Speaking of conspiracy theories ...

[RadioFan]

This guy has been making the rounds on talk radio as of late. He was on Michael Savage last week, Coast to Coast AM fairly recently and on Glenn Beck this morning.

Basically, he claims that Al Qaida has up to 20 "suitcase nukes" and is planning an attack in which they'll set them off in a handful of U.S. cities.

I guess I have a couple of questions about this, given Luth's thread about the Chinese general's recent threat to go "Hiroshima" on the U.S., and Rep. Tom Tancredo's recent off-the-cuff comment about us responding to a nuclear terrorist attack by "taking out Mecca."

1. In the movie, "The Sum of All Fears," a nuke is detonated in Baltimore and the government is able to figure out where the weapon came from and who made it and when, based on the "radiation signature" or some shit. It's been a while since I've seen the movie and I can't remember the exact means by which they figure it out. Does anybody know if this is possible?

2. If there was a terrorist nuclear attack ... what would the U.S. response be and where? As horrifying as the scenario is, somebody has got to be thinking about it seriously, right?

[Luther]

Portland is like the 23rd or 24th largest TV market, so hopefully my arse will be alright. If Dinsdale spouts off too much then our death factor might just get upped to around 21 or so, and then...it is iffy.

Will I see a nuke mushroom cloud on my TV before I die? Probably. Where will it be? My mad money would be of course in Wash. DC or NYC.

Really, really bad shit is going to happen in the next ten years. Something bad, somewhere. Did the Cuban Missile Crisis scare me? Oh hell yes. But to be honest, what lies ahead ~might~ get averted, but I doubt it. I'm not confident about the future here...Fidel and or Kruschev is/was a boy scout compared to some of these crazed Islamic sons-a-bitches.

Rip City

[tough love]

R F Wrote:
If there was a terrorist nuclear attack ... what would the U.S. response be

For starters, blame Canada.

[fix]

If there was a terrorist nuclear attack ... what would the U.S. response be

Blame Clinton and the Democrats

Sin,

You know who...





Serious reply,

If the current administration is doing their job as well as they proclaim, along with the U.S.'s Patriot Act and heightened security whose measures are supposedly effective..
You shouldn't have anything to worry about now should you?

But if all else fails, invade Paraguay or some other tinpot 3rd world country whose leadership you can alledge to have ties to al-qaeda

[tough love]

Serious reply

Okay, after blaming Canada; revenge would surely fly, again without regard to the fact that their true enemy does not hail from any paticular country, which may change soon, given that America's current policy with dealing with this scurdge appears to be making those hateful fuc's stronger.

If such horror were ever to occur; and America were being smart, they would put aside their petty differences and channel their energies into the UN, creating an effective responce within the like minded global communities, and irradicate this earth once and for all of this terrorist scum.

It would take great acts of might and than great acts of kindness, if it were ever to be set right again.
After the terrorist are iradicated, So Must Be Poverty.

More than not though, as the past has proven, America's responce will be to just let their anger fly at the most convienient of targets with rag-heads, and continue to make matters worse for themselves and the rest of this peace loving earth.

I do hate the carnal truth so.

[DMike316]

Serious reply

America were being smart, they would put aside their petty differences and channel their energies into the UN, creating an effective responce within the like minded global communities

Oh, so our response would be to do absolutely nothing, or if the UN plays hardball perhaps some sanctions.

Gotcha'

Something tells me you wouldn't make a very good Defensive Coordinator in the NFL $lappy.

[BSmack]

This guy has been making the rounds on talk radio as of late. He was on Michael Savage last week, Coast to Coast AM fairly recently and on Glenn Beck this morning.

That should tell you all you need to know right there.

[Cuda]

There aren't any such thing as "suitcase nukes". They're a myth.

[tough love]

T1B's Mike 316 Wrote:
Oh, so our response would be to do absolutely nothing, or if the UN plays hardball perhaps some sanctions.

Gotcha'

Something tells me you wouldn't make a very good Defensive Coordinator in the NFL $lappy.

More like something absolutely substantual, that would not involve America being such a ineffective stand out target which feeds the real enemy on a daily basis.

I didn't think I would have to break down my (from day one) UN take in here, but here it is: {quote: they would put aside their petty differences and channel their energies into the UN, creating an effective responce within the like minded global communities} = means less investment for a greater punch.

Most Americans believe that America is the almighty shit, so use some of that to make the United Nations an effective global force to be reaconed with.
Get behind the U N 100% and push them to where they should be.
Make 'em all that they can be.
Give the peace lovin world a hand, wil'yah, my brothers?

The NFL is football, right?
Why would a peace loving person ever want to be part of that which promotes aggression and mollifies the human spirit into accepting brutality?
Your right, it would not work for me. :wink:

[rozy]

Utopians will NEVAR, EVAR cease to make me

I gotta RACK you, TL. If for no other reason than you have passion. Highly misguided, but I still gotta admire the drive.

[tough love]

Thanks a bunch, my wayward brother. :wink:

[RadioFan]

Blame Clinton and the Democrats

Sin,

You know who...





Serious reply,

If the current administration is doing their job as well as they proclaim, along with the U.S.'s Patriot Act and heightened security whose measures are supposedly effective..
You shouldn't have anything to worry about now should you?

But if all else fails, invade Paraguay or some other tinpot 3rd world country whose leadership you can alledge to have ties to al-qaeda

Actually, you know who a few years ago posted a column from some geographically illiterate fuck claiming AQ was gathering in the "border region" of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. Pretty funny, considering there's an international park and a natural wonder there, with thousands of tourists.

Luth, unfortunately, I think you may be right. The notion that "everything has changed since Sept. 11" would seem pretty tame in comparison to a freak setting off a nuke.

Can somebody translate TL for me? The U.N.? Universal love? Huh?

[PSUFAN]

In the most recent National Geographic, there's an interesting article about the current state of worldwide nuclear arsenals.

[tough love]

RF Wrote:
Can somebody translate TL for me?

No soup for you.

[Tom In VA]

Yes I think it will happen. I think it will happen in D.C. or NYC.

I'm saving for land in the mountains. I've fished before, but I'm by no means a fisherman, I've been hunting once.

With my luck though, it will happen when I'm Luther's age and am too old to do anything other than shake my walker at the sky as I'm incinerated.

[Tom In VA]

In the most recent National Geographic, there's an interesting article about the current state of worldwide nuclear arsenals.

Sure :wink: You get it for the "articles". :twisted:

[PSUFAN]

there's a naked chick in this one, man. she's a granola cruncher, though...

[RadioFan]

RF Wrote:
Can somebody translate TL for me?

No soup for you.

No soup for me? Even though I've been standing in line?

Since this thread is apparently too "serious" for everyone ...

Ever thought about the mushroom cloud, in your city?

----------

Since I am the world's biggest insomniac, short of taking a couple of Tylenol PMs or the generic equivalent ... I figure I might as well take my mind off of the end of the world.

Btw, PSU, quit it.

I went to Borders today, looking for National Geographic and Penthouse. Couldn't find either, in 102-degree actual temp, not counting the heat index in the parking lots nor in my car.

I came home and let my labs play in the sprinklers and kiddie pool, no shit.

I figure if radiation is going to get them, I might as well be around to see what it feels like.

So if NY and DC goes, then what?

Baghdad and Tehran?

[tough love]

Radio Fan Asked:
Baghdad and Tehran?

Given the unprecedented level of public hate which would ensue from just such a horror, it would afford your Imperialistic Hawks the opportunity to clean global house to their precieved advantage.
Anyone on their shit list could be a target, Baghdad being Bu$h Corps supposed victory, would afford it a pass.

Your Imperialists Dream List:

Iran would be a forsure.
Afghanastan, and it's bordering Pakistan mountain region, a 10/4 good buddy.
Syria, a likely.
Palestine, a must.
Saudi Arabia gets a major tune up.

N.Korea, why not.
And God help any country who pubicly craps out the 'america brought it upon themselves' take.

Thang is; while America vents her wrath, other's equal to the horrid task won't stay idle on the sidelines.
Such vengence would surely bring on Armmagedon, or age it to maturity if it is already upon us in it's infancy stage, as some would suggest.

I still say that your big threat in these tubulent times has been your over_bloated uppity image of yourselves. This alone has gotten you into a world of trouble, and working on correcting that would be in your best interest.
America's maverick cavalier snubbery of the United Nations does no one any real good.
Again: Your best defense would be to change your tude towards the U N asap. Betowing respect upon, and taking a leading roll within that global community org. just may be your only way out of the shit storm your 'whatever's' have developing around you.

Be The Uniter, and God will bless your once again.
Remain the devider, and God help us all.

It's your call. :wink:




Check out EBay Books for, The tl Interpretations.

[rozy]

So, TL, with the stakes this high we should wait for them to strike first?

You really think the militant Islamic fundamentalists are unitable?

Take the Utopian blinders off, bro.

[poptart]

2. If there was a terrorist nuclear attack ... what would the U.S. response be and where?

Depends if we would even be capable of a response.

Could very well be all she wrote for the good ol' US of A, fans.

Comforting, no...?


It's only a matter of time before the US takes a large hit again, and it is my opinion that a hit is gonna take place that makes 9/11 look like a love tap.

ALL hell will break loose around the world if a nuke (or multiple nukes) goes off here.

I'm prepared to die.

How 'bout you who reads this....?

[tough love]

Rozy;
I was responding to RF's question #2.,

I gave my opinion of what will prolly happen, but more importantly, what needs to happen if this horrid enemy of peace is ever going to be defeated.

I appreciate the side arm rack from your previous post, but do you have a take concerning RF's questions?

btw...I've said from day one that the UN must be involved in this global conflict if the true enemy is to ever be defeated.
The sooner the better.

Seems like 9/11 has taught America even less than that colossal blunder in Iraq has.
OBL has changed the times, trespassers will no longer go by unchallenged.

Know your enemy.

Pop Tart Wrote:
I'm prepared to die.

How 'bout you who reads this....?

I welcome the transformation with great anticipation, knowing that Christ would never forsake any who long to be nearer to him. :wink:

[rozy]

You won't like my answer, TL.

Preemptive strike is becoming a clear necessity.

[Mister Bushice]

You won't like my answer, TL.

Preemptive strike is becoming a clear necessity.

Preemptive strike - where?

[rozy]

Mecca

[Mister Bushice]

yeah THAT will cure all of the violent muslims worldwide for sure.

sin,

I'm gonna go dig me a bomb shelter

[tough love]

rozy posted:
You won't like my answer, TL.

Preemptive strike is becoming a clear necessity.

Mecca

In all honesty, my liking that choice would be the least of your concern.

There is an alternative to this mess.
America and the other so called free world, needs to learn how to play fare with others, to learn to equally share in what limited resourses remain to this earth, with others who may not have as loud a voice equa, but most certainly share in like needs.

Perhaps an honest responcible productive United Nations could expediate that necessary transformation. :wink:

PRIORITY ONE:
This earth needs to ignore the small minded nay sayers, and become less dependent on oil, right quick.
Necessity breeds invention....Corperate interference of such, only breeds our downfall.

Take greed out of the equation, and our futures can be as rosy as Rozy.

It all gets down to the poli_collective mind set.
We can change on mind set while the changing is relatively easy, or wait till we are down on our knees.
My best guess-timation would be that our merchants of greed will bleed the knees right from under us first, cuz to put it frankly people (here, there and everywhere) we are to collectively numb to realize just how played we actually are.

We are ruled to be fooled, my friends,
and we are schooled to believe that this wrong is right.

God Bless.
Amen.

[KC Scott]

There aren't any such thing as "suitcase nukes". They're a myth.

Interesting enough for me to do some research.

It seems like they are plausible, after all

It is impossible to verify at the time of this writing whether nuclear devices sized to fit in side a suitcase were actually manufactured by the former Soviet Union, as alleged by Alexander Lebed in September 1997. It is certainly possibel to assess the technicial plausibility of such a claim and to provide a analysis of the likely characteristics of the weapons Lebed described.

A suitcase bomb with dimensions of 60 x 40 x 20 centimeters is by any standard a very compact nuclear weapon. Information is lacking on compact Soviet weapons, but a fair amount of information is available on compact US designs which provides a good basis for comparison.

The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions. An unreflected spherical alpha-phase critical mass of Pu-239 weighs 10.5 kg and is 10.1 cm across.

A single critical mass cannot cause an explosion however since it does not cause fission multiplication, somewhat more than a critical mass is required for that. But it does not take much more than a single critical mass to cause significant explosions. As little an excess as 10% (1.1 critical masses) can produce explosions of 10-20 tons. This low yield seems trivial compared to weapons with yields in the kilotons or megatons, but it is actually far more dangerous than conventional explosives of equivalent yield due to the intense radiation emitted. A 20 ton fission explosion, for example, produces a very dangerous 500 rem radiation exposure at 400 meters from burst point, and a 100% lethal 1350 rem exposure at 300 meters. A yield of 10-20 tons is also equal to the yield of the lowest yield nuclear warhead ever deployed by the US -- the W-54 used in the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle.

A mere 1.2 critical masses can produce explosive yield of 100 tons, and 1.35 critical masses can reach 250 tons. At this point a nation with sophisticated weapons technology can employ fusion boosting to raise the yield well into the kiloton range without requiring additional fissile material.

The amount of fissile material that constitutes a "critical mass" varies with the material density and the type of neutron reflector present (if any). A high explosive implosion can compress fissile material to greater than normal density, thus reducing the critical mass. A neutron reflector reduces neutron loss and reduces the critical mass at a constant density. However generally speaking, adding explosives or neutron reflectors to a core adds considerably more mass to the whole system than it saves.

A limited exception to this is that a thin beryllium reflector (thickness no more than the core radius) can actually reduce the total mass of the system, although it increases its overall diameter. For beryllium thicknesses of a few centimeters, the radius of a plutonium core is reduced by 40-60% of the reflector thickness. Since the density difference between these materials is on the order of 10:1, substantial mass savings (a couple of kilograms) can be achieved. At some point though increasing the thickness of the reflector begins to add more mass than it saves since volume increases with the cube of the radius. This marks the point of minimum total mass for the reflector/core system.

A low yield minimum mass or minimum volume weapon would thus use an efficient fissile material (plutonium or U-233), a limited amount of high explosives (sufficient only to assembly the core, not to compress it to greater than normal density), and a thin beryllium reflector.

We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is probably closer to 15 than 11).

This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead. This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages) and had yields ranging from 10 tons up to 1 Kt in various versions. The warhead was basically egg-shaped with the minor axis of 27.3 cm and a major axis of 40 cm. The test devices for this design fired in Hardtack Phase II (shots Hamilton and Humboldt on 15 October and 29 October 1958) weighed only 16 kg, impressively close to the minimum mass estimated above. These devices were 28 cm by 30 cm.

W-54 Davy Crockett (38 K)

The W-54 design probably approaches the minimum size for a spherical implosion device (the US has conducted tests of a 25.4 cm implosion systems however).

The W-54 nuclear package is certainly light enough by itself to be used in a "suitcase bomb" but the closest equivalent to such a device that US has ever deployed was a man-carried version called the Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition). This used a version of the W-54, but the whole package was much larger and heavier. It was a cylinder 40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed only 27 kg). Although the Mk-54 SADM has itself been called a "suitcase bomb" it is more like a "steamer trunk" bomb, especially considering its weight.

Minimum mass and minimum volume are not the only design criteria of interest of course, since even 25.4 cm (10 inches) is rather thick even for a suitcase and is wider than the reported 20 cm thickness of Alexander Lebed's suitcase bomb. Another approach is to instead develop a minimum diameter or minimum thickness design.

Minimizing nuclear weapon diameters has been a subject of intense interest for developing nuclear artillery shells, since the largest field artillery is typically the 208 mm (8.2 inch) caliber, with 155 mm (6.1 inches) artillery being the workhorse. Nuclear artillery shell designs with diameters as small as 105 mm have been studied. Packaging a nuclear artillery shell in a suitcase is an obvious route for creating a compact man-portable device.

The US has developed several nuclear artillery shells in the 155 mm caliber. The only one to be deployed was the W-48 nuclear warhead developed by UCRL, packaged in the M-45 AFAP (artillery fired atomic projectile) shell. The W-48 nuclear warhead measured 86 cm (34") long and weighed 53.5-58 kg (118-128 lbs). Its yield was on the order of 70 to 100 tons (it was tested in the Hardtack II Tamalpais shot with a yield of 72 tons, predicted yield was 100-300 tons).

The smallest diameter US test device publicly known was the UCRL Swift device fired in the Redwing Yuma shot on 28 May 1956 . It had a 5" (12.7 cm) diameter, a length of 62.2 cm (24.5 inches) and weighed 43.5 kg (96 lb). The test had a yield of 190 tons, but was intended to be fusion boosted (and thus would probably have had a yield in the kiloton range) but its yield was insufficient to ignite the fusion reaction and it failed to boost in this test. This test may have been a predecessor to the W-48 design.

Later and lighter 155 mm designs were also developed -- the W74 (canceled early in development), and the W-82/XM-785 shell. The W82 had a yield of up to 2 kilotons and weighed 43 kg (95 lb), but included a number of sophisticated additional features within this weight. Since it was capable of being fielded with a "neutron bomb" (enhanced radiation) option, which is intrinsically more complex than a basic nuclear warhead, and was in addition rocket boosted, the actual minimum nuclear package was substantially lighter than the weight of the complete round. Its overall length was 86 cm (34").

It is reported that designs least as small as 105 mm (4.1 inches) are possible. A hypothetical 105 mm system developed for use in an artillery shell would be about 50 cm (20 inches) long and weigh around 20 kg.

Compact nuclear artillery shells (208 mm and under) are based on a design approach called linear implosion. The linear implosion concept is that an elongated (football shaped) lower density subcritical mass of material can be compressed and deformed into a critical higher density spherical configuration by embedding it in a cylinder of explosives which are initiated at each end. As the detonation progresses from each direction towards the middle, the fissile mass is squeezed into a supercritical shape. The Swift device is known to have been a linear implosion design.



It is quite likely, that should the suitcase bombs described by Lebed actually exist, that they would use this technology. It is clear that any of the 155 mm artillery shells, if shortened by omitting the non-essential conical ogive and fuze would fit diagonally in the package that Lebed describes, and the Swift device would fit easily. If the yield is as much as 10 kilotons, then the device would have to be fusion boosted.

A somewhat more sophisticated variation would extend the linear implosion concept to cylindrical implosion, in this case an oblate (squashed) spheroid, roughly discus-shaped, of plutonium would be embedded in a cylinder of high explosive which is initiated simultaneously around its perimeter. The cylindrically converging detonation would compress and deform the fissile mass into a sphere, that could be wider than the original thickness of the system. This type of design would make the flattest possible bomb design, perhaps as little as 5 cm. The only obvious application for such a device would be briefcase bomb, and would require a special development effort to create it.

[Cuda]

Plausible- but nobody's ever actually seen one.

[RadioFan]

Plausible- but nobody's ever actually seen one.

I call bullshit. If it can be made small enough to fit in a briefcase, "somebody" has seen one, no?

Depends if we would even be capable of a response.

Could very well be all she wrote for the good ol' US of A, fans.

Comforting, no...?

The U.S. not being able to respond doesn't scare me so much as being really close to the blast, and not under it or really far away, which is really the only two choices when you think about radiation sickness. I'm 3 miles from downtown Tulsa. Big difference between a "dirty bomb" and an "A-bomb" for me.

Btw, PSU is right. National Geographic's article is good.

Read it.

[CroMag]

Age of Innocence
Photograph from U.S. Air Force

Shielded only by dark goggles, guests of the U.S. military settle back in 1951 to witness a nuclear blast on the Enewetak Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The test was part of Operation Greenhouse, whose blasts resulted in signficant downwind fallout, posing health risks to spectators and test personnel. Exposure to radioactive fallout from nuclear tests in the United States alone may have killed an estimated 11,000 persons from cancer, according to a U.S. government study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study reported that "any person living in the continguous United States since 1951 has been exposed to radioactive fallout."

[Luther]

Hey CroMag,

Look, I knew DC, and you're no DC. He left when the GREAT SPAM/PERSONAL INFO wars came around in the early 21st Century. I knew him as a decent wytch. I knew him as a nice all around guy.

You hijack his nick and all his defenders will make "Red Dawn" look like a NAMBLA picnic in front of John Walsh and AMW. I play the part of Jed Eckert (Patrick Swayze) 'cuz I'm older.

Rip City

[War Wagon]

front row l to r: Luther, Mace, C-Mike, Big O

How did Luth get his porch furniture all the way out to that atoll?

[Mikey]

Will DrD be playing the Jennifer Gray part?


Or is that the wrong movie....?

[CroMag]

Bwah!

[Mister Bushice]

front row l to r: Luther, Mace, C-Mike, Big O

How did Luth get his porch furniture all the way out to that atoll?

It's a time warp. Actually your fat wife and disturbingly strong daughterson dragged them out there. With the people wearing funny glasses they were hoping for a few vats of overly buttered popcorn for their efforts. Too bad they had to come back home to a stinking hot house and a sweaty dork wearing glasses K-Mart stopped selling in 1984.

[Luther]

hahahaha

Rack, Whitey. Rack Mag with the Sipowicz mug.

Rip City

[Cuda]

I thought that was Gramps Cobra.

My bad