Where will the bomb drop?

[Mr. Anderson]

All this talk of nuking other countries - where do people think the next nuke will be dropped/set off (if ever).

I'd like to say that it won't ever happen, but there is just too much tension right now and I think that the chances are there that it might happen. :(

North Korea, for me, seems like the biggest wild card, with them using it to take over South Korea. Although the India/Pakistan crisis can always heat up again. I don't think a terrorist will use it first though. Dirty bomb, maybe, but not a true nuke.

D

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by dukestreet
All this talk of nuking other countries - where do people think the next nuke will be dropped/set off (if ever).

I'd like to say that it won't ever happen, but there is just too much tension right now and I think that the chances are there that it might happen. :(

North Korea, for me, seems like the biggest wild card, with them using it to take over South Korea. Although the India/Pakistan crisis can always heat up again. I don't think a terrorist will use it first though. Dirty bomb, maybe, but not a true nuke.

D

the property damage of a dirty bomb can be the same as a real full on nuke, but the actual nuke will kill more people

a well placed dirty bomb can render manhattan uninhabitable forcing us to tear down the affected areas, cleaning up, then rebuilding

i have a fear that the terrorists will let off a dirty bomb in the distant future...maybe decades from now

patience and planning is one thing these terrorists use since they don't have an unlimited military complex like the usa

[jholzner]

Originally posted by dukestreet
All this talk of nuking other countries - where do people think the next nuke will be dropped/set off (if ever).

I'd like to say that it won't ever happen, but there is just too much tension right now and I think that the chances are there that it might happen. :(

North Korea, for me, seems like the biggest wild card, with them using it to take over South Korea. Although the India/Pakistan crisis can always heat up again. I don't think a terrorist will use it first though. Dirty bomb, maybe, but not a true nuke.

D

Well, i'm sure nukes will still be set off in places of the world for testing purposes at least. India and Pakistan have been testing nukes for a while now. Now, the question of where the next nuke will be dropped (for defense/war purposes), I think never. Haven't you ever seen War Games? :D

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by jholzner
Haven't you ever seen War Games? :D

Well that's the problem - its not a mutually assured destruction right now with the other small players in the nuke arms game. Its mostly one sided, like you get one or two shots at the US (and Russia I imagine) and they remove you. The only problem is it spilling over into other countries and they get in the game.

A recent article (last year) which I can't find tries to go through modern War Games and determine the outcome of a tactical nuke going off in an act of war. Any at this time basically result in planet wide destruction. But its not a sure thing that it won't happen.

D

[Backtothemac]

If nukes were used, they would be tactical. By any major country that is. The small players, should they ever get their hands on a big boy, would drop it without a second thought. Nuclear retaliation would be viewed by the world as overkill, especially if we knew that that was their only one.

Realistically, I would say the best spots are Middle east (Israel and Iraq), India/Pakistan, N & S Korea, and China/Taiwan.

Actually, I think middle east is most likely. Should Sadam throw a chemical or biological attack against Israel, well, if you know anyone in Bagdad, call them and tell them goodbye, because it will be glowing for a while.

[jefhatfield]

my fundamentalist jehovah witness employee is so into the armageddon thing and his belief, maybe not his church's, is that we just let it happen because it is god's will

the jehovah witnesses like to use armageddon as a scare tactic to make people hastily choose and when they choose, the jehovah witness church will be there to take first dibs

i am an evangelical myself so i don't knock spreading the good news, but his church uses armageddon to scare people into his church and thus generate income for the church

...not unlike jim bakker and jimmy swaggart in the 80s using religion to get filty rich...my god, sell swimming pools or open a restaurant instead to make your fortune ;)

armageddon, religious beliefs aside, should be avoided at all costs and billy graham once made a sermon in where the inevitable destruction of mankind can be set back, way back and we don't have to just sit on our hands and wait for the world to go mad and self destruct

peace in the middle east should always be a goal even though its not likely to reach a 100 percent peace like north america or europe...but some peace is better than no peace

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by jefhatfield

peace in the middle east should always be a goal even though its not likely to reach a 100 percent peace like north america or europe...but some peace is better than no peace

you're being a little premature in saying we have '100%' peace. But I know what you mean. Besides, its only 3 countries, all without thousands of years of written history, all with large masses of people of very diverse backgrounds.

D

[krossfyter]

"someone set us up the bomb"



lol

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by krossfyter
"someone set us up the bomb"


just hope its something we only see in bad video games...

D

[krossfyter]

Originally posted by dukestreet


just hope its something we only see in bad video games...

D


w3rd!

[mcrain]

Paris will be where the next bomb will drop. I suspect that the frogs will piss off the krauts again, probably over something silly like the frog pronunciation of euro versus the kraut pronunciation of euro, and that will lead to a shooting war, and next thing you know, the city of lights will really glow.

:D :p

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by mcrain
Paris will be where the next bomb will drop. I suspect that the frogs will piss off the krauts again, probably over something silly like the frog pronunciation of euro versus the kraut pronunciation of euro, and that will lead to a shooting war, and next thing you know, the city of lights will really glow.

:D :p

You know I don't know what is more sad, that millions of people could fry and we would somehow find humor in that, or that we find humor in the thought that France could fry.

:)

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


You know I don't know what is more sad, that millions of people could fry and we would somehow find humor in that, or that we find humor in the thought that France could fry.

:)

I definately think that it's sadder that it's possible to find humour in Millions of people frying than finding humor in sauteed frogs legs.

Just remember:

The only edible part of a frog is its hind legs. The delicate meat is tender and lightly sweet and can be most closely compared to the white meat of a very young chicken. Fresh frog's legs can be found from spring through summer in the fish section of many gourmet markets. They're usually sold in connected pairs ranging from 2 to 8 ounces. Look for those that are plump and slightly pink. Store, loosely wrapped, in the refrigerator for up to 2 days. Frozen frog's legs can usually be purchased year-round, though the flavor doesn't compare to fresh. Thaw in the refrigerator overnight before cooking. Because their flavor is so subtle, frog's legs should be cooked simply and briefly. A quick dusting of seasoned flour before sautéing in butter or olive oil will gild the lily perfectly. Overcooking frog's legs will cause them to toughen.

[mcrain]

cuisses de grenouille sauté dans un potage nucléaire du plutonium 238

[Backtothemac]

Bien, rien ne goûte tout à fait comme l'âne d'une grenouille !

[mcrain]

Excepté peut-être le baiser de sa petite amie.

[Backtothemac]

Le défaut de la reproduction sonore, sexe lesbien de grenouille,
équipent là n'est rien plus sexy qu'une grenouille de dame et une
grenouille de dame.

[Flickta]

What's the thread about? Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, Ecology Issues... Well, we'll see that this is important only when it will be too late. Unpredictable things. And no one is really anxious about them. Too bad.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Le défaut de la reproduction sonore, sexe lesbien de grenouille,
équipent là n'est rien plus sexy qu'une grenouille de dame et une
grenouille de dame.

Ok, I give... my high school french plus bablefish just can't keep up with your superior skillz.

[Backtothemac]

C'est la magie de Sherlock. A obtenu d'aimer Apple. Désirent
ardemment la pomme de phase, longs crapauds bisexual de phase !

[mcrain]

Yes, yes, sherlock is wonderful, but my tiBook (sitting to my left) isn't hooked into my network, so I'm stuck with bablefish on my Dell PC.

This is how bad it translates: "It is the magic of Sherlock. With obtained to like APPLE. Ardently wish apple of phase, long clamping plates bisexual of phase!"

[Backtothemac]

Damn, that sucks. Set your TI to connect via ethernet, and use DHCP. If that doesn't work, open the network connection of your pc, take the TCP/IP settings and copy them to your mac, and then boom. Your on the network.
;)

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Damn, that sucks. Set your TI to connect via ethernet, and use DHCP. If that doesn't work, open the network connection of your pc, take the TCP/IP settings and copy them to your mac, and then boom. Your on the network.
;)

I don't think our network will let that work, or, even if it did, without permission, I'd get in trouble.

[Backtothemac]

Break the law mcrain, you know you want to. :)

All you would do is unplug the PC and plug in the Mac to the network. Same TCP/IP settings, so it would not be seen as different, unless, you use a roaming profile on the 2000 server, then it would.

Take the chance!
:cool: :eek: :D

[Performfreak]

so anyways, didn't this thread start about the impending possibility of nuclear weapons being utilized? I think that the problem with the situation we're currently in is that some of these countries have hastily started nuclear weapons programs and have begun nuclear weapons testing, without realizing the full impact that the use of these weapons would incur.

Nuclear weapons have only one true use: total destruction. True, there are varying degrees of radiation fallout left after a nuclear explosion, but I really doubt that one of these smaller countires is concerned with building a "clean" nuclear weapon that will destroy buildings and take lives but not leave lasting nuclear fallout.

If one of these countries thinks that they can use a nuclear weapon to say, take over another country like dukestreet mentioned, they might as well forget it because that land will be worthless and deadly to live on due to the fallout from the weapon.

As much as I find nuclear weapons interesting, I see no use for them at any time within the boundries of Earth.

[Backtothemac]

Aw, but they have already been used in combat remember. I think they are viable in a limited tactical sense. The big boys, na, I don't think they will ever fly.

[Mr. Anderson]

Back a few months ago there was some pretty bad tension between India and Pakistan over Kasmir. Well, one scenario that seemed as possible as any was a plan by Pakistan to drop one on India's invading army, but get this - in Pakistan!

Now, think about it, Pakistan is bombing its own country, defensively, wiping out the superior Indian forces at the same time. What is left for India to do but plop a few on the major Pakistan military enclaves? Regardless, its not going ot be a clean situation, no matter what the scenario.

D

[Performfreak]

Aw, but they have already been used in combat remember. I think they are viable in a limited tactical sense. The big boys, na, I don't think they will ever fly.

When you say used in combat, I'm assuming that you mean Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombs of ≈60 years ago don't even compare with the bombs being developed today. They are so many times more powerful, have different triggers and designs, and are delivered in different ways.

The weapon's strength is measured in relation to how many tons of TNT would equal it:

The Bomb dropped at Hiroshima was a 12 kiloton bomb
The Bomb dropped at Nagasaki was a 22 kiloton bomb

The most powerful nuclear weapon ever tested was a 57 Megaton bomb

That's over 2590 times more powerful that the Nagasaki Weapon, and 4750 times more powerful than the Hiroshima weapon!!!!!!

The average nuclear warhead is well over 1 megaton, which is over 100x more powerful than the only bombs that have been exploded in "combat". We have no way to know how much destruction these would cause, let alone a more powerful weapon.

Thats why we stopped nuclear testing, it was too dangerous and left some areas of the world uninhabitable, and we didn't know what might happen

[Backtothemac]

You are right. Think of sub forces. The Ohio's carry 24 trident DII-5's. Each with 10 MIRV's each MIRV is 100 Kilotons.

Big Bang theory right.
:)

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Performfreak
nuclear warhead is well over 1 megaton, which is over 100x more powerful than the only bombs that have been exploded in "combat". We have no way to know how much destruction these would cause, let alone a more powerful weapon.

This is for US, Russian and maybe China - the other countries don't have the big weapons, h-bombs and such.


28 May 1998: Pakistan detonates five nuclear devices. Pakistan claimed that the five nuclear tests measured up to 5.0 on the Richter scale, with a reported yield of up to 40 KT (equivalent TNT).

30 May 1998 Pakistan tested one more nuclear warheads, with a yield of 12 kilotons, bringing the total number of claimed tests to six.

Got this from www.fas.org - a really good site if you want info on anything military around the world.

D

[Performfreak]

Good to know dukestreet, I wasn't sure of the yields of some of the smaller countries

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Performfreak
Good to know dukestreet, I wasn't sure of the yields of some of the smaller countries

Yeah, it makes it a little better, but the regardless, any nuke is a bad thing and its only a matter of time before someone develops a h-bomb with megaton yield because they can. Imagine Iraq with a couple? Not a very comforting feeling, but in 20 years or more if they go unchecked its quite possible.

But Israel would probably do something before that, ha. One or two hits in Israel and the whole countries gone. Remember when they launched a pre-emptive attack on the nuclear power plant being built there?

D

[Chomolungma]

Originally posted by dukestreet


you're being a little premature in saying we have '100%' peace. But I know what you mean. Besides, its only 3 countries, all without thousands of years of written history, all with large masses of people of very diverse backgrounds.

D

Thousands of years of human history is nothing but a blink of an eye in biological evolution. If we manage to physically blow up the earth, then maybe we would put a mark on history. But then again our solar system is not that extraordinary among 200+ billion stars in the Milky Way, and our galaxy is but one in 10 billion last estimated. Human survival is of little consequence, except for us that is.:D

[kiwi_the_iwik]

What a damned morbid thread this is...

I think the largest yield nuclear weapon in operation to date is the 40-Megaton (a "Peacemaker", ironically...) - and that's large enough to take out 1/4 of the UK, for example...

...However, I severely doubt that any country would have the guts, or tenacity, or even the audacity to launch or drop a nuclear weapon on it's enemies. The reprisals would be unmentionable - the outcome, unthinkable. That was the whole plan of MacNamara in the 60's with MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction ("you don't push the button, and I won't either..."). No - I think the next use of a nuclear weapon would be by a terrorist organisation.

The former Soviet Union developed "suitcase"-style nuclear devices - small-yield bombs (usually between 5-15 kilotons) that were sufficiently small enough to be concealed in a briefcase. Apparently, with the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the formation of the CIS (Commonwealth of Independant States), a few of these suitcases have been mislaid. Many theories have surfaced as to the mystery surrounding their disappearances - the most popular having something to do with disgruntled former KGB agents or underpaid Soviet scientists who sell them on the Black Market to the highest bidder. A number of nuclear power stations that reside on the borders of the former Soviet states of Kazakhstan and Uzbekestan (which, incidentally, sit on the border of some "infamous" Middle Eastern countries - Iran and Afghanistan, for example) have had large quantities of weapons-grade plutonium go missing - more than enough to create a weapon of mass destruction to any country or organisation with even a limited nuclear weapons program.

Speaking of which, I'd not be surprised in the slightest if a so-called "Dirty Bomb" was set off in Central London (fissionable material packed around conventional explosives to create considerable casualties via radioactive fallout) - there's nothing anyone could do, and there's absolutely no safeguards in place (i.e. geiger counters positioned throughout the city to check for abnormal levels of radioactivity) for it to go unnoticed until it went off.


As a final footnote:

I imagine sitting around a table, ten years from now, talking with family and friends. The conversation turns to the horrors of the World Trade Center. But then, we reflect that it was nothing compared to the destruction of the entire city by a nuclear device planted in a car parked in Whitehall, London, just a few years before.


Truly the stuff of fiction - but, then again, that's what we thought about 9/11 too...