Posted on 09/24/2006 3:54:25 AM PDT by Hadean
Aw jeez, not this ****t again!
I agree with you actually. I posted about are Gov'ts reaction. I don't think out Gov't would respond in totality. Perhaps tactical nukes. That's what I meant. I hope we don't go vigilanty. Too many Indians, Hispanics and hell ( I'm a darker skinned Italian). I better shave my goatee!
If they bring in a nuke, they surely aren't doing it on a plane. Just drive over our porous border.
Still, I feel safer knowing they are searching old ladies with artificial knees.
If *I* were a resident muslim and jihadis nukes US soil, *I* would be fearful of a few million ticked off and armed citizens tired of jihadist crap.
Just my observation from hearing and speaking with fellow sheep.
Those sneaky and evil jihadists are too smart for us.
/ sarc
I have thought that myself -- in Transactional Analysis, I think they call what Osama is doing, "Let's You and Him Fight." Only this version is being carried out in the nth degree, rather than at the interpersonal level.
There is another synthesis of Osama's intentions being built at Jamestown.org, a good antiterrorist site -- the "bleed them white" thesis, under which Osama recognizes that good economic health is incompatible with fighting a war. His objective is to defeat the U.S. by provoking us into overexertion. He economically carries out spectacular attacks, provoking broad responses costing us many, many times what his attacks did, and he does it over and over until we can't do it any more, and presto, he wins.
That's their idea, anyway. A variation on "rope-a-dope", Osama's warfighting plan assumes several things about our conduct and capacities. We can win by changing the assumptions and rules.
My understanding is that our man-portable nukes were derived from nuclear mines and had an explosive yield of 0.1kT to 1.0kT.
Your scenario sounds similar.
Deport all Muslims? Isn't one about to join Congress? I guess that leaves deportation out.
Richard Miniter's article in the Wall Street Journal is widely quoted on this forum. Unfortunately, it can easily lead to some very wrong conclusions.
I have personally seen MANY nukes. I have personal experience with nuke maintenance. I can absolutely guarantee that it is possible to make a suitcase nuke, including one that would NOT use tritium as a trigger, and would NOT require maintenance every six months or less.
I have also heard Richard Miniter speak. Some of what he said was right, and some of it was absolute BS.
In particular, Miniter's "3 foot lockers" comment is widely interpreted as meaning that is the smallest you can make a "portable" nuke. He did not actually say that is the smallest they can be made, but that is the impression many people got. That impression is totally wrong.
Miniter's comments about maintenance are tied to tritium triggers, which require frequent maintenance. This is then extrapolated to imply that all nukes require tritium triggers. This is NOT SO, as long as you are willing to use extra plutonium and willing to accept a smaller "bang".
As for General Lebed, I have no way of knowing if he was really the kook he is widely portrayed to be. Nor do I know if Russia ever made a portable nuke. All I can say for sure is that they are technologically possible, and that they are not really that hard to make if you have enough plutonium. The key is getting enough plutonium, which is VERY hard to get, and VERY hard to handle safely.
Bottom Line:
1. You definitely COULD make a suitcase nuke.
2. You definitely COULD design it to be easily maintained in the field if you chose to use enough plutonium.
2a. You do NOT need a tritium trigger if you don't mind using extra plutonium.
2b. You do NOT need to keep the plutonium in close proximity to components that neutron emissions would damage while the device is in storage. Keeping the components separated would greatly reduce the required electronic maintenance. Obviously, for a weapon designed for relatively long term shelf life in between major maintenance, you would need some assembly before it could be used.
3. It definitely COULD be designed to fit in a suitcase.
3a. A minimum size of "3 foot lockers" is total BS.
4. None of this means the Russians ever actually made the damn things.
5. The yield would most likely be less than 10 kilotons.
5a. That means the radius of total destruction would most likely be 1/4 mile or so. In other words, it would knock down almost everything within 3 blocks of where it went off, with decreasing levels of damage further out.
6. Just because it's possible does not mean it's real. I know for certain that it's possible. I have no idea if it's real.
Too bad for you, newbie, there is a little thing called the Constitution that protects Americans citizens from such fascist suggestions.
Maybe. But my soul cannot die, because of Jesus Christ.
Regards.
As you know, I am completely uneducated and know nothing about technology. OTOH, I do have a small modicum of mother wit. Here's a couple thoughts the lj's just tossed around after reading the article:
1. Remember how Ghaddafi (sp??) gave the US "all" its WMD stuff that they had been working on in a tunneled out mountain with Iraqi $ and help? IIRC, they were working in tandem with Saddam, the British intel found out, and Ghaddafi subsequently decided to deal with the US. Maybe they didn't give "everything" to the US.
2. Remember Khan (can't remember his first name), the Pakistani nuke scientist who met with Bin Laden a couple of times in Afghanistan (I've read this many places on FR), and even made a flyer which he sent round to Muslim countries, essentially offering his services so they too could have nukes? I bet you remember that.
3. Pakistan has nukes.
So I think there's a possibility for something like this to happen. How big? When? For real? Will they be foiled if they actually have some ****?
Who knows. But to discount the possibility entirely is to me a little foolish. Many people in Europe right before the invasion of Poland thought there would be no major war, that Hitler would be satisfied with what he had.
This part I agree with wholeheartedly!
You said -- "Maybe. But my soul cannot die, because of Jesus Christ."
I would definitely agree with that for all Christians. for those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. As He said, He (Jesus Christ) is the only way to the Father. There is no other way.
As for the discussion at hand, I was simply talking about taking prudent measures. And some measures are real simple and good for a lot of different situations that can come up (not only about terrorism).
Regards,
Star Traveler
If they hit, I think they just want to do the most damage they can. Washington DC, New York, LA, Chicago.
Berkeley, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Atlanta, New Orleans??????
I can think of no other two cities in the world that are 1 and 2 in terms of terrorist targets. And I know people who left NYC after 9-11, having said enough's enough. Smart people.
You said -- "I can think of no other two cities in the world that are 1 and 2 in terms of terrorist targets. And I know people who left NYC after 9-11, having said enough's enough. Smart people."
Well, you might check out Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. AND, they've got Jews *moving there* -- still...
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. The ranking for the "top terrorist cities" is not as you say. Although New York is on the top of the list, the list is actually ranked the following way --
New York
Chicago
San Francisco
Washington
Seattle
Los Angeles
See -- http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=3713
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.