| Author |
Topic:
Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
RoboNerd
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
6/9/02 7:08pm
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
Actually apart from scattered radioactive material, it is very safe to shoot down a plane carrying a nuclear weapon, because it requires an extremely precise implosion to produce nuclear detonation. If the warhead were destroyed by any other means it would cease to function as a real weapon.
+=o RoboNerd o=+
-----signature-----
If you like your work, does that mean you're "gruntled"?
NetHead's Quote of Wisdom for December:
It is foolish to fear what you cannot avoid.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Tupolov
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
6/10/02 1:33pm
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
|
I don't believe that it's inevitable, but we have a very good chance of it happening because some of our enemies like Iraq have nukes and they might not hesitate to use them. We can, however, prevent them becuase chances are an attack of such magnitude would not be something spontaneous. Therefore, we should tighten our Middle-Eastern security net to prevent such attacks.
-----signature-----
Terminated
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jotun Denal
Registered:
Nov '99
|
Date Posted:
6/10/02 2:15pm
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
|
I'm still waiting for Al Queda to target someone other than the United States. Perhaps when that happens, the true War on Terrorism will take place...
-----signature-----
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
PowerfulJedi
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
6/13/02 4:26pm
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
|
I doubt any other country would be hit. The ONLY other country I can see being hit is the UK.
-----signature-----
Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthNut
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
6/13/02 5:00pm
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
If anyone's read the book "The Sum of all Fears", then you know how easy it is for terrorists to send a nuke in a box and into a major port. And this can happen in real life. In the book, (not the movie) the bomb is set off in Denver, south Denver to be exact and pretty much of all south Denver was gone. However, it was a relativly low yield weapon, and I think the rest of the city was undamaged, except of course for radiation. Now, in the movie Baltimore got even less damage, it seems. Also, the winds blew to the northeast, which is scary for me, since I live practically straight northeast of Baltimore, in Toms River, NJ. Sure, I'm proabably around 100 miles away, but this will be no problem for the wind.
DarthNut,
the nuttiest guy around.
Go Nets Go! Lakers suck!
-----signature-----
I'm sick to death of hearing things from uptight-short-sighted-narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just Gimme Some Truth
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vaderbait
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
6/14/02 9:07am
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
|
Nuclear attack is no longer inevitable now that the ABM treaty expired. They've already begun testing missile defense programs and now I feel the only way for us to be attacked is to somehow sneak a nuclear bomb (not missile) into the US and detonate it here, which would be a helluva lot harder than launching one.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Maveric
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
6/14/02 12:33pm
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
Also in the book, it was a nuclear fission device, not fusion. The terrorists made the mistake of killing their scientist who was building it prior to its completion.
And it was at the Super Bowl in Denver. Scary, huh?
-----signature-----
Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man. -Sir Francis Bacon
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthNut
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
6/14/02 1:12pm
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
"The terrorists made the mistake of killing their scientist who was building it prior to its completion." How was this a mistake? They wanted to prevent leaks, and though I didn't want them to do it, they did it. There were too many people involved, and they had to cover their tracks.
DarthNut,
the nuttiest guy around.
-----signature-----
I'm sick to death of hearing things from uptight-short-sighted-narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just Gimme Some Truth
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Maveric
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
6/14/02 1:19pm
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
|
Because they wanted a a nuclear FUSION device and killed the guy prior to his completion of it, therefore the bomb did not have the terrorist's desired effect and produced a far smaller yield.
-----signature-----
Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man. -Sir Francis Bacon
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthNut
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
6/14/02 4:20pm
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
Perhaps they could've delayed the killing of all the workers, but, I think it was crucial for them to eventually kill them all. I think they just killed them too early.
DarthNut,
the nuttiest guy around.
-----signature-----
I'm sick to death of hearing things from uptight-short-sighted-narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just Gimme Some Truth
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
PowerfulJedi
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
6/14/02 5:38pm
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
|
The thing that pisses me off is that they held the Super Bowl in Denver!! j/k Anyway one thing that makes me mad is that in the book the terrorists were middle eastern but in the movie they were neo-nazis. It really makes me mad that Hollywood has gone THAT PC. Anyway who said they have to be IN the country who said that if they blew it up say a couple miles off the coast that it wouldn't do damage? I mean they don't care if they die.
-----signature-----
Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jedi_Kitiara
Registered:
Jul '02
|
Date Posted:
7/13/02 11:21pm
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
|
everyone says 'the bomb might explode there and in since i live here it would either catch me during the blast or after.'that could be true.and it is not a pleasant thing to think about.*shudder*but if it is going to happen it's going to happen.worrying about it is not going to solve anything.one of the best ways to win a war is to get the other side completly scared out of their minds.thinking "oh no i can not defeat this enemy they are to strong for me."and things like that.or "they could strike at anytime and it might prove fatal for me or someone else."that is true but,...Don't let it ruin your day!{sarcasm} the truth as everyone knows is that we are all eventually going to die{thru old age,disease,war,famine,ect.}but u can't let it effect u.that might sound stupid or mean.And we probably have different view points saying i live in Alaska.but if something happened elsewhere in the U.S. it would still effect me too.almost all my family is in is some other state.I just get annoyed of hearing about people saying that they are so scared that they might die.just like {for the most part}with happiness there is sadness.with life there is death.ect.their are deaths all over the world every day.{also a well known fact}.but do we worry that much about it?i mean truly.we might feel sadness.but do we really try to do that much about it?as Americans we have,for the most part been very lucky.the main reason anyone starves or is homeless is because they do not work hard enough.{that is not always the case,but for many it is}i dont know...right now i'm feeling a little depressed.kinda been reading a lot about this lately.those are my thoughts on the subject.unimportant as they are.i might change them very quickly though saying i'm probably gonna get laughed at for posting this.oh well.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_Omega
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
7/14/02 3:39am
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
Not inevitable but the longer the militaries is going to take rounding up the terrorists the higher the chance it will happen.
The ONLY other country I can see being hit is the UK.
I don't agree with you. I think Belgium is also a potential target and France as well.
Belgium (Brussels to be exact) is a target because of the NATO headquarters.
Paris is also a target because Paris is actually the center of Western Europe.
If you destroy Paris you will manage to disrupt the airlines of Europe and radiate the most important industry of Europe and capitals as well...
The radation radius is between 500km - 1000km (if I'm not mistaken, it also have to depend on the weather)
Not only are London, Brussels and Amsterdam radiated ,perhaps even Berlin and Rome, Madrid is too far and the Pyreans are in the way, samething with Bern
But they also manage to disrupt the most important industry of west Europe (Rurh area, North-Italy, North-France, Belgium and the Netherlands)
Resulting a bigger economic crash then 11/9.
NYC is a target because of the UN headquarters and Manhattan.
Washington D.C because white house and that sorta stuff
Both NYC abd D.C are good target because you also going to manage to radiate the entire East Coast. Where most of the big cities are
How to protect yourself, well it's very simple
In other to stop the alpha, beta and gamma particles you need an element with an high mass and that won't radiate any particles.
And that element is Pb - 208
thanks to the element size it will stop alpha particles (Helium-4) and Beta (an electron).
Gamma particles are difficult to stop because they travel at the speed of light and it's actually a lightbeam with no mass. So 
Before you guys starts ignoring this message I do know what I'm talking about.
If I'm wrong in anyway please correct 
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Vaderize03
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
7/14/02 9:35am
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
It won't be as easy as everyone thinks. It's easy to panic about such an occurence, but remember a few things:
1. We're looking-This is the single biggest factor in the struggle to prevent a nuclear attack. We are expecting it. The government has devices that can detect radiation from the air, and even the best shielding does not prevent ALL leak. The small counts that any nuclear weapon leak out can be detected, but of course only if there is reason to believe we know it is there. As far as ports go, we have yet to screen anywhere close to all cargo, but it's coming. Unfortunately, it may take a nuclear attack to get some results in that department.
2. Deterrence Policy-Unbeknownst to the general public, but knownst to me  , the Bush cronie-hood has been quietly re-writing nuclear policy in response to the terrorist threat. This policy revamp includes allowances for retaliatory strikes against civilian arab populations in response to nuclear attacks on the US. As awful as this sounds, it is the opinion of certain highly placed members of our government (who will remain nameless) that if Al-Qaeda believes that the worlds muslim countries might suffer devastating consequences as the result of a nuclear attack, they might just refrain from using them. I know this from a government source and I cannot post proof of this; it is unstated policy. A much more likely scenario here is the use of dirty bombs. Easier to use, to assemble, harder to figure out where it came from.
3. Loss of world-wide condemnation for the war on terrorism-A nuclear attack will probably be just what the doctor ordered to cure the EU and other nations urging restraint of their reluctance to support broader action against Al-Qaeda. The hysteria such an attack generates might just lead to emergency confinement of all arabs in the US, as horrible as THAT would be. Yes, I think that could happen again here.
A nuclear attack against the US, IMHO, will radically backfire against al-Qaeda, because it will not destroy the entire country, just create a lot of panic, and probably lead to WWIII.
Just so long as it doesn't happen before ep III ....
Peace,
V-03
-----signature-----
"Bring your pretty face to my axe....."
B-O-H-I-C-A !! (that was funny DM!)
"I'm what Willis was talking about"
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
CmdrMitthrawnuruodo
Registered:
Jul '00
|
Date Posted:
7/14/02 10:13am
Subject:
RE: Is a nuclear attack on U.S. soil inevitable?
|
I want to deny it, but yes it's most likely. NY, LA, or Wash DC the most likely targets.
Most likely targets but least likely to happen. NEST teams are always watching the major cities. It will be harder for terrorists to smuggle a nuke into DC, LA, or NY.
No, the terrorists will more likely choose a smaller big city like Jacksonville, FL for example. Big city with lots of people but not considered too important by our thinking. Plus there are at least two or three naval and air stations nearby. So it will have some military significance.
-----signature-----
"Dyin' be the day worth livin' for!" --Captain Hector Barbossa PotC: Amuletum Angiti http://www.fanfiction.net/s/3635826/1/ http://s12.gladiatus.com/game/c.php?uid=48046
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
