding WMDs, I also think that we'll first face a bio/chem attack before a nuclear, as the technology required isn't nearly so demanding. But yeah--eventually we'll get hit.

Most chemical attacks would have limited damage. Chems are very tempermental. Humidity, light, air temp, surface temp, etc. They're nasty, sure. You definitely don't want to be exposed to a lot of chemicals, either through industrial accidents or intentional terrorism.

Bio attacks are also rather tempermental. Same thing, environmental conditions very much dictate the effectiveness. Natural strains are much more of a worry than the lab stuff. 1918 strain of influenza killed between estimated 20 and 40 million people. (Take those numbers with a grain of salt, no one has any real idea how many people it killed. But it was in the tens of millions.) Hep and AIDS are a definite worry.

Anthrax isn't that bad. Noncontagious. It's very hardy, but very limited damage wise. Ebola doesn't survive long in direct sunlight. It dies within a few seconds, but some more hardy strains can last a minute or two.

So yea, biochem attacks are nasty, but not that scary. I'm more worried about Mother Nature cooking up nasty bugs than any terrorist.

[mfree]

RDX, nah. AMFO.

[RevDisk]

RDX, nah. AMFO.

I assume ya mean "ANFO", or any other term to describe ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. Respectfully, there is a reason why the military uses RDX in just about everything. (C4 is 91% RDX, FYI) It's much more consistent in exploding, easily stored and handled, very uniform, and packs a lot of punch.

I'd have to check my charts for the kJ/kg comparison of ANFO verses RDX, but I know RDX is a lot higher.

[Arc-Lite]

Rev...you did your research well on the ADM's and the SADM's.... considering much of this data is from a questionable source i.e. a soviet defector, and much of his data was of the pre 1997 vintage. Bin laden and the Taliban had/has been shopping and reportely buying anything along these lines..since the early 90's... the maintaince queston of the ADM's is still unproven issue. the weapon grade materials are still unaccounted for, as well as many of the designers.. considering this was a project that began in the 50's... it would be easy to conclude some changes were made to the size as well as the yeild. hopefully your right... hopefully. One aircraft form nam, with a few passangers just exposed to bird flu.... landing in S.F. with connecting flights......will make 1918 flu out break...look like a bad cold.

[bjbarron]

During my time in the service I had occasion to work with backpack nukes. They were heavy but could be humped, max 330ton yield (.33KT), and you could set timers from 5 minutes (?) to 48 hours. Their theoretical use was for SOF guys to sneak one under one end of a major bridge. They were detectable even 35 years ago by equipment so sensitive it would pick up nuclear material from the air.

I expect a dirty bomb. Wind direction isn't as much of a factor if you detonate a panel van full of explosives with a couple of pounds of nuclear material in a limited but critical area. It wouldn't be the crispy critters that got you - it would be the alpha bits. Make the area unusable for 25 years.

By a critical area, I mean something like a financial district. The pukes have learned that we can be hurt economically - and (because all we think about is money) we will disengage. I don't think they would waste a nuke on a county fair.

Having dealt with this stuff in the service in a very small way, I would not bet against the notion that the feds have already found/disappeared some characters with WMD/Biologicals. Even three decades ago we were doing some stuff so secret that you had to kill yourself if you even thought about it. The biggest crime was to let out your procedures and facts about how someone was caught. Imagine the feeding frenzy of the MSM if the gov announced it had caught a WMD bomber.

Some time, some where, someone will get thru.

The answer to one nuke, of course, is two. Pick your targets.

[jefnvk]

A lot seem to assume a nuke is going to be a missing Russian piece. NK seems to have a few, they are probably quite desperately cash striken. I think a billion dollars might help them out quite a bit.

And no, I don't think a billion is all that much money. $10 million from 100 places adds up quickly.

[chris in va]

I've always felt terrorists would be smart enough not to set one off in a big city, just a medium sized town where lots of people congregate and 'feel safe'.

Everyone feels the big cities are the worst targets, I tend to disagree.

[bearmgc]

I'm trying to remember a fiction book with the scenario of these nuclear bombs that were set off below some major ice shelf in Antartica,causing major ice melt, weather changes, tidal waves, destruction of cities, islands/countries, and a loss in communication. :what: It was very believable. The culprit in the end was China. It was done with nukes bought on the black market. But then, why go to so much trouble when our fanny's showing, both North and South, the ever naked borders. Yes, I fear it may happen in my lifetime.

[Bulldozer]

I think we'll see a variety of attack methods. Shootings at high-traffic areas, such as malls and events. The suicide bomber phenomenon will hit soon.

A simultaneous assault in 8-10 secondary cities with suicide bombers blowing themselves up outside of schools or malls or special events would cause widespread fear and pasnic in the populus.

If we went slightly higher tech, chem/bio/dirty secnarios could also be used. Demolition of choke points, such as bridges, tunnels would also be useful to those not freidnly to our cause.

[gunsmith]

Not :(

[Bruce H]

If they really wanted to stir the pot the major vegetable growing areas of California with a dirty bomb would work. Financials and buildings are secondary to the food supply. Shut down the production from Santa Maria to Watsonville and watch the population go nuts.

[rwc]

nuclear detonation
Possible but highly unlikely. Some good posts above that I echo. The risk is the ex-Soviet tactical weapons which they refuse to allow to be inspected or accounted for under Nunn-Luger. The "+" is that they are all old, their reliability/maintenance standards didn't approach ours, and they are relatively "easy" to detect.

Fissionable material gives off neutrons in a manner not replicated by naturally occuring material (possible exception for high grade uranium mines, but we know where those are). Neutron detectors are now man portable. I do not know, but strongly suspect all major ports, commercial border crossings, etc. are now so equiped. The vehicle mounted equipment (read air) is more precise and could scan the country regularly. I hope we're doing this, because I know we can.

dirty bomb
Also possible, and slightly more probable for the reasons previously stated. Localized problem, the commercial markets would take a hit, etc.

liquified natural gas
LNG tankers could catch fire and it would be a heck of a blaze. That said, LNG is not "explosive" and in the case of an attack on a tanker the likely result is the liquified gas leaking out, pooling on the water, and then presumably one of the attackers "goes to allah" and sets it alight. The reason some folks are concerned about this is that once the gas plume above a pool of LNG is lit it would be very difficult, if not impossible to extinguish. The first responders would probably have to focus on containment while staying safe themselves, no mean feat. I know this is a present concern in Boston which is the only US city with an LNG terminal nearby. We're looking at a number of new sites for LNG terminals on the West coast, and a few more on both the Gulf and the East coast. As I understand it, the general plan is to have escort boats for the tankers and a "stand off" rule. Violate the stand off and get sunk. I think an LNG tanker, while a nice traget that would make a heck of a fire if you set it ablaze, is not really much of a general threat. The most likely effect would be a temporary spike in the "Henry Hub" market price of gas, and a group of very sad Lloyds "members" who insure such boats.

ebola
Not the best vector. Weaponized influenza is the one that costs me some sleep. I think we are a decade or two away from the terrorists having the access they need to a biotech facilty.
Here's the scenario - take an influenza virus, toughen up the fatty layer/lipid envelope so that it can survive being airborne. Change the RNA so that the person infected is themselves infectious for several weeks before they become symptomatic. Have it reproduce in the respiratory system so that the carriers are spreading it liberally (airborne vector = no contact needed for infection). And of course, make it as lethal as possible, while co-developing a vaccine. You innoculate your population and then release the disease to kill of as much of the rest of the humanity as the disease can manage. Air travel alone virtually guarentees that only a few island nations would be likely to remain completely untouched. Even if we "only" lost a quarter of the world population the economic effects alone would be very, very bad.

Aren't you glad I brought it up? :)

Actually, the counter argument is that this would take a national effort to achieve (for now). Any nation that came through with their population relatively intact when everyone else lost a sizable percentage would almost certainly be subject to extermination by a uniformly outraged world.

ed - neutrons, not neutrinos. "By bad" as they say these days.
rwc

[walking arsenal]

Wow.

As of right now 57.06% of us have feelings of impending doom, 27.12% of us dont and 15.82% of us dont know, dont care or are probably wondering whats for lunch.

[Hutch]

I may have read this premise somewhere, since I've never hatched an original idea, but my personal fave is the following:

Somebody packs a nuke into a speedboat and puts said boat over the side of a merchie headed into the Seattle area. Instructions to operator are to get as close to the boomer pens as possible and then light the match. The first real clue would be the recon satellite picking up a nuclear detonation in the vicinity of a boomer. Any observers would be too dead to report. The president is faced with the following possibilities

1) It's a terrorist attack by AQ or similar
2) It's the first shot of a nuclear war, fired by PRC/NK
3) It's an accidental detonation of one of ours (However unlikely that is)

At that point, he'd have a crippled boomer base, possibly damage to a major metro area, and a fallout plume headed over CONUS. Baaaaad juju.

[Greg L]

Hutch,

There would be no incoming missle tracks for #2 (NORAD would have picked up the launch signature & tracked the ICBM (hopefully)) so that possibility would have low credence with the President (that's not to say that Iran/PRC/NK didn't send the speedboat in).

It would be interesting to see the spin that would be put on such a situation. Do you admit that the terrorists have nukes & totally spook the herd. Or do you put the blame on an accident in one of the subs (knowing that it wasn't) letting the Navy take the hit & the fallout (so to speak :D ). Either way it would be ugly & more of our freedoms would go away in the name of "safety" :( .

[Brett Bellmore]

Fissionable material gives off neutrinos in a manner not replicated by naturally occuring material (possible exception for high grade uranium mines, but we know where those are). Neutrino detectors are now man portable.

I think you must mean "neutrons", not "neutrinos", unless there have been some amazing advances in particle physics since I last looked.

[AJ Dual]

I kind of suspect several of the "unaccounted" for Soviet nukes were never even built. I could easily envision some Soviet general or administrator in charge of a bomb plant running into some kind of delay, a problem, or work stoppages caused by inferior technology, or lower level corruption, and just sending an inventory to Moscow stating the bombs were complete.

The old Soviet system was rife with corruption. Without the usual incentives of capitalism to actually do anything was greatly lessened. Pile on top of that the inefficiencies of central planning, de-motivated conscripts etc. you have lots of shenanigans going on. Combine that with the Soviet system's obsession with it's public face to the rest of the world, cover-ups and scams must have been rampant.

Stories like that were common, thoughtless central planners would set a chandelier factory's quota for hotels and state buildings in kilograms, and the chronically institutionally demotivated factory workers just made the heaviest chandlers in the world to fulfill the quota quickly, and there were no buildings in the USSR that had ceilings strong enough to hold them.

Stuff with propaganda value like the space program, and visible front line units and military equipment being watched by NATO and the U.S. were run fairly well, because the motivating force was fear of embarrassment in front of the west. Behind the scenes it was a different matter. Much of the Soviet defense posture was a paper tiger, and even then, much of what was "real" was often hampered by logistic, maintenance and deployability problems. (One famous example was a new bomber design to be shown at the Moscow air show. There were production problems and they only had 5 working bombers, so they flew the same formation past Red Square 10 times...) The west's own industrial, military, and intelligence complex had a hand in keeping the secret, and passing along the Soviet puffery to our own leaders to ensure itself a steady supply of new weapons programs, budget, and bureaucratic survival.

While it's possible the USSR was pawning off the substandard stuff on it's client nations, Soviet built tanks captured or destroyed in the first Iraq war were found to have severe manufacturing defects, and cut corners. The ball bearings in the drive sprockets weren't even round.

While the nuclear programs of rouge states like North Korea and Iran certainly raise the risk, I suspect that if loose nuclear bombs were even remotely available or deployable by terrorists, they'd have done so already. It's a "use it or lose it scenario" for them. If there were Russian bombs on the loose, they'd have used it by now.

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

We are MUCH better prepared for an exterior missle attack armed with nuclear weapons from a nation-state enemy such as China, North Korean, Iran, etc.

Our "challenge" is the guy who wants to collect on his 72-virgins reward by bringing a suitcase or backpack dirty bomb into one of our cities. The likelihood of such a scenario is more likely (see the movie "The Peacemaker with George Clooney and Nicole Kidman).

North Korea could (for cash) sell a nuke or two to Al Queda or one of its proxy organizations, then have it "walked in" to the U.S. through the porous U.S. border or through the also-porous Canadian border. If you saw the movie The Jackal (with the title bad-guy terrorist role played by Bruce Willis) he came in to assassinate the First Lady through the Canadian border by joining a sailboat race on the Great Lakes.

A dirty bomb is the most likely scenario.

[RevDisk]

I think you must mean "neutrons", not "neutrinos", unless there have been some amazing advances in particle physics since I last looked.

Yes, apparently there have been.

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

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/neutrino.html

http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html

[benEzra]

As for the nuclear attack, as we have read, the most devestating attack would be the upper atmospheric detonation. I would give that a 5-10% chance in my lifetime right now. It would be very difficult to get a bomb or missile up above our country without spending huge amounts of dollars which is easily trackable with todays computer banking systems.
You're speaking of EMP attacks here, I assume. I'm not sure how that would play out, if all electronics in half the U.S. would simply stop working or if it would be more a hit-or-miss thing. I suspect you'd need several warheads to cover the entire U.S. also.

How serious that would be would be determined by how much important stuff stopped working, I suppose.

If I remember correctly, a true atomic or hydrogen device isn't somthing you can really pack off in a suitcase....but you can get a warhead that weighs about 500 lbs...and that will easily fit in even a mini-van.
A typical thermonuclear ICBM warhead (0.5 MT yield), minus the reentry vehicle, weighs ~400 pounds and is only about 3 feet high and a foot or so in diameter (they're very small for their weight, since uranium and plutonium are both around twice as dense as lead). You could fit one in the trunk of a Toyota Corolla. (This does NOT apply to the gigantic 1950's-tech warheads that China fields on some of its missiles, some of which are like 10 MT and probably as big as a small car.)

Most of the small (read: modern) warheads also have permissive action links (PALs) that make the warhead impossible to detonate without the proper authorization code, AND are rigged to self-destruct in non-nuclear fashion, by blowing a small amount of the chemical explosives, if someone attempts to open the weapon without proper tools and passcodes (such as someone trying to modify the weapon to detonate without a PAL, or to obtain the fissile materials in order to construct a derivative weapon). As somebody mentioned earlier in the thread, some of the earlier tac-nukes (lower yield, though not all that much physically smaller than ICBM warheads) didn't have good PALs or antitampering setups, so if one of these fell into the wrong hands it would be a lot more easily used than a more modern design.

Fissionable material gives off neutrinos in a manner not replicated by naturally occuring material (possible exception for high grade uranium mines, but we know where those are). Neutrino detectors are now man portable.
As Brett mentioned, you are probably thinking of neutrons here. The energy spectrum of neutrons given off in spontaneous fissions gives you a fingerprint of exactly what the parent isotope was, so you can distinguish neutrons from natural uranium (mostly U-238) from HEU (mostly U-235) or plutonium. Neutrons also penetrate like crazy, meaning that one hidden in a car or building would be easily spotted from quite some distance away.

Fissile materials also give off neutrinos, but neutrino detectors aren't man-portable. Considering you'd need a light-year of lead to stop 50% of neutrinos of typical spectrum (IIRC), you need a LOT of neutrinos being produced, and a BIG detector, in order to pick up even a few interactions. We can detect neutrinos from the sun and from reactors operating at 2400 MW(t), but to catch the handful of neutrinos from plutonium or U-235 decay I don't think would be feasible even with a building-sized detector. I may be wrong, though.

[Brett Bellmore]

That was essentially my point; Sure, fissile materials give off neutrinos, but a man-portable neutrino dectector would have to involve some major breakthrough in physics, considering how little neutrinos interact with normal matter.

The detectors they're using at the border, and in other locations, are indeed neutron (http://www.canberra-hs.com/products/Border_Security.asp) detectors. Well, and gamma ray detectors, too. But not neutrios.

Of course, it IS possible to shield radioactive materials against detection. And it doesn't matter how many detectors they've got at the ports, so long as they're letting people walk across our border with Mexico...

[tracer]

I have dreamed of a nuclear missile attack over 15 times,so I believe.I am not preoccupied with the prospect,but believe the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and will never be recaptured .I would speculate San Francisco and New York.An EMP strike on Wall St would trigger complete panic in the Baby Boomer merlot sippers.A freighter several miles off the coast of the Atlantic Seaboard,loaded with a crude device,could present that kind of scenario.The lack of fiscal responsibility on behalf of both the nation and individual families,with respect to DEBT will inevitably resurface,nuclear attack or not.Babylon will fall,it always does.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm
http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html

[El Tejon]

Nuke attack on New York City or Miami. D.C. as secondary site.

[denfoote]

Our unending support for Israel is gunna do it!!
No, I do not think that is a bad thing if that is the thought that just entered your head. ;)
However, there are emerging States who think otherwise!! Russia or Gog and Magog as the Bible puts it, for one. China, India, japan or the Kings of the East for two.
The Bible says that Israel will be surrounded by her enemies on all sides. We are currently Her protector and arms supplier and that can't happen with us around to act as the big bodyguard.
I'm sure the thought has entered the thought processes of the leaders of these nations that if the US is taken out, then we will be able to rid ourselves of these pesky Jews once and for all!! :evil:

Yup!!
I see us getting nuked by either Russia or China!!
Russia has been quietly rearming herself since the fall of Communism.
China has been expanding it's military for years!!

[lwaldron]

Probably the best analysis I've read is this one by Steven denBeste:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/11/Threeconjectures.shtml

It's too long to repost here, but anyone interested in this subject really ought to read it.

[WayneConrad]

I think you must mean "neutrons", not "neutrinos", unless there have been some amazing advances in particle physics since I last looked.

Agreed. I think we're picking nits, but I suspect that we don't have portable neutrino detectors (evidence: scientists still need to use giant underground spaces filled with stuff to detect only a tiny fraction of the abundant neutrinos emitted by the sun).

[rwc]

Mea culpa. I was thinking of the hand-held neutron detectors. Neutrinos, as others have pointed out are small, slippery little fellows. Someone may have come up with something we don't know about that is smaller than the equipment needed for scientific study (large underground tanks of water and very sensitive equipment) but I don't know about it.

FYI - The U/W has a bid out to host a research facility over near Leavenworth, WA. They want to put one of these detectors under almost a mile of granite in Icicle canyon. If bad things happen I'll tell you where the tunnel is if you bring the ham sandwiches... :)

[MikeJ]

One of the primary reasons that the cold war remained a cold war was that we would know precisely where the weapon came from. In today's climate we wouldn't be attacked by a country but by transient terrorists. While it is true that they need somewhere to hold up, they aren't necessarily aligned with any specific nation anymore than the Mexican bandits that crossed the borders and then retreated to seclusion in their home couintry. I totally disagree with the idea that we would go in and wipe out an entire nation because terrorists had found a temporary hiding place, they do move around.

To your question, yes I do believe that in the current state of world affairs it is highly likely that we will see a much more catastrophic terrorist attack than 911, whether that be in the form of a nuclear attack, btw where are those misplaced suitcase nuclear weapons from the U.S.S.R., biological or chemical. We all know that there are many many individuals that would like nothing better than to bring the U.S. to its knees.

[Waitone]

There is an interesting rumor/theory being batted around the ruling elites. The theory is Bush has adopted Israel's "Sword of Damocles" strategy. The Israeli variant is the reason Eqypt hasn't attacked since 1977 (IIRC) is because Israel has made it clear that if they are attacked again, shortly thereafter Eqypt's Answan Dam will disappear and Eqypt will end up under a lot of water very quickly. The US variant goes something like Bush made it clear to the Arab centers of power that if we are hit again with WMD certain cities associated with Islam will disappear.

That's the theory.

[lostone1413]

I think their will be an attack and they will have just walked across the border to do it. Then will are country had great leaders or great traitors?

[AZLibertarian]

RevDisk...Most chemical attacks would have limited damage.... Granted. But as a weapon of terror, their effect would be multiplied. Its likely that more people would be killed in the traffic accidents and mayhem fleeing a WMD attack than through the attack itself.

Waitone...The US variant goes something like Bush made it clear to the Arab centers of power that if we are hit again with WMD certain cities associated with Islam will disappear.... I, for one, have absolutely no problem with this.

[bjbarron]

I totally disagree with the idea that we would go in and wipe out an entire nation because terrorists had found a temporary hiding place, they do move around.

The concept of deterrence is not a new one. We lived with it and the Russians for 4 decades.

These terror organizations are supported, funded, and used by nation states. Tell me that if Syria, Saudi, or the Sudan supports an organization that attacks us with WMD, they would survive a year as a state. They have to know this after Afghanistan and Iraq. Gore is not president.

Jihadi...meet Jacksonian.

[2nd Amendment]

Waitone, excellent. We should eliminate huge swaths of the Middle East in retaliation for any future attacks. And knowing we will do it(as opposed to our making empty threats) should have some protection value for us. OTOH that sort of intimidation factor works against old men in suits in offices who have lots to lose. It's value against a terrorist organization which really couldn't care less who lives or dies, especially themselves, is somewhat...suspect. The MAD theory falls apart in such a situation, but it may be of some help.


In reading through this thread it seems to me there is a shuffling of terms, maybe. Chemical/WMD/bilogical/weaponized, etc. A WMD can be anything, including a nuke. Doesn't apply to just chem/biological, both of which are different in their own right. And an effective biological doesn't have to be weaponized. In fact a truly effective biological probably won't be weaponized, since weaponization implies specific uses under specific circumstances. Mother Nature, OTOH, likes to make things that can function under the most amazing circumstances.

Hence why I didn't mention man-made efforts at developing biologicals and why I specifically mentioned ebola, Ebola is in a very real sense trying to weaponize itself right now, and has been for years. It will also function well in our age of rapid travel. As was mentioned before, it dies quickly and kills quickly...but our speed of travel is about where it needs to be to counteract these "deficiencies".

But it doesn't have to be an ebola strain. Pick another. It doesn't have to be that effective even. A 30% kill would turn this country's economy and infrastructure into a madhouse and break major urban areas down into armed camps. Probably 10% would do it. I mean really, if one in 10 of the people you know drop dead from a plague and there's no cure and no guarantee it won't kill more what would YOU do. What would most of the people you know do?

Hole up and bring the country to a screeching, devastating halt. This is why I really believe our future holds something like this. It generates big impressive kill numbers and more importantly it stops the US in its tracks and forever turns us into a nation of paranoids, most of whom will sacrifice anything for a little safety. It doesn't even have to be particularly effective statistically and the terrorists still "win", achieving the only goal they really care about.

And now I'll shaddup about it.

[Sam]

Ever since Aug 1945 it has been inevitable that we would get nuked. Who and when are the only questions.
The mechanics of nuclear weapons are simple. Remember that seventy five % of the time spent developing the things was pure theory. We did Hiroshima with great confidence, using an untested design. Once you know it can be done, doing it is much faster and easier.
Size, I have seen a few and they vary tremendously. I know for a fact that they can be made to fit a 6"x 24" cylinder. Easy to load 5-6 in the trunk of a little Kia. A big crude uranium gun bomb will fit in a van easy.

When you see the flash, ................ http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/civildef/duckncvr.mov

Sam :(