Slashdot Mirror


Surprise Nuclear Strike? Here's How We'll Figure Out Who Did It (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit writes: Many experts believe that a nuclear attack on U.S. soil is more likely than ever; a bomb set off in a city street is seen as the most likely scenario. The conceivable need to unmask a perpetrator, and mount an effective response, is propelling the emerging area of post-detonation forensics. Scientists are devising new sensors, manufacturing artificial fallout to hone analytical techniques, and studying how the glass formed in the furnace of an atomic blast would vary depending on the nature of the bomb and the city where it detonated. Discreet Oculus, a sensor array that would collect data during a nuclear attack on a U.S. city, was tested in the first exercise of its kind last summer.

174 comments

  1. We've always been at war with... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> Many experts believe that a nuclear attack on U.S. soil is more likely than ever

    No, that's just the vendor speaking. Time to Google something called the "Cold War" I think...

    1. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what this is about. In a Cold War ICBM Scenario we'd know who hit us ahead of the detonation, assuming that noone is capable of launching an ICBM without it beeing detected at launch or in-flight.

      This is about a rogue nuke that goes of without any warning and finding out afterwards where the bomb came from, ie. radiological analysis on the source of the plutonium etc...

    2. Re:We've always been at war with... by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And now the "vendors" want to upgrade the arsenal to the tune of at least a trillion tax dollars. Not to "make us safer", but to make them richer. Your tax dollars, not at work.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    3. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a pretty big difference between the nuclear strike threats today and during the Cold War. Aside from rumors of "suitcase nukes" we largely knew exactly who would attempt to nuke us (Russia) and how they'd do it (ICBM launches, or subs). Today, the threat is a lot different, and potentially more likely, because there are so many actors with the means acquiring a nuke that's much smaller than anything from 40 years ago.

    4. Re:We've always been at war with... by I4ko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And the real story is... Where is the biannual training on reaching and living to your closes 3 fallout shelters? I happen to grew up in a country where this was a regular drill in school years - know your way to the shelter, know how to don a gasmask properly sealing around your face and how to attach your filter properly, try running with that gas mask on, so you are not that much confused, know how to do a primitive decontamination with iodine, water, and I don't remember what else. Get to know what is where in the shelters, etc.. Those are not everyday things, you push them out of your mind in about a year or so. And no, first responders numbers (declining die to budget cuts in the recent years) are woefully inadequate to direct the panicked masses to the shelters. Or do they plan to deploy FEMA and the national guard right away?

    5. Re:We've always been at war with... by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Time to Google something called the "Cold War" I think...

      As someone who was alive when the cold war was going on, I can tell you that the Cold War did not include small independent states, it was a stand-off between the major nuclear powers and the use of missile and bomber delivered weapons. It involved two large countries who knew they had everything to lose by starting a nuclear war. A nuclear attack would garner a nuclear response.

      The modern environment includes dirty weapons delivered in a suitcase, by groups that know a nuclear response is impossible. They have little to lose in such an attack, and much to gain. So yes, the chances of a nuclear attack on US soil are greater now.

    6. Re:We've always been at war with... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      It will depend on who is President next year. If Donald Trump is President, he will blame Muslims, and nuke an Islamic State . . . like Michigan.

      If Hilary Clinton is President, she will blame the Republicans who are complaining about her private mail server. This cannot be responded to with nukes, so she will use US Navy SEAL Team Six to do bin Laden jobs on selected Republican leaders.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    7. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But suckers like Donald Trump will buy it hook line and sinker.

      SUCKERS!!

    8. Re:We've always been at war with... by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Setting of a nuke is either a preemptive strike, or it is a statement.

      If it is a preemptive strike more are on the way and it is very easy to figure out who is behind it.

      If a bunch of yahoos set one off to make a statement, they will take credit for it or what's the point?

    9. Re:We've always been at war with... by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 2

      ...she will use US Navy SEAL Team Six to do bin Laden jobs on selected Republican leaders.

      It's not fair for you to get my hopes up like that. Be still by beating heart.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    10. Re:We've always been at war with... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      The modern environment includes dirty weapons delivered in a suitcase, by groups that know a nuclear response is impossible.

      Why would a nuke response be impossible?

      If we traced it back to ISIS in Syria, I can pretty much guarantee most of Syria will be a big sheet of glass in a short time period.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel the Bern, Bitch! You're going to be indicted!!!

    12. Re:We've always been at war with... by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      not seeing the logistics of a bad guys making your scary "dirty bomb". They are going to get something nasty like say spent nuclear fuel or cesium-137 or strontium-90 ( very traceable as to origin, by the way), then somehow powder that stuff without dying from five or more times lethal dose exposure, then put it in suitcase sufficiently shielded so they don't die transporting it somewhere yet somehow still having enough room for bomb....and then even after detonation it's a very local problem for a very small area. This is why serious studies pooh-pooh the whole concept, like

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

    13. Re:We've always been at war with... by Time_Ngler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the solution to a terrorist blowing up a bunch of innocents is to blow up more innocents? Why don't we respond that way to the terrorist attacks today, then? Should we have blown up the tower of Dubai in response to 9/11?

    14. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's restore the OP:

      >> Many experts believe that a nuclear attack on U.S. soil is more likely than ever

      No, that's just the vendor speaking. Time to Google something called the "Cold War" I think...

      That's not what this is about. In a Cold War ICBM Scenario we'd know who hit us ahead of the detonation, assuming that noone is capable of launching an ICBM without it beeing detected at launch or in-flight.

      And that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the fact that the vendor whats to sell something that's probably useful by telling hyperbolic lies. What would be wrong with saying "the threat of nuclear strike is almost as likely as it was during much of the cold war except around the Cuban missile crisis and a few other simple events". What's wrong with it is that by being more true and accurate it loses the right "marketing" ring.

    15. Re:We've always been at war with... by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      not seeing the logistics of a bad guys making your scary "dirty bomb".

      Explosives, radioactive material. Boom.

      They are going to get something nasty like say spent nuclear fuel or cesium-137 or strontium-90 ( very traceable as to origin, by the way),

      So someone can trace the origin after it is all over but the shouting. That somehow prevents it?

      then somehow powder that stuff

      Boom. Powder. Or particles. Doesn't have to be very fine. It just has to be radioactive enough to scare the wits out of the public.

      without dying from five or more times lethal dose exposure,

      Thank goodness that everyone who handles radioactive stuff dyes [SIC] when they do it. It's dangerous, but it seems that people can do it. We've got a nuclear reactor on the other side of campus. We're all dying right now.

      ...and then even after detonation it's a very local problem for a very small area.

      And being a "local problem" means it wasn't a nuclear attack precisely how?

    16. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this whole thing is pretty stupid and seems to be driven by nothing more than a need to shake money out of people by scaring them witless

      What is even sadder is that some posters on the board continue to try and puff it up by including 'dirty bombs'

      This quote is simply charming, "a bomb set off in a city street is seen as the most likely scenario"

      And I have to ask, most likely scenario, as compared to what? A blue whale appearing ten miles above the planet attempting to figure out what is happening before something big a friendly comes running up to it really fast?

      No, it is not fucking likely, it is not even remotely likely and just to reiterate, IF somebody managed to pull it off, they would instantly want to claim responsibility for it

      We've been living in a nuclear fucking world for the past 70 years, I think that the people who have managed to keep it from happening have a better grip on it than some marketing coke-heads and a buncha /. posters

    17. Re:We've always been at war with... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Nope. Habeeb the Disgruntled Raghead gets the material, starts to grind, and flops over from thousands of rem/hour exposure or more at about 20 minutes into the job and then soon dies. No harem of virgins for you Habeeb, just one refurbished virgin, kind of like a retreaded truck tire those refurbished virgins!

      Are you seriously suggesting explosion using the solid chunk of radioactive heavy material with explosive next to it? sorry, you'll get mostly a deformed piece of metal, not powder. some really cool sculptures are made that way, with much less denser metals like stainless steel. you could cut it into shrapnel before hand but still no powder, just projectiles. maybe a kid will eat one and we'd have a victim.

      your reactor has tens of tons of shielding, cranes for moving fuel assemblies, casks for fuel assemblies ...Habeeb is going to needing all of that, maybe he can use Amazon prime on his smart phone while he's fucking a goat at night (youtube videos prove that happens. well the goat fucking part anyway).

    18. Re:We've always been at war with... by murdocj · · Score: 2

      Right... because terrorists who are happy to fly planes into buildings and kill thousands wouldn't consider setting off a small nuke in a major US city and killing hundreds of thousands.

    19. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beat that drum asshole, wouldn't be happy unless everybody else is as insanely paranoid as you are

      So, let's say a bunch of assholes fly planes into buildings, what's the outcome

      The country that was attacked gets really pissed off, takes all of your buddies and disappears them, never to be seen again, kills your leaders, and disassembles the entire societies of a few countries that might have been friendly to you. That MUST have been binladens plan all along, huh?

      Great plan assholes, how did that work? Did it get the infidel armies out of the middle east? Not one bit? Did it increase the power of any Sunni nations in the region? No again sweetheart, just turned it into a backwater where they can terrorize their own people, at least until they beg the infidel armies to come back in and save their assess

      Yeah, c'mon nuke us and watch it get real fucking nasty when the glorious religion mongers make it a holy war from this side

    20. Re:We've always been at war with... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      " somehow powder that stuff without dying from five or more times lethal dose exposure,"

      The likely suspects don't care about sacrificing large numbers of their own to build something like this.

    21. Re:We've always been at war with... by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A dirty bomb may lack widespread damage, but think of the terror side of it. It would be major news.

      Even if the real toxic range was only a Manhattan city street, you just know that they would end up cordoning off 20+ square blocks, evacuating everyone and make it an exclusion zone for weeks. The economic clusterfuckery would be enormous. There would be lawsuits forever. Entire blocks would get razed due to fears of long term contamination.

    22. Re:We've always been at war with... by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is a catch in all that talk. Fire off enough nukes, no matter where on the planet and the radioactive dust will come back to haunt and mutate your DNA. Russia could nuke itself out of existence and still kill the rest of us over the following decades. First strike, second strike, neither alters the outcome. They stopped above ground nuclear testing for a reason, that they still pretend does not exist, they had managed to raise the background radiation of the entire planet with a corresponding increase in cancers, with just those tests and a couple of mass murdering strikes. So nuclear wars just a big old lie to generate more profits for the military industrial complex. Now the rich and greedy might be safe in the nuclear bunkers but who the fuck wants to live in a self made prison. So if the US nukes Syria and Russia is poisoned by nuclear fall out, is Russia not entitled to counter strike the US. Easiest completely unstoppable WMD guaranteed to take out humanity on the entire planet. Simply tip nuclear material into the nearest active volcano, for it to spew out into the atmosphere from there on in and poison the entire planet, once done, can not be undone.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    23. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "no one" is two words. It costs nothing to press the space bar.

    24. Re:We've always been at war with... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      do you have any reason to think the statement is even "mostly" true? to my understanding they kept turning back the doomsday clock, and in a bid to stay relevant they made it the nuclear/climate change doomsday clock.

    25. Re:We've always been at war with... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      > So the solution to a terrorist blowing up a bunch of innocents is to blow up more innocents?

      this has been america's go-to strategy for 15 years...

    26. Re:We've always been at war with... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      i think you're making this too complicated. Consider the hyperbolic press. you could take some low level radioactive material, like leftovers from an xray machine, tape them to a bomb, drop it off in the middle of manhatten, and boom. people would flip a bitch. then, consider the EPA, and the task of doing a cleanup of any nuclear stuff in downtown manhattan. bitches flipping everywhere. doesn't take a big complicated setup.

    27. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's working too: Defense industry profits have never been lower!

    28. Re:We've always been at war with... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I can't help but think of this xkcd comic.

    29. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that most of the money al Quaeda got was from the saudis, i don't see anything wrong with that plan.

    30. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Donald Trump is President, you've got bigger problems than surprise nuclear attacks.

    31. Re:We've always been at war with... by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      The modern environment includes dirty weapons delivered in a suitcase, by groups that know a nuclear response is impossible.

      You are seriously naive if you think a nuclear responses are impossible. A real nuclear attack on American soil would represent a clear a present danger to millions. The response would be to turn entire regions in the Middle East into glass parking lots. The panicked masses would be begging for it.

      Two jets flown into buildings illicited two major military campaigns that are still ongoing to this day. A nuclear attack would be more than enough justification (at least for our people) to launch a nuclear response.

      They have little to lose in such an attack, and much to gain. So yes, the chances of a nuclear attack on US soil are greater now.

      They have plenty to lose and nothing to gain. The US has more than enough warheads (and I'm sure we could spin production back up if we needed to) to turn any Middle Eastern country and country(s) that support them into irradiated wastelands. You don't cross the nuclear line.

      --
      ~X~
    32. Re:We've always been at war with... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > flip a bitch...bitches flipping

      That's right, the Olympics are this year, aren't they?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    33. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, to be fair, that's only about nine months' worth of FEELING THE BERN.

    34. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need high grade materials for a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb's primary use isn't radiological, it is psychological. The public response to it will be far worse that any potential radiation hazard.

    35. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X-ray machines are electronic. They use very high voltage to accelerate electrons into a metal target which generates x-rays. They don't contain radioactive material. But thanks for playing.

    36. Re:We've always been at war with... by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      You really fucking believe Michigan is an Islamic state?

      You are a complete fucking idiot. You are so deep in your own fucking delusions that somebody puts out a poor attempt at satire concerning Dearborn and *poof* we've got them mooslims all over the place and state-wide Sharia law!

      That being said, since you are a complete fucking moron, let me try to keep this simple. We have Jihadists here in Michigan all right. They're the Michigan Militia. They practice Christian Identity. And you better betcha they want their own version of Sharia law. Just a few months ago some gender non-conforming friends and I had to deal with the "Merry Christmas" jihadis. It could have been worse. We've got people ready to rough up any cisgendered woman who would have the temerity to have short hair!

      I'm really hoping my sarcasm detector is just low on tea. I mean, seriously, what the fuck? How can I take any of this shit seriously? Have conservatives gone this far off the fucking deep end? Why don't you head over to Dearborn some time? It's one of the wealthier suburbs in the Detroit/Ann Arbor region. The only Muslims we have are the ones providing tasty ethnic food.

      In my local community in a redder part of the state, we mostly have a population of Hindus. I used to live just down the road from a Hindu cultural center that held services every Sunday. I never really inquired, but I have about the same apathy concerning the saner Christian denominations.

      Whatever delusions make you happy. Just don't be surprised that the next person you try to rough up on suspicion that they're part of the gay agenda to make Christmas illegal or enact Sharia law has a concealed weapon. That's not a threat as long as you keep your mental illness limited to just shouting crazy shit at people in public and making yourself look like an ass.

    37. Re:We've always been at war with... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      You really fucking believe Michigan is an Islamic state?

      What I believe is not important. It's what Donald Trump believes, that's important.

      You are a complete fucking idiot. You are so deep in your own fucking delusions that somebody puts out a poor attempt at satire concerning Dearborn and *poof* we've got them mooslims all over the place and state-wide Sharia law!

      That being said, since you are a complete fucking moron, let me try to keep this simple.

      That's really sad for you, that you project all those traits on me. But I forgive you nonetheless.

      I'm really hoping my sarcasm detector is just low on tea.

      No, you need to visit your doctor for advice on an organ transplant. You have no sarcasm detector. While you're on the operating table, get a sense of humor detector installed, as well.

      I mean, seriously, what the fuck? How can I take any of this shit seriously? Have conservatives gone this far off the fucking deep end?

      Who says that I am a conservative?

      Why don't you head over to Dearborn some time?

      You, Sir, have given me every reason to avoid the place. Some very unpleasant people seem to live there.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    38. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The brainless idiot that would do such a thing, would probably cause more damage transporting the stuff around in the street than it would when it blew up. That is if the idiot didn't die for mishandling it first.

    39. Re:We've always been at war with... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      a nuke that's much smaller than anything from 40 years ago.

      I completely disagree. No one's made nuclear bombs the size of a cigarette box yet.

      Back in the 50s and 60s, they had one-man-portable nuclear devices, like this one and this one.

    40. Re:We've always been at war with... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      the point is independent of that little detail. how about another "radioactive boy" that grinds up the americium in smoke detectors and uses them with powder from a bucket of fireworks? The point is about the FEAR and headless chicken syndrome by our empty suits in government that would ensue that a single disgruntled moron could do. Before their kaboom they could tweet support for ISIL or Ql Qaeda and then become TERRORIST AFFILIATED WITH ISIL OMG! OMG! OMG!

    41. Re:We've always been at war with... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Habeeb the Disgruntled Raghead

      ..uses his first rate university education to safely procure, manipulate and build an explosive device using highly radioactive isotopes and nukes your pathetic racist ignorance.

      Really, are you this big a cunt off the internet too?

    42. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.If we had and then nuked Mecca as well, we wouldn't have ISIS. Check how long it took the japanese pop to recover.

    43. Re:We've always been at war with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why we need a President Cruz or Trump. No EPA to worry about. Besides let NYC clean up itself. Give the homeless something to do.

    44. Re:We've always been at war with... by murdocj · · Score: 1

      How many nukes in US cities do you think terrorist would have to set off before the USA would quietly start pulling back? 1? 2? 5? Where would the USA counterattack?

      Are you starting to get it?

    45. Re:We've always been at war with... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I made the count of large countries in the Cold War to be three, not two, with the fourth large country leading the "non-aligned movement".

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    46. Re:We've always been at war with... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      ISIS? You mean that bunch of lunatics inspired and funded by Saudi Arabians (with or against the wishes of their government isn't clear)?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    47. Re:We've always been at war with... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      then somehow powder that stuff

      Boom. Powder. Or particles. Doesn't have to be very fine. It just has to be radioactive enough to scare the wits out of the public.

      To be honest, I'd use Thermite to make the dirty material into liquid and oxide dusts, then detonate conventional explosives to spread it around. Exact timing doesn't matter much. But that's not the sort of argument the "rubycoderz" is looking for.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    48. Re:We've always been at war with... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      > flip a bitch...bitches flipping

      That's right, the Olympics are this year, aren't they?

      I don't know - or care - and until you mentioned it I'd never given it a moment's thought. And now that you have mentioned it, I'll try to not give it another moment's thought.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    49. Re:We've always been at war with... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The US has more than enough warheads (and I'm sure we could spin production back up if we needed to) to turn any Middle Eastern country and country(s) that support them into irradiated wastelands. You don't cross the nuclear line.

      You know, if I were an intelligence operative for the Iranian government, I'd be working out how to get the materials for a dirty bomb into the USA and into the hands of some deranged home-grown attack vector who thinks he's a Jihadi working for ISIS, and leaving enough evidence to point to the Saudis as the real source of the bomb. And if I were an Israeli intelligence operative, I'd be doing the same, but with the evidence pointing at the Iranians. And the Saudis probably have different internal factions looking for material to point the evidence at both the Iranians and the Israelis.

      Sorry, who were you going to bomb again?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    50. Re:We've always been at war with... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      you should care, cuz this year the olimpics are in Brazil, and the worlds best athletes will be traveling to Rio De Janeiro, contracting Zika virus, and spreading it back to their home countries. That's how this kind of shizz gets started!

    51. Re:We've always been at war with... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      So, what happens if a dirty bomb is created by someone from the US itself. There's lots of people from the US that are more than willing to go on a shooting rampage.

      Or what happens if a group from the US goes after a target in the Middle East because the government isn't acting tough enough for them. Since you feel that the US would have the right to retaliate then any country attacked by this rebel group could retaliate against the US, or ask another country to do so on it's behalf, and you wouldn't have a problem with that, right? Or does that only work one way?

    52. Re:We've always been at war with... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Do you not remember where we dropped the first two atomic bombs? Those two cities were chosen for their enormous civilian population, not military infrastructure. Also, since you obviously never got the memo, civilians are almost always the primary targets in war.

    53. Re:We've always been at war with... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Exactly, this shit is nothing but FUD.

    54. Re:We've always been at war with... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Hiroshima had the Army headquarters directing the defense of Kyushu, the southernmost of the Japanese Home Islands. Nagasaki was a secondary target, and had a lot of war industry and was a major port. The cities were not chosen for the potential to nuke the most civilians, although obviously the nukes were large and indiscriminate weapons and were going to kill a lot of civilians.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    55. Re:We've always been at war with... by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      They did happen to have legitimate military targets in them, but those cities were chosen to maximize civilian casualties, not to hamper their military. Japan was already trying to surrender at that point and we kept that part of the war going for the sole purpose of dropping the atomic bombs.

    56. Re:We've always been at war with... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Japan was not trying to surrender at the time. Many of the people running Japan wanted to, but it wasn't going to happen without War Minister Anami's say-so, and that didn't come until after the Imperial intervention after the Nagasaki bomb (actually, it never really came, more like he let it happen while committing suicide). Because of the need for consensus in the Liaison Council, one person could paralyze Japanese actions.

      Do you have any evidence that says the US targeted cities for maximum civilian casualties? I haven't found that criterion in any significant Western Allied operation. The Western Allies certainly disregarded civilian casualties at times, but I haven't found anything pointing to trying to increase them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Uh. by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm guessing that anyone who surprises us with a nuclear detonation, or more probably a radiological attack like a dirty bomb, is going to *tell us that they did it*, because you don't just set off nuclear bombs or dirty bombs and run away and go "tee hee".

    It's not like someone had to figure out who flew the planes into the WTC towers, right?

    1. Re:Uh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like someone had to figure out who flew the planes into the WTC towers, right?

      Yes, someone had to figure out who was responsible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Assigning_responsibility

    2. Re:Uh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Sou-dies flew the planes into the WTC. Right? They got away scott free!!!

    3. Re:Uh. by Catmeat · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that anyone who surprises us with a nuclear detonation, or more probably a radiological attack like a dirty bomb, is going to *tell us that they did it*, because you don't just set off nuclear bombs or dirty bombs and run away and go "tee hee".

      Not necessarily. For example, given that ISIS and al-Qaeda hate each other almost as much as they hate the West. It would suit either if the other got the blame, and was promptly wiped off the map.

    4. Re:Uh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that doesn't create nonsense pork jobs for C- Federal cronies, so it is a non-starter.

    5. Re:Uh. by rasmusbr · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing that anyone who surprises us with a nuclear detonation, or more probably a radiological attack like a dirty bomb, is going to *tell us that they did it*, because you don't just set off nuclear bombs or dirty bombs and run away and go "tee hee".

      It's not like someone had to figure out who flew the planes into the WTC towers, right?

      The public is prone to believing all sorts of implausible things, like for instance that the WTC towers were destroyed by the president, who is a space lizard...

      So the government did have to come up with evidence, even though it was obvious from the start that the perpetrators were Saudi Arabian Islamic radicals.

    6. Re:Uh. by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that anyone who surprises us with a nuclear detonation, or more probably a radiological attack like a dirty bomb, is going to *tell us that they did it*, because you don't just set off nuclear bombs or dirty bombs and run away and go "tee hee". Not necessarily. For example, given that ISIS and al-Qaeda hate each other almost as much as they hate the West. It would suit either if the other got the blame, and was promptly wiped off the map.

      Or possibly Israel did it and blamed the other two.

    7. Re:Uh. by dunkindave · · Score: 2

      Another problem is multiple groups claiming responsibility so they can be feared. Unless one of them is actually credible (if any of them can be), then it is a problem of figuring out which, if any, did it. It could still be a group whose goal is to cause harm to the US to create a result they desire, such as by throwing blame on another group/nation and having the US shift focus, or financially cripple the US by taking out a city like New York so they can become more competitive, but a group who would prefer not having their homes turned into glass and so do not publicly claim responsibility.

      For example, if a nuke went off somewhere, I would expect ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh/Satan-encarnate to make such a claim, as probably would al-Qaeda, since it makes them seem bigger and more powerful, which they want. Hell, a bomb goes off in a plane out of Egypt and the groups were lining up to take credit.

    8. Re:Uh. by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that anyone who surprises us with a nuclear detonation, or more probably a radiological attack like a dirty bomb, is going to *tell us that they did it*, because you don't just set off nuclear bombs or dirty bombs and run away and go "tee hee".

      Indeed. If you're smart, you detonate a bomb, then wait a few days and put a video out on the internet praising [Name of Middle East Country You Would Like to See Destabilized] for the successful attack.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    9. Re:Uh. by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      [...] you don't just set off nuclear bombs or dirty bombs and run away and go "tee hee".

      Why not? Why invite reprisals?

      When you dropped cherry bombs down the toilets in high school, did you let the principal know you did it? Hell no!

    10. Re:Uh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how well did being guilty of 9/11 work out for Al Qaeda? Oh, they're been pretty much curb stomped and their leader shot dead trying to run away, even after Bush's advisors got "distracted" by Iraq. At this point there are at least 100 dead people in the middle east for every person who died on 9/11 (and I'm pretty sure a few percent of them even deserved to die). If ISIL detonated a nuclear explosive, there would, first of all, be a loud argument that a nuclear response is *necessary*: "A deterrent is useless if word gets out that you're afraid to use it." Supposing total insanity did not prevail and the ICBM doors remained closed, I shudder to think of how barbaric the conventional response would be.

      If you think the US response to 9/11, in terms of ugly feelings and innocents being killed, was bad... you don't want to see what'll happen if restraint is abandoned as it would be after ten million people were killed and stunned shock turned to anger. People do a lot of things when they're scared and angry, but "make intelligent decisions" is almost never one of them.

    11. Re:Uh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your right, next time i set of a nuke in a major city il just blame it on the americans. Will you blow your self up then?

    12. Re:Uh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people underestimate how much of a kid-leather glove the US used in Iraq compared to the US that bombed Dresden in WW2

      If the US was pressed enough to kill indiscriminately there would be a 500 lb bomb placed every ten feet for as far as the eyes could see, with the occasional daisy cutter, bunker buster and ac-130 mop-up used for good measure. Carpet bombing was largely ineffective in Vietnam because the weaponry was relatively inaccurate compared to the jdams that are both plentiful and cheap these days

      Of course we risked out own soldiers lives in Iraq and Afghanistan to avoid the 'bad press' the last time around, if we were reacting to a nuclear strike, then the gloves would be off

    13. Re:Uh. by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let's blame the Jews, it's worked for thousands of years, why not now?

    14. Re:Uh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, let's not blame the Jews, they've been the innocent victims for thousands of years, why not now?

    15. Re:Uh. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, in Tel Aviv: "Oy vey, the goyim have seen through our plan already!"

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:Uh. by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      It's not like someone had to figure out who flew the planes into the WTC towers, right?

      Umm, yes, we did have to figure it out. Al Queda and Bin Laden not only didn't claim responsibility, they denied it for three years. The FBI was able to conclude within a few weeks after the incident who it was, though, by identifying the hijackers and then discovering links to Al Qaeda.

      So if you use 9/11 as a guide, there's no reason to believe that the group responsible would claim it. And it would be a lot easier for people to plant a bomb and detonate it without leaving a paper trail.

    17. Re:Uh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll. Tel Aviv is in the one country that stands to lose by middle-east destabilisation (which is shown how well they received Russian intervention in Syria). But, of course, for those who need a lightning rod to focus their conspiracy ideas on, that's not an argument of interest (and I am not saying that they or anybody else does not harbour conspiracy ideas, but at least they should make sense).

    18. Re:Uh. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      erm, no. He said Israel.

      There's a difference you racist fuck.

    19. Re:Uh. by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right, *I'm* the racist.

    20. Re:Uh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Mossad agent of Arab descent using an Australian passport was caught assassinating a Hezbolah leader in Lebanon a few years ago. I doubt the Israelis would be stupid enough to nuke a US city in an attempt to get the US to wipe out a Islamic group but I wouldn't put it past them to fake something a bit less devastating in order to do so...

    21. Re:Uh. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      For example, if a nuke went off somewhere, I would expect ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh/Satan-encarnate to make such a claim, as probably would al-Qaeda, since it makes them seem bigger and more powerful, which they want.

      Just to complicate matters, since they're both complex and decentralised organisations, it would be quite possible for them both to claim the attack and genuinely believe (or hope) that it's true.

      That's before we get onto the false-flag operations.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    22. Re:Uh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but *lots* of people claimed responsibility. So, even when you have someone claiming responsibility, that's no really enough to go on.

  3. Too serious a story for a Friday afternoon by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    Let's save it for Monday.

    1. Re:Too serious a story for a Friday afternoon by BeauHD · · Score: 2

      Too interesting to save it for Monday. We posted it today.

    2. Re:Too serious a story for a Friday afternoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if we get blown up this weekend?!

    3. Re:Too serious a story for a Friday afternoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, they were planning April 1 for this item.

    4. Re:Too serious a story for a Friday afternoon by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      No, they had to keep the state of fear going. Not like it's likely. But it's hard to get funding and push through draconian laws when the sheeple are feeling safe.

  4. avenge my death! by hguorbray · · Score: 1

    this seems ripe for abuse given our shadow government's propensity for false flag operations and manufacturing smoking guns (ie, OMG, WMDs!) to implicate our enemy of the moment.

    I'm just sayin'

    1. Re:avenge my death! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Zyprexa can help.

    2. Re:avenge my death! by khallow · · Score: 1

      But do they make enough to medicate the entire shadow government?

    3. Re:avenge my death! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:avenge my death! by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      There's truly no helping you assholes, is there?

      Your real enemy is Wall Street. And the best you can do is go on jihad on against your delusions, tilting at windmills, attacking innocents who are suffering at the hands of Wall Street just the same as you are. The only Jihadists I've met here in the USA are the Michigan Militia and others who practice Christian Identity.

      You are nothing more than useful idiots and stooges for the 0.1%.

    5. Re:avenge my death! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real enemy are Socialists who incongruously side with Right-Wing, Ultra Conservative Islamists. The kind who kill gay people, shoot girls who want an education, issue death decrees for writers like Salman Rushdie, behead captives and put the videos on the Internet.

      The primary goal of both Socialists and Right-Wing Islamists is the destruction of America. Eurabia is already toast. The "refugees", of mostly military age men is the last nail in Eurabias coffin.

  5. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about just looking for the gaint smoking crater where North Korea used to be, after they blow themselves up trying to surprise nuke us? If Kim Jong whatever the fuck he's called actually believes the bullshit his minions tell him about them having a hydrogen bomb, and he tries to use it, that's about what's gonna happen.

    1. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That makes no sense. Easy to say, not easy to do. How do you think the world would take all the civilian casualties of making PRK a smoking crater? You realize that the brainwashed masses in PRK are not evil and don't deserve to die just because the leader and a couple of military people are nuts, right? It would take a surgical strike put together by several nations to purge the leadership and heads of the military and then a decades long re-education process for the people there to fix - but that is much more likely what would happen if Kim Jong found a way to use a nuke on another country. No smoking crater. That would be ridiculous.

    2. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The crater OP is referring to is the result of them accidentally nuking themselves...

      Nobody has any blame in that apart from Kim.

      captcha: contrite

    3. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that the brainwashed masses in PRK are not evil and don't deserve to die just because the leader and a couple of military people are nuts, right?

      They are supporting their crazy leaders, if only because they aren't doing anything to remove them. They way they avoid eventually being bombed into radioactive dust is for them to remove the crazy leaders first.

    4. Re:Easy by blackpaw · · Score: 2

      Just the way you support your scum bag government which bombs civilians at will round the world and destabilises legitimate governments. Which makes *you* a legitimate target.

    5. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure told off Britain and its Empire.

  6. Most likely by burtosis · · Score: 1

    They will bring back the wildly successful and hearlded "duck and cover" campaign.

    1. Re:Most likely by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, it was successful. Nobody died from nuclear attack during that time.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Most likely by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 2

      "Not a bear in site. The bear patrol must be working like a charm."

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    3. Re:Most likely by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Hey, I was convinced. I asked the teacher how much they wanted for one of the desks.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Most likely by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I've got a rock that keeps away tigers.

  7. whose to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whomever it suits TPTB to blame. What has the truth ever had to do with anything when America has wanted an excuse for military action?

  8. like 9-11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it will never be clear to us what really happened? could call it unclear war? our own worst enemy? cease fire.. in the moms we trust

    1. Re:like 9-11? by Opportunist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      In your mom we thrust.

      What? C'mon, he was begging for it! Screw it, I got karma to burn.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:like 9-11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't trust the moms I know. Drug addicts. Neglectful. Unable to stay with one man for more than two years. That's just the working class ones I know.

      The middle class ones are ignorant voters and enablers of atrocities.

      In all cases, they are guilty of sexual assault when they mutilate their infants' genitals. Some only do this to their male infants.

      Eh, I don't have anything on Opportunist's post. I admit, I'm no fun at parties :(

  9. Re:Announce a Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    putin gladd

  10. New and improved! by ErikTheRed · · Score: 5, Informative

    Now the US government can retaliate against the wrong country with more precision than ever before!!!

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    1. Re:New and improved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://ko-ra-live.blogspot.com/2015/11/real-madrid-vs-fc-barcelone.html

  11. Except now the bad guys will know what not to do. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    Announcing how you will detect something is a good way of educating your enemy as to the best ways to avoid detection.

  12. Guess what we'll find out! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Should for some reason such a bomb go a-boom somewhere, I am pretty sure the lengthy and costly analysis will return that it was the nuisance country du jour that was a pest and annoying like all hell, but stubbornly refused to give us a good enough reason to bomb them.

    Until that kaboom, of course.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Meanwhile.... by sugarmatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Autonomous vehicles turned into car bombs...Guy with a home wet lab and a lot of savvy creates a serious disease and releases it, someone poisons an an entire metro areas water system....

    These things are several orders of magnitude easier, more damaging, and likely than a nuke. I'm not worried about those things, so how am I going to find the time and motivation to be worried about rogue nukes? Anything can happen, but I can also stub my toe.

    1. Re:Meanwhile.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm much more worried about prank holographic man-hole covers!

    2. Re:Meanwhile.... by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      someone poisons an an entire metro areas water system

      Flint, Michigan was just the proof of concept.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  14. Guccifer warned about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guccifer, the hacker who got Bush's, Rockefeller's and and Hillary's emails, said there would be a nuclear attack on US soil in 2015. Maybe they delayed it after the warning.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/world/europe/for-guccifer-hacking-was-easy-prison-is-hard-.html?_r=0

  15. You're missing the point by Cornwallis · · Score: 2

    It is important because it has the word "Oculus" in it.

  16. Fine with me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody hand Nero some matches :-)

  17. There are three options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    North Korea, Muslim Terrorists, or North Korea in cahoots with Muslim Terrorists.

  18. Re:Except now the bad guys will know what not to d by khallow · · Score: 2

    It will no doubt be a zero cost operation to do all that crap. The simpler solution is to not be there when the US figures out where you were.

  19. Fallout 4: Combat training for tomorrow, today! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't usually use mini nukes. The launcher takes up too much inventory space and they really only make sense against a full assault by the Brotherhood. Keep one in each of your settlement's workshops for best results if you got one of the endings where the Brotherhood is pissed at you.

    Now, if you just want to go around causing big explosions for the hell of it, just find an area with a lot of cars and shoot one up. I'm not sure how an RTG or whatever they used in 2077 can detonate, but they detonate good!

  20. The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is... by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...zero. There is absolutely no possibility of such an attack, on US soil or anywhere else.

    A dirty bomb? Those have bugger all effectiveness, except against the emotions of the weak. The amount of radioactive material required to build a dirty bomb that actually did something would exceed the amount needed to build a real bomb. It would be utterly stupid.

    By far the most effective weapon is the human imagination. Tell enough people that a dirty bomb, or a biological weapon, has been released, in some location where there is strong mistrust of any kind of official source, and you wouldn't even need a bomb or to go there. The viral nature of the message, the paranoia of the citizens and the psychology of mass hysteria will guarantee that symptoms will be felt. If those people believe firmly enough that they will die, then - as is well known from studies in shamanism - those people will will themselves to die. There needn't be a single thing wrong with any of them, aside from their own credulity.

    The US is reasonably well guarded. Certainly, it's enough to stop any serious physical weapon from getting through. A psychological bomb, where the "explosive" is the insanity demonstrated on a daily basis, that you can't stop, you can't trace and you can't respond. There is only one way to stop a psychological bomb and that's to have a rational, sane, well-educated nation. And nobody wants one of those.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  21. Now with digital tv and hollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i can fully believe a faked future Mars landing via Bill/Ted phone booth or some other contraption.

    we'll easily be led into whatever corrupted scenario "they" want us to believe. and most will believe it.

  22. FUD by kheldan · · Score: 1

    North Korea yapping about it's nuclear capabilities.
    Iran is let off it's leash pending good behavior.
    Putin's Russia making lots of noise.
    So-called 'islamic state' assholes doing every violent thing they can think of -- why not a nuclear attack of some sort?

    Then here comes these jackasses, spreading more fear, uncertainty, and doubt, by talking about the 'inevitability' of a nuclear attack on U.S. soil, and their alleged ability to detect who did it (as if that would fucking matter all that much at that point). If they were in front of me right now, I'd fucking punch them in the mouth.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  23. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the military-industrial complex doesn't want one of those.

    TFTFY

  24. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ISIS doesn't have access to nukes, Iran had to abort its nuclear program before it got anywhere, Russia would have nothing to gain from nuking the US and with all other options eliminated North Korea knows they would be the obvious perpetrator facing serious retaliation.

  25. That's easy! by transami · · Score: 1

    Iran did it. Duh.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
    1. Re:That's easy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marg Bari Iran!
      DEATH to Iran and the assholeatollahs.

  26. I hope you're right by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    But there are far too many people who would regard such a nuke as a wonderful achievement; Iran, North Korea, IS and Al Qaeda being the obvious candidates, whilst elements within China, Russia and the revolutionary left in Latin America aren't inconceivable. Remember that on 10th September 2001 noone conceived of 9/11 as a possibility. Put the bomb in a large container ship coming somewhere where the bomb definitely didn't start - Lagos springs to mind - and it would offer no routing information. I'd bet it will happen in the next 20 years.

  27. traceable by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    nuclear fuel is traceable to origin, even after used in fission bomb. we'd even know what location inside of which reactor the stuff came from. (fun fact, 70% or more of the nuclear fuel of a fission bomb just gets sprayed over an area without fissioning)

    there would be hell to pay for the perp country

    1. Re:traceable by FrozenGeek · · Score: 2

      Yep. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. there are at least a couple of really messed up countries with nukes. I'm assuming you live in the US. Keep in mind that many countries are an order of magnitude or more screwed up than most western countries. Things that would never enter our minds as being possible are the norm in many other countries. If you ever have the chance, travel in the non-tourist areas of some third world countries and get to know some of the locals. You'll find that many of their assumptions are completely alien to you, and many of your assumptions are completely alien to them.

      --
      linquendum tondere
    2. Re:traceable by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      even the crazies like N. Korean leadship or more radical Pakistan leadership would want the thousands of bombs of the USA raining down on them like hail.

      by the way, regularly go to place that is in the high 170s on the CIA list of 230 countries by GDP per capita. to them their own government is something that takes away, something to be avoided, and that needs a bribe to get things to go one's way. but they'd not welcome a war with wealthy well armed country, they've a belly full of the consequences of their own civil war a few decades ago and a regional war that spilled into their country leaving land mines that kill dozens and maim many more each year. They were so happy casualties from land mines 40% down last year over 2014 because of detection and removal efforts, only 110 casualties!

    3. Re:traceable by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      hmm, my wouldn't became would in first sentence

      but I think most poor countries value life from what I've seen, and don't value war or death. that's a particular kind of crazy two major world religions push

  28. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

    A dirty bomb? Those have bugger all effectiveness, except against the emotions of the weak. The amount of radioactive material required to build a dirty bomb that actually did something would exceed the amount needed to build a real bomb. It would be utterly stupid.

    It depends on what your goals are. The goal of a dirty bomb denotation is not likely large-scale destruction -- it would be terror. Detonate even a small one in Times Square and watch how much disruption it will cause. Actual number of casualties are almost irrelevant. Look at how much the deaths of 3000 people on 9/11 did -- it's not the body count that terrorists are often after, but the repercussions that follow the feeling of insecurity.

    The US is reasonably well guarded. Certainly, it's enough to stop any serious physical weapon from getting through.

    I cannot fathom how a post with this in it got modded "+5 Insightful." A kiloton weapon could be smuggled into the U.S. in a heavy backpack. You could move that in through a port. ABC News moved depleted uranium in back in 2002 and 2003. Congress passed laws requiring 100% scanning by 2012, then 2014... it's not here, and it's doubtful it would happen anytime soon.

    Or you could drive it across the border from Canada. Cars are rarely inspected in detail. Hell, if you're a random septuagenarian nun, you could even wander into a U.S. nuclear weapons or depleted uranium facility restricted area in this country itself without a huge amount of trouble. Our own security within the U.S. to protect nuclear material is pretty abysmal -- and our ability to screen for a smallish nuclear weapon entering the U.S. by land or sea is nearly non-existent.

    I have no clue how you equate this with a statement like "The US is reasonably well guarded" against nuclear devices. Could you easily smuggle in an ICBM? No. Duh. But you could easily smuggle in something that would incinerate many blocks of a major city. And again, terrorism isn't about the magnitude of the event, but the feeling of insecurity it creates.

  29. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

    Sorry -- small correction: of course, I meant weapons-grade uranium storage in facilities when talking about the nuns. And at least two of the people in the group were in their 80s, not just their 70s....

  30. The problem is not who but where by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

    Yes, everybody knew after 9/11 (or maybe even before) who the perpetrators were. The question was where. During the Cold War, it was easy enough to locate the targets of retaliation. Just stick a pin in your red-colored globe. Now, what would we do? Bomb every country in the Middle East except Israel and Turkey? Bomb maybe even India because they have a large Muslim population there? North Korea is probably an exception to the confusion. At least we know where to send the postcard.

  31. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    it got modded insightful because it is. your old fart wandering into storage facility couldn't leave with anything, even if armed with a handgun.

    kiloton weapon in back pack.....nope, you're not going to beat the U.S. government's best efforts of a 51 lbs. device that only had 0.015 kiloton yield (about five times the explosion at Oklahoma City bombing...whoop de fucking doo someone get the mop)

  32. Why be coy? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    We leave huge dirty bombs next to our cities ready to be used. http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/...

    1. Re:Why be coy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you mdsolar? Wait, haha yes it actually is.

    2. Re:Why be coy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We get it. You hate nuclear.

      Now, fuck off.

  33. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

    ...zero. There is absolutely no possibility of such an attack, on US soil or anywhere else.

    There's this little thing called "statistics" you're completely ignoring. The probability is extremely low, but calling it "zero" is simply wrong. When I buy a lottery ticket, do you also call the chances of me winning "zero"? My house burning down is also probably pretty low-probability, but any sane person has insurance just the same. When you simply dismiss any chance outright, you destroy your own credibility. And if you're wrong, it's not like you will be held responsible. It's pretty easy to be dismissive when it's not your problem in the first place.

    Also, I'm not sure where your faith in our impenetrable borders comes from. For fuck's sake, we have illegals from Central America pouring into the US all the time across our southern border. You seriously believe we'd actually detect a suitcase nuke coming across? Highly improbably, of course. Impossible, not at all.

    If those people believe firmly enough that they will die, then - as is well known from studies in shamanism - those people will will themselves to die. There needn't be a single thing wrong with any of them, aside from their own credulity.

    It makes me wonder a bit that you got modded +5 interesting with this little gem in there. WTF? Since when did Slashdot collectively believe in "booga-booga" witchcraft? And you're talking about rationality?

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  34. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And ^^^THIS^^^ attitude is why America is still the best fucking place to live on this planet

    The ass-hats that want to fall over in fear from some imaginary nuke will be the death of this country

  35. lets not blow up cities with nukes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seems like a bad idea all around

  36. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

    Nice job nitpicking without actually addressing my major points. My point about the nuns wasn't that they could have easily gotten away with something themselves, but a well-armed and trained team could get disturbingly close to weapons grade uranium without anyone really paying much attention... but that's all beside the point. You offered nothing to critique my primary point about GP, which is that we don't have adequate security to prevent entrance of a dirty bomb or even a small better nuclear device. The kiloton backpack was based on a nuclear expert quote in a news story I read some time ago... after researching after your post, I agree that sounds inaccurate. But you could certainly put a kiloton weapon in a space roughly the size of a backpack or a little larger, and it would only weigh a few hundred pounds, so it could easily be transported into the US without notice in a car or shipping container as I discussed. And a backpack bomb with even a 15-ton yield would probably result in a significant death toll in an urban center... but again the point is the perception and fear that will ensue, not whether 100 or 1000 or 10000 or 100000 are killed.

  37. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

    Indeed. I think GP was just a troll here. I can't figure out how all of this wacko uninformed nonsense otherwise comes together in a single post. Just goes to show that low ID number still gets treated differently, though.

  38. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    15 ton yield bomb isn't going to be made by amateurs, that's HARD feat. Initiator system, properly machined shaped charges, ditto for neutron reflector, synced detonation electronics. Resources of a government or large corporation to build or buy. Stealing one might be possible if a government destabilized, say in Pakistan. That's the one scenario I'll grant.

    The nuns spray painted an extremely well fortified building that can't be shot open, or blasted open, by anything a team of no-goodniks could carry. If intruder gets inside I'll change my tune. Then your hypothetical no-goodniks are going to stuff their pockets with the 110 lbs. or more of HEU and waltz away to build the bomb I mentioned in paragraph one?....as if.

    Fear from terrorist use of a nuke? would be totally overshadowed by lust for revenge and execution of a kind of Final Solution that would go on for more than a generation. Rage, not Fear would be the main emotion after that. Horrible genocide. Huge divot in the muslim population curve of planet earth.

  39. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, he was straight up with you even used his real account and here you are whispering off-stage

    More than likely he was using a reasonable number of significant digits, because when you are dealing with a one in a billion situation it reads as 0.000000001

    Makes waaaay more sense to just call it zero, but you have fun acting like you found an oyster in your field of turds

  40. Differing goals, differing results by mveloso · · Score: 1

    A nuclear attack isn't about destroying a city; it wouldn't take very much to, say, make it so a financial district or a couple of buildings would be unlivable for a few years. It would also wreak havoc on the local, and possibly global, economy.

    Would it be hard? It depends. There are plenty of soft targets. I mean, just look what an e-coli outbreak can do.

  41. We've always been at war with...ourselves by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    In the US you'd be sucking wind to get the iodine, "might be used in drug manufacture". (Hypochlorite bleach is still available)

    1. Re:We've always been at war with...ourselves by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Not sure how hypochlorite stops your thyroid from absorbing radioactive isotopes, except that if you drink enough of it you'll be dead before you need to worry about it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:We've always been at war with...ourselves by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      That's not what they are talking about. An iodine solution is what is usually used to clean gas masks. What you are thinking about would be an iodine pill.

  42. Nuclear war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hold on now, Hilary isn't president just yet.

  43. The US and Europe would go crazy. by pjv936 · · Score: 2

    All terrorists would be hunted down and killed. Any nation that make the slightest attempt to protected them would be severely punished. This action would go on for decades. And you can forget about privacy.

    1. Re:The US and Europe would go crazy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Any nation that make the slightest attempt to protected them would be severely punished.

      We've got a precedent for foreign terrorism on US soil: Remember '9/11' as the yanks call it. Hopefully it won''t be repeated down to US president using the mass murder of civilians to settle a personal squabble against another country. Overall, the war on terror isn't going well, from the US president personally bullying Pakistan for refusing to be 'more helpful', to the endless drone-inflicted murders in so-called helpful countries, to leaving 2 countries without a stable electricity grid after 10-plus years of occupation. The result is a Muslim versus Christian war roving across several countries in Africa, plus a real war in Syria made all more dangerous from richer countries telling each other what to do about it.

      This action would go on for decades. And you can forget about privacy.

      This isn't a prediction, it's a consequence of the last attack on US soil.

  44. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

    Fact is, if the powers that be think it will advance their agenda to see an American city get nuked, then an American city will get nuked, and whatever bad guy needs to take the blame will take the blame, and permanent marshall law will be enacted, in the name of "security."

  45. Nuclear strike in america. First thought ... by allo · · Score: 1

    Nuclear strike in america. First thought ... strike back!
    Sounds like a good idea, let's start global thermonuclear war!

    1. Re:Nuclear strike in america. First thought ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Start of the global thermonuclear war would be the first strike on the US.

      The US would strike back without mercy.

      M.A.D. Mecca Assured Destruction

  46. Won't happen that way. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    When it happens it will be a device below a safe house that had been placed there for years and nobody will be able to figure out who it was.

  47. Satan accuses others being evil?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On 9/11, sheik Osama bin Laden sent airplanes into the WTC to avenge the USS New Jersey's artillery killing his fiancee back in 1986 in Lebanon. The USA responded to 9/11 by invading, occupying and plundering Iraq and hanging the ruler Saddam Hussein, even though he was an enemy of bin Laden and the Al-Kaida.

    Next time, USA and IL created the ISIS (a.k.a. ISIL Daesh) terrorist army to dismantle Iraq and Syria, eventually making it possible to create the Nile-to-Euphrates sized Greater Zion, as depicted on the 10 agorot coin of the new shekel.

    The dream of the elite that curently rules the USA is to witness a ritual animal sacrifice based confederation of Greater Zion and the Saudi theocracy, because they think such a vast and powerful empire of slaughter-monotheism will inaugurate the millenial tribulation kingdom and the end of times. In other words, the so-called christian zionism, a heresy universally condemned since the time of apostles, is a mental condition that should be cured in an asylum. Yet american voters place such persons at the leadership.

    1. Re:Satan accuses others being evil?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Satan is a Socialist. ;-)

      You know you're in the presence of a Socialist when they yelp about the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia - but NEVER about genocidal fascist Iran, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qada, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Al Nusra, ISIS head chopping videos.

      When was the last time you saw Socialists demonstrating against Fascist Iran which hangs gays, stones girls to death over "family honor"?

  48. Well done Ronnie Reagan by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Resources of a government or large corporation to build or buy.

    The resources of a government that subsequently collapses, can't pay its scientists and soldiers, has its country break up into uncountable fiefdoms which are pretty good scores in Scrabble, and by the time it even realises there's a problem has no idea where half of its boomy-bangy shit is?

    Lucky that'll never happen, eh?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Well done Ronnie Reagan by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      I mentioned that scenario with example as one I *would* believe possible

    2. Re:Well done Ronnie Reagan by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You mentioned Pakistan, which hasn't happened yet.

      The one I'm talking about already has happened. Hint: it's quite a bit bigger.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  49. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

    I suggest you go back and re-read my original post in this thread. You seem to want to argue about things I didn't even talk about instead of what I actually said.

    The original post in this thread (which I replied to) made two main arguments: (1) a dirty bomb would be stupid and a detonation of one would have no major effect, (2) the US is sufficiently secure against entrance of a nuclear device.

    Neither of these is true. You do not dispute these. So it seems we are in agreement about my actual points.

    Instead, you seem to want to debate other nuances. Please note I NEVER said that I thought such an event was likely, nor did I argue that this is something that the US should spend a lot of time worrying about. On the list of stuff I think the US government should be spending money on, preventing random nuclear attacks seems unlikely enough that I don't think it should be high on the list. I was just pointing out that the original post's logic was horribly flawed.

  50. Re:Except now the bad guys will know what not to d by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell me about your idea for building a nuclear bomb that can't be detected when it explodes.

  51. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is with your fetish of depleted uranium? It is less radioactive than rocks you can find on the ground. That's why they call it 'depleted'.

  52. You missed his point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Respectfully sir, I believe you missed his point. I believe his point was the drone, etc. approach is half assed and what a nuke would bring about something far more radical and lasting.

  53. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    recent news points out the truth that for terrorists there is far more bang for the buck and effort to be had with chemical weapons. No need for exotic materials or equipment, could get everything at local hardware stores including the reagents.... and hundreds at least (or thousands if enclosed stadium or convention center targeted) can be maimed or killed if for example truck used as delivery container. More fear and emotional impact than plain ol' ordinary bomb too. Seems ISIL agrees with their R&D efforts and recent attacks

  54. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by Cederic · · Score: 1

    The amount of radioactive material required to build a dirty bomb that actually did something would exceed the amount needed to build a real bomb

    Acquiring a lot of radioactive material is easy.
    Acquiring enough to initiate an uncontrolled fission reaction is hard. Initiating it on demand is properly difficult.

    I could build a dirty bomb. Shit, I could self-fund one. I couldn't get remotely fucking close to a fission bomb, let alone a fusion one.

  55. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by jd · · Score: 1

    Chemical and biological agents are plausible, certainly, I could see such an attack being planned.

    However, I stand by my claim that psychological attacks are cheaper, easier and almost impossible to cure. False news, conspiracy theories, destabilizing whispers, SWATting - there's nothing you can do to stop them from any of this and you know yourself that such rumours can last 50 years plus. No risks, no possibility of being identified, just the same old PsyOps the US has authorized against them turned back on its point of origin.

    The two combined would, of course, be much worse. ISIS could DDoS the emergency services, then attack somewhere else. Or ISIS could bring the emergency services to a confined region where exposing many of them to a biological weapon would be easy. Those I could easily see. However, that risks exposure of the culprits. Not that ISIS cares too much about people being caught, but if you want something to be successful, the obvious path is to not send anyone at all. The rumour mill has been adequate for many domestic terrorists for centuries, sooner or later the foreign wannabes like ISIS will figure it out.

    If you want to really make a mess of the US economy, pump up the value of gold, wait for the hedgefunds to panic buy into it (because gold never goes up if there isn't an emergency and the computers doing high-speed trading will be programmed to look for that) then dump the gold all at once. It's long been feared as a tactic for economic terrorism, because high speed trading operates in much the same way, it just uses a much lower volume per slice of time and many thousands more slices of time per second than a regular trader can. The only way to secure the system against deliberate crashing is to cap (total volume x frequency) at a sensible level, but stockbrokers and hedge funds would prefer the economy occasionally go belly up. More money to be made, if the prices all drop to well below real worth.

    An attack via the markets would find the markets actively cooperating - at least as long as there's money to be made in it.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  56. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by Cederic · · Score: 1

    One in a billion? Sure, sounds low odds.

    There are 7 billion people on the planet. That one in a billion is rather more likely all of a sudden.

    Low individual probabilities start to add up at a population scale. But do keep talking total shit if it helps your ego.

  57. Re:The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In response to a nuke attack on America,

    1.5 billion become 1.5 million.