Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the unmasking-the-perpetrator dept.

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.

9 of 174 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  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?

  3. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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)
  6. 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!”