Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Prepares to Get Nuked
There's an important story in the NYT about new efforts from the U.S. national laboratories to retain and improve their ability to identify nuclear fallout. In a nutshell, any fissionable materials turned into a nuclear weapon will be composed of a specific ratio of various radionuclides, which form a sort of signature, which can be used to identify the source of the fissionable material. The problem is, naturally, that you're probably doing this after the detonation.
I don't know if they can id specific weapons, but can't they already identify the reactor of origin for the nuclear materials used?
Ever read Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" (no seeing the movie does not count). They used a similar method (I admit the science of it was over my head) to figure out that the fissionable material in the bomb that was detonated in Denver actually came from the US. They were also able to learn other interesting stuff about the bomb -- granted this is a work of fiction but if the science is more or less accurate (any nuclear physicists here who care to comment?) then I don't see any reason to assume we can't do this in the real world. I do know for a fact that you can learn an amazing amount of information about the type of bomb, material used, etc etc when a conventional bomb goes off. No reason to assume nukes are any different.
With the nuclear threat that we are currently facing I don't see why this should surprise anyone. Let's all pray like hell we never need to use any of these procedures.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
God help Japan if that's the case ;) Hell in Clancy's Jack Ryan world (is it just me or wasn't he a much better writer before he got all political and stuff? The last two books of his that I read were nothing but right-wing spewage) we'll eventually go to war with every nation in the World except Russia because they are our friends now and we like them a lot ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Wouldnt it be better to design a system that could prevent nuclear detonation in the first place? If you've read "raise the Titanic" written by Clive Cusler, you will get some pretty good ideas about how to prevent nuclear attacks. Of course, the idea described in the book is impossible with the technology know today.
The idea is to send infra-sound (sound with very low frequency) up into the atmosphere at an extremly hih volume, so that the air will build up like some sort of sheild. If you combine this with calculations of when the missile will reach down to the optimal height, you could probably devastate the missile before it reaches its target. Well, of cource, this is highly hypothetical, so I have no idea of wether it works or not. Anyway, there has to be some sort of technology availile today that can be used in developing some kind of missile sheild?
this is probably the most boring sig in the world
"I think the US is more preparing for radioactive fallouts from "dirty" bombs"
I don't think so. A dirty bomb could be anything. It's better compared to conventionally exploding rad waste to make it disperse than to a nuclear explosion.
There are basically only a few types of nukes and by looking at the composition of fission products (iodine, cesium and a whole lot more) as well as transuranics (uranium, plutonium and heavier isotopes) it's likely that they can work back to the materials used.
Add to that that you can bet they know all about other countries' bomb designs and specs, or at least quite a lot, then yes it's not a stretch that one can trace where it (originally) came from. Think former soviet states, or even the US itself. It's assumed there is a black market and weapon trade seems to be booming, one wonders why...
The bright side is that a nuke might be not worth it in terms of scale and complexity for a terrorist group although it would depend on who's on who's payroll. It's my sad opinion that if the puppet masters want it to happen, it will.
If interested on my site at www.ricin.com/nuke is some (older) stuff about nuclear proliferation and safeguards. I was laughed at in 1996 by the same kind of people who are now on the fearmongering warwhipping police-us-more-please trip. Specifically the idea of a dirty bomb was considered ludricous. How times change.
Perhaps this time we could just show everyone what a country really looks like when it goes ape shit and just nuke the whole lot of them and get past the negotiation round. Wouldn't that put Guantanamo into perspective? Saves from sending thousands of troops overseas to take care of people that their own country won't take care of, because frankly they aren't much less corrupt and disrespectful of human life. The blue screen of death has been up on the screen for a while now, so at what point do we stop staring at the screen and hit that reset button?
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Foreign Missile Developmentsand the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015
APS Study Group on Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense
We can never build a foolproof system. The technical hurdles involved are immense and expensive, while the countermeasures are relatively simple and inexpensive.
How much money will it take to convince you that you're safe?
Why don't we buy North Korea if we're willing to spend billions of dollars a year on safety? Im sure the people in North Korea wouldn't mind not starving.
Back in 2001, when India and Pakistan were having their latest round of "Did too! Did not!", after the Indian parliament had been hit by an assassin who may or may not have been Pakistani, I engaged in discussion on a mailing list with a very young Indian man. I made some comment like, "It seems to me like India is just itching for a fight." A provocative comment, I know. His response was, "I'd rather drop nuclear bombs than see that sort of terrorism happen again."
My jaw just about hit my keyboard. I nearly asked him if he knew what the real consequences of even a limited nuclear exchange would be; obviously, of course, he didn't.
But, then, I went to high school during the 80s, got to see The Day After and Threads and Testament on television. Most younger people I know now have never thought about these issues.
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
I saw a comment on here a few days back along the lines of "Well, let's throw a few nukes at one spot on Mars and see what happens." Today's youth read about Fat Boy and think "Wow, that's a cool bomb." But they should really be thinking "Wow, we did that? Could that happen to us?"
What is happening is desacralization of nuclear weapons. They are not considered anymore as a weapons of the symbolical end of the World. And that is why everybody seems to be expecting nuclear terrorist attack any time soon. Expectations of imminence of such event only bolsters future perpetrators of it.
I'm frightened to see what happens when my generation doubles in age, and qualifies for positions of power over these kinds of weapons.
That is why humanity goes through the cycles of boom and bust. As a whole we learn only by means of pain, when pain subsides we forget its reasons and repeat it all over again.
North Korea and Iran don't have delivery systems that can reach the US and China has a very limited capability.
No country would nuke the US because the harm they can do would very limited, especially compared to the response that is expected.
We can't keep drugs from flowing into this country in any meaningful way. Even the US admits that 90% or more of illegal drug shipments in Florida alone make it without being stopped.
If a Nuke were to be hidden with the tons of Cocaine that arrive here each day, it wouldn't be detected. The delivery mechanism would be our own vices.
Not to mention, China has more than a handful of submarines ready to make every major US coastal city look like a lit Xmas ornament within 10 minutes time.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
It is time for the US to lead the world to eventual nuclear disarmament. Who else will? Meanwhile, US is the only country (I believe) which has not renounced the first use yet. Instead of commiting to disarmament, the current administration is busy spending on the order of .5 bil for "bunker-busting" nukes development...
It seems that back in the USSR vs. America days, the West had an obsession with nuclear annihilation, despite the improbability of such an exchange between the big powers.
But as it stands now, several countries who either have or are attempting to obtain nuclear weapons just might be crazy enough to use them. How safe are we with Kim Jong Il and some shady supreme religious leaders in command of nuclear missiles?
So why aren't we as worried as we used to be?
free speach
Did you mean: free speech
At the nation state level, nuclear arms are not weapons of war, but levers of deterrence and diplomacy.
Improbability? You weren't around for the whole Cuba missile crisis thing then eh? It was a close thing. A very, very scary close thing.
We've survived (as a nation) with far worse things than a single big bomb going off.
The bigger threat by far is that the oil will run out. I still don't see a lot being done to prepare to live in a world where oil is scarce - most of us depend on food that couldn't be grown unless we have plentiful oil. The signs that the oil is diminishing are plain to see - oil companies now call themselves energy companies instead of oil companies, one major oil company has had to make not one but two announcements that their oil reserves are significantly smaller than they thought.
Personally, I'm not having children. I think it would be irresponsible to bring yet more people into a world that soon won't be able to support them.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Such as? And `helping terrorists' doesn't count, since there is no credible evidence that Saddam did that. That only leaves `being an annoying git' and `mass murder'. There is ample evidence on both counts, but neither have been reason to invade in the past. It is not clear why Iraq should be an exception.
Oh, and ditch the "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" bullcrap. The world of international diplomacy is not analagous to a courtroom.
You mean that in diplomacy vague innuendo is enough? Probably true, but not something to brag about.
It's not like we could put out a warrant for Saddam's arrest and then search his premesis for clues. He and his thugs would resist, ...
In a dictatorship, yes. Otherwise, you would search the premises first to find clues, and then arrest the suspect if warranted. In Iraq, weapons inspectors were searching the premises, but found no evidence. And yes, the suspect resisted, but that is not proof of guilt.
What do you mean, `have [to]'? Nobody was forcing the USA to invade. And `suddenly' is a poor choice of words, it is not as if the USA wasn't warned about the mess they were getting themselves in.
Israel has yet to open a can of you-know-what on the terrorists. Military estimations said that Israel alone could've taken out Saddam, as well as all neighboring countries who support him. You don't think Israel has nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver all of them on a moments notice?
The US has been pleading with Israel for restraint from day one. We are still hypocritically encouraging them to be calm, promising them that an American response will be more effective than a Zionist one. Ariel Sharon -- the Churchill of Israel -- is preaching restraint, because he knows what is in store for the terrorists at the hands of the Americans. This is the same Ariel Sharon that single-handedly defeated Egypt! He knows Israel is in a far stronger position now, and his enemies are much weaker.
You do not understand the essence of terrorism. You think people flock to terrorists when they see their friends who engage in terrorist acts get mercilessly shredded to black bits of burning flesh by missiles. On the contrary, they run and hide when they hear the soldiers coming down the road. No promise of virgins in the afterlife is worth waking up to a helicopter at your balcony, or facing a squad of American soldiers sending their regards from President Bush. Remember why Saddam said he surrendered peacefully: "Would you want to fight these guys?" Why do you think Libya is coming clean all of a sudden? I am sure it has nothing to do with President Bush's Texas charm or cowboy hat.
Moscow cringed when President Reagan swore he would build up the arsenal and use it if necessary. Hitler squirmed when Churchill announced his resolve to fight at all costs and never surrender. Osama bin Laden is hiding in shame, worrying every day if some soldiers in desert camouflage are going to find him that day, and bring him out to answer for his crimes.
If being slaughtered by the Americans and Israelis is so helpful to terrorists, why aren't they out in the open, encouraging us to launch an all-out frontal assault on their HQ? After all, if we wipe them all out in one grand armaggedon style battle, won't their numbers swell with energetic youths who want to die fighting as well?
They fear retaliation. Their numbers are dropping, and those who are in want out. Look at what is happening in Baghdad and Tikrit. One by one, Saddam's supporters are either dying or promising to lay down their arms. One by one, they see their comrades get shot to pieces or tracked down mercilessly and hunted like rabbits. Soon, there will be no more of Saddam or Osama's supporters in Iraq. If there are, they will be hiding again, no longer setting off car bombs or laying ambushes for supply trucks carrying medicine and school supplies. And when they go back to hiding and stop blowing our children up, then we will have won the war on terror.
The best strategy in war is to avoid war is possible, but when that strategy fails, the next best thing is to win overwhelmingly. Bury the brave ones. Take out their captains and generals. Leave only the cowards who refused to fight. Send them back to repopulate their country, and raise a generation of cowards who won't dare oppose you again. And make certain that the country becomes your ally so that they don't plot against you again.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Presuming you're talking about Iraq, let me remind you that even considering that their WMD program was a failure, there was still ample reasons to invade.
If the UN inspectors had found actual weapons that would have been a good reason to not invade...
disclaimer: i appologise to anyone, except jgardn, who will read this rant. it's a rebuke to the parent post, and by definition "garbage in, a lot of messy cleaning out". if you are halfways informed about politics and history, you probably do not need to read it. flag this as flamebait, if you will.
================
i have many questions for you.
Israel has yet to open a can of you-know-what on the terrorists.
can of worms? i assume you mean using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against terrorist. please explain how. who would you target? terrorist are individuals hiding among the population. would you use WMD (emphasis on MASS) against them? wouldn't that be genocide?
Military estimations said that Israel alone could've taken out Saddam, as well as all neighboring countries who support him.
this thread was about terrorist, but you changed the topic to Saddam. was Saddam a convicted terrorist? or was he a national dictator, previously a CIA asset (assasin) ? which neighboring countries were supporting Saddam? Iran? no. S.Arabia? no. Turkey? no. Jordan? no. kuwait? no. egypt? no. Syria? probably yes, they made business deals with him. but you said COUNTRIES, and one hit does not make a plural.
You don't think Israel has nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver all of them on a moments notice?
what is your sabre-rattling good for? why would Israel want to use it's 200 warheads to turn 100 million Arabs, Turks or Persians into black glass craters? is that a solution to terrorism? is killing some potential 5.000 terrorist (my estimate) worth the 'colateral damage'? maybe you think that all those people do not deserve to live any longer?
The US has been pleading with Israel for restraint from day one. We are still hypocritically encouraging them to be calm, promising them that an American response will be more effective than a Zionist one.
you make something up. restraint from striking against whom? you are very cryptic. I know, that the US has been pleading Israel not to strike back at Iraq in case of SCUD attacks. Saddam would like to ignite a holy war against Jews, which would press other Muslim countries to support him. clearly not a positive outcome. OTOH, if you mean Palestinian terrorist, the US has NEVER promised Israel that it would strike against them. now that would be a stupid strategy.
Ariel Sharon -- the Churchill of Israel -- is preaching restraint, because he knows what is in store for the terrorists at the hands of the Americans.
Ariel Sharon has provoked the current intifada, after that he won the elections as the 'general-iron-fist' candidate. again, the US will not strike at Palestinian terrorist in Set Bank or Gaza. never. this would be symbolic for a judeo-christian crusade in the Holy Land against Muslims. You seem to be unaware of the global implications of such a situation.
This is the same Ariel Sharon that single-handedly defeated Egypt! He knows Israel is in a far stronger position now, and his enemies are much weaker.
Egypt was not a terrorist enemy to Israel. it was a nationalistic country. the reasons were also very different. military means are not effective against urban-based terrorist. you can send an army into Afghanistan, but you can not send them inside a city like Kair or Islamabad.
You do not understand the essence of terrorism. You think people flock to terrorists when they see their friends who engage in terrorist acts get mercilessly shredded to black bits of burning flesh by missiles.
no, you do not understand terrorism at all. there are different reasons why people become terrorist. there are also different types of terrorism.
1) revenge (like for losing your entire family to an rocket attack)(Palestine, Chechnia)
2) ideology (indoctrination, cultural hostility) (AL-Kaida, Rote Armee Front)
3) assymetric warfare (if your nation has no army, bombs are the only means of
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
(Quoted from his book From Hiroshima to Glasnost but off the 'net, read this 10 years ago, very interesting read.) Please don't tell me to go back and study until you can refute what these first-hand decision-makers at the time have to say.
Damn those pesky terrorists