How real is the threat of a nuclear attack against the US? (1 Viewer)

[Michael*K]

I think the chances of a nuclear bomb sitting off the coast of Georgia in only 20 feet of water under only 10 feet of silt is just about nil.

 

[Todd Hochard]

There has to be a redundency is systems that will survive an electronic attack.

Isn't that the whole point of the structure of the Internet?
And, I don't think Al Qaeda has (or will have in the near future) enough "geeks" in their ranks to accomplish anything like this.

You know, thinking about this nuc thing, though, I wonder what sort of satellite neutrino detection capability we have? If it's good, that would make it virtually impossible to move about with any sort of nuclear weapon, undetected.

Todd

 

[Philip Hamm]

I think the chances of a nuclear bomb sitting off the coast of Georgia in only 20 feet of water under only 10 feet of silt is just about nil.

Did you do any research at all before making this assessment or are you just writing out your proverbial backside ???? Take about 10 minutes with google and look at some of the links provided above.....

 

[DwightK]

Not Neutrino's Todd Detection is all about detecting neutrons and gammas of certain energy levels. Both travel a good distance and are detectable. Neutrinos travel through anything but are not a specific decay energy and cannot be detected except in wierd lab circumstances. Down in some mine in Colorado for example.

 

[Michael*K]

Take about 10 minutes with google and look at some of the links provided above.....

The story of a bomb off the Georgia coast holds about as much water as the tales of aliens landing at Area 51.

 

[AjayM]

The story of a bomb off the Georgia coast holds about as much water as the tales of aliens landing at Area 51.

You really should follow Phillips advice, all of the below dug up in about 2 minutes from Google, just type in Tybee bomb.
25 May 1958
A B-47 collided with another jet and a hydrogen bomb was accidentally dropped, never to be recovered, in the ocean off Savannah, Georgia.
From http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
Somewhere in Wassau Sound, near Tybee Island, Georgia, a Mark-15 bomb sits beneath the ocean floor. The bomb may be nuclear, or it may not be. It may be buried under five feet of sand, or it may be buried under forty. It is probably intact, but no one knows for sure, because the night it was dropped—February 5, 1958—was highly chaotic. The B-47 carrying the bomb, on a training mission that started in Florida, collided in midair sometime after midnight with an F-86 fighter plane on a simulated attack mission. The F-86 crashed after its pilot safely ejected. The B-47 caught fire, and its pilot jettisoned the bomb into the sea before landing. The Navy never found it, despite an intensive nine-week search.
From - http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/07/donahue.htm
More info - http://www.savannahnow.com/stories/0...ybeebomb.shtml
Interesting info from CNN - http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/11/lost.nuke/
On February 5, 1958, a B-47 bomber on a training mission collided with a fighter jet near Savannah and had to jettison the bomb to land safely at Hunter Air Force Base. The bomb was dumped near Tybee Island, 12 miles east of Savannah. The F-86 fighter crashed after the pilot bailed out safely.
Officials estimate the bomb was dropped at least five miles off the coast and now lies beneath 8 to 40 feet of water and buried in 5 to 15 feet of sand and silt.
Even the military admits their is a lost bomb out there, the pilot admits there is a lost bomb out there, etc, etc. Just a little different than comparing it to Area 51.
Andrew

 

[Todd Hochard]

Apparently, we have full detection capability to find enriched Uranium anywhere in the world. See here.It took me about an hour to remember why this is possible. That door in my brain was nearly rusted shut.
Somewhat on topic, I found this neat Powerpoint presentation- http://www.wl.k12.in.us/depts/scienc...earEnergy2.ppt
Todd

 

[Dan Lindley]

The following is from a report I wrote (full link follows, and further cites are found in the full report), containing info on loose nukes in the former Soviet Union and the terrorist threat posed:
Stopping the Worsening and
Perhaps Imminent Threat of WMD Terrorism
Bin Laden and al Qaeda have sought nuclear weapons since 1992. Bin Laden considers
obtaining nuclear weapons a religious duty, and al Qaeda has threatened the United States with a
‘Hiroshima.’ Al Qaeda tried to get uranium from South Africa (which used to have six atomic
weapons), and has repeatedly tried to get nuclear materials and weapons from throughout the
former Soviet Union. The Taliban has tried to recruit Russian nuclear scientists, and bin Laden
has had close contact with Pakistani nuclear scientists.1 Along with al Qaeda, other terrorists and
states are actively pursuing nuclear and biological weapons.2
Nuclear weapons are relatively easy to build. For skilled scientists and engineers, the
biggest hurdle is obtaining sufficient fissile nuclear material. The United States was so confident
in its nuclear weapons design that it did not test its Hiroshima gun-type bomb before dropping it.3
Perhaps the most likely source of illicit fissile materials are the ‘loose nukes’ in the former Soviet
Union: the poorly guarded and monitored remnants of its once massive nuclear programs.
In an Economist article Graham Allison wrote that the chief of the directorate of the
Russian Defence Ministry responsible for nuclear weapons acknowledged two recent incidents in which terrorist groups attempted to break into Russian nuclear-storage sites, but were repulsed.4
The International Atomic Energy Agency reports eighteen total foiled nuclear thefts involving
weapons grade materials. This is out of 376 cases of trafficking in nuclear material, including
that from hospitals and industry. Of these eighteen, “there have been seizures of about 400
grams of plutonium and another 12 kilos of uranium at varying levels of enrichment, equivalent
to only some 6 kilos of uranium-235.” Eight kilograms of plutonium or 25 kilograms of enriched
uranium are needed to make an atomic bomb.5
A recent Stanford University study paints an even grimmer picture about the relative ease
with which terrorists might obtain nuclear materials. The study reveals 643 known instances of
nuclear and radioactive materials theft and smuggling (along with 107 incidents of ‘orphaned’
radiation – radioactive materials left someplace and forgotten about). Although most of it has
been recovered, the study claims that forty kilograms of weapons useable uranium and plutonium
have been stolen from nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union in the last decade.6
A high Russian official, Yuri G. Volodin, notes that one loss of nuclear material was of
the “highest consequence.”7 Since the implosion of the Soviet Union, the Russian nuclear
infrastructure has been vulnerable: guards and scientists unpaid, unemployed, and presumably
bribable. Facilities with no fences, security cameras, or detectors to signal thefts of nuclear
materials. After years of United States and Russian attempts to remedy these problems, half of
the Russian nuclear stockpile is still not well protected. Moreover, trafficking in nuclear
materials is getting more professional.8 ‘Loose nukes’ are a global security problem of the
highest consequence.
How many incidents were never discovered and how many nuclear thieves were not
caught? An IAEA official likened nuclear trafficking to drug trafficking. Since most drugs are
not seized and end up on the market, it is likely that the proportion of nuclear seizures is
outweighed by successful nuclear thefts.9 There are credible concerns that dozens of small,
portable Russian nuclear weapons are missing. And what of materials from their formerly
massive biological weapons program? We simply do not know.
http://www.nd.edu/~krocinst/ocpapers/op_22_1.PDF
Also, here is great (?!) testimony before congress on dirty bombs:
http://www.fas.org/ssp/docs/030602-kellytestimony.htm
The FAS site in general has thorough info on WMD.
This is surely one of the most important topics of our day.
Dan

 

[Joseph S]

Actually, if you are referring to the Keyspan Gas Storage Facility (aka "The Gas Tank"), it is south of the city, right along I-93 in Dorchester.

FYI: That "The Gas Tank" is a fake! They literally repainted the design of the tank to its left, and eliminated the original painted tank. People always seem to think the design contains a terrorist on it though.

 

[Philip Hamm]

As far as so-called "dirty bombs" are concerned, the US should IMO be more concerned about the "dirty bombs" that it has been actively fielding for years in the form of "depleted uranium" weapons. A google search on "depleted uranium" is highly enlightening.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Great topic to have at Christmas time fellas.
I don't know how many of you saw that documentary about this news orginization that conducted an experiment with a small batch of harmless depleted uranium but it was terrifying to me.
What they did was encase some depleted uranium in a piece of steel pipe with caps on both ends, put it in a trunk and transport it by train across several countries and see how far they could get with it before they were detected with it. They went through check point after check point and the uranium never left the storage compartment in their cabin! Not even when it had to be crated and moved to other transports for shipment!
Even more terrifying, is that it actually made it to N.Y. harbor and right through customs without notice! They were eventually free to drive the package right into the heart of N.Y. city! What gets me is that when the ruse was up and it was revealed what they did, customs stated blatently that they have special equipment to detect radioactive material. Do you know what this "special equipment" is? A simple geiger meter worn on the belts of the workers, but they have to be within a few feet of the material to detect anything, and their long range scanners picked up nothing.
When confronted by this simple fact customs had "no comment".
If that had been enriched uranium being transported by terrorists...
:frowning:

 

[DwightK]

John, there was nothing terrifying about that show. It was a total rig job in that detecting DU is no different than detecting the dirt outside your front door.

I will say no more on the matter of DU other than the unknowing public is being totally duped into believing there is some "radiation danger" from it. This a a similar non-winable arguement as the one where man-made radiation is BAD and somehow DIFFERENT that natural radiation.

Drives me and everyone I work with batty.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Excuse me Dwight, but enriched uranium can be used to make a very deadly explosive device yes? Then I beg to differ, the senario that show proposed was indeed scary. I know that depleted uranium is harmless, but the whole point of the show was to show that a potentially dangerous material can successfuly get into the US undetected and can be used to produce a weapon.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

If we are talking about al Queda using something, a dirty bomb doesn't fit their style. bin Laden is very savvy of the media, and likes things which have very visible consequences: blowing up ships, planes, buildings etc, where there is something the news can see and spread visually, which increases the effectiveness of his terrorism.

Having a bunch of people die slow deaths from radiation isn't very exciting from a newsbite perspective, and creating a nuke is certainly more work and more complicated (and therefore more likely to fail) than strapping on a bunch of explosives and walking into a building.

If some other group were behind a nuclear plan, that is different, but bin Laden is a showman. He wants a big bang, with immediate casualties, and preferably a symbolic target.

 

[Philip Hamm]

I will say no more on the matter of DU other than the unknowing public is being totally duped into believing there is some "radiation danger" from it. This a a similar non-winable arguement as the one where man-made radiation is BAD and somehow DIFFERENT that natural radiation.

Hmm... interesting. From what I've read it's not the depleted uranium itself in its metal form that is the problem. Hence the ridiculous experiment above. In that instance the act of moving DU is no worse than the act of moving a bar of lead or gold. In metal form DU is about as dangerous as lead. That is to say, as a very heavy metal it can be extremely toxic if taken internally.
The problem is when it burns, the fumes and particulates it releases off are -highly toxic- and can be radioactive. Note that a great deal of the toxicity of DU shells is not only radiation, but heavy metal (lead) poisoning. The particulates are very small and even a gas mask won't keep them out. It's not the DU that's the problem per se, but DU being used as a weapon. The BBC has a very interesting series of articles about the subject at their web site. The World Health Organization takes it seriously enough to study closely.There is a good Yahoo page about the controversy.
Simply telling me it's safe because you and your friends at work think so is not convincing.

 

[DwightK]

Do any of you happen to have a Coleman Lantern mantle laying around? What precautions are you taking? If none, why not? Are you not scared crapless?

I also hope none of you smoke cigarettes.

Either of those two above are countless times more dangerous radiation-wise than DU. DU is nothing more than an alpha emitter. Your skin stops it, your clothes, paper, etc. smoking one cigarette is the equivalent to receiving a 5 mRem dose internal. I have an ocupational dose limit of 100 mRem per YEAR at work. smoking a pack of cigs is the equivalent to my annual exposure limit. As for the mantle, You would never catch me with one of those in my house or anywhere a child could get to it. It is a MASSIVE alpha emitter and could cause "bad things" if ingested or gotten near a wound. Where as a DU piece will barely register with a detector, a mantle will peg it on high scale. Fear is strictly a matter of what the media is interested in letting you know about.

Toxicity is another matter yet still no worse than so many common household items. You mentioned burning the DU to release toxic fumes. Exactly the same as burning any heavy metal. Andare you worried about heat reaching your airconditioning fluids? at 1000 degrees F, refrigerant releases Phosgene gas. Look up phosgene and see if you feel any fear.

 

[Philip_G]

at 1000 degrees F, refrigerant releases Phosgene gas. Look up phosgene and see if you feel any fear.

that stuff sucks. One time in a crawl space the guy I was working with tried to silver solder a fitting before the lines were completely void of refrigerant, so a bit of it burned in the torch.
but the chances of any of it spontaneously cathing fire and filling your house with phosgene is about uh, zero. I'm not sure if a failing compressor could even get it hot enough to worry about, not to mention cause a leak.
belive me, it's not like carbon monoxide, that you wouldn't notice it. I can't imagine anybody voluntarily hanging around in it, it smells bad, tastes bad, and burns BAD when you catch just a tiny whiff.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Do any of you happen to have a Coleman Lantern mantle laying around? What precautions are you taking? If none, why not? Are you not scared crapless?
I also hope none of you smoke cigarettes.
Either of those two above are countless times more dangerous radiation-wise than DU. DU is nothing more than an alpha emitter. Your skin stops it, your clothes, paper, etc. smoking one cigarette is the equivalent to receiving a 5 mRem dose internal. I have an ocupational dose limit of 100 mRem per YEAR at work. smoking a pack of cigs is the equivalent to my annual exposure limit. As for the mantle, You would never catch me with one of those in my house or anywhere a child could get to it. It is a MASSIVE alpha emitter and could cause "bad things" if ingested or gotten near a wound. Where as a DU piece will barely register with a detector, a mantle will peg it on high scale. Fear is strictly a matter of what the media is interested in letting you know about.
Toxicity is another matter yet still no worse than so many common household items. You mentioned burning the DU to release toxic fumes. Exactly the same as burning any heavy metal. Andare you worried about heat reaching your airconditioning fluids? at 1000 degrees F, refrigerant releases Phosgene gas. Look up phosgene and see if you feel any fear.

Dwight, the problem is when the DU is used AS A WEAPON. As with the phosgene you mention, that's pretty bad stuff when used as a weapon also, as many WWI casualties attest to.
The problem is that DU, after it's been used to kill the bad guys in the tank by burning right through the hull, lets off ultra-toxic byproducts that contaminate the area for years, decades, maybe centuries or longer depending on the wind (much like your phosgene analogy). The deadly side effects are indiscriminate. We should be using that ultra-hard metal to build bridges, it would be as safe as the toxic refrigerant in your example (or lead for that matter - I'm not afraid to drink out of a lead crystal glass, but inhale burning lead fumes? No thanks.).

 

[Todd Hochard]

DU is nothing more than an alpha emitter.

So is Drano, IIRC. Got any of that around?

 

[Philip Hamm]

Even if your friends are all nuclear-trained engineers, with hundreds of years of collective experience in the handling of radioactive materials? Are you still not convinced?

How much experience with this material studying it when specifically used as a weapon? Any good links to share?