If terrorist groups detonated a nuke in major US city... - Page 5




 
--
 
December 6th, 2004  
Doc.S
 
I looked at CNN yesturday where they took this subject up in a one hour program, several experts agreed about the posibility for terrorists to detonate a nuclear device on U.S soil. The posibility for one such attack seems to be pretty big and one guy told the camera that is was more likely to ask the question WHEN rather then IF. U.S harbours seems to be the most likely target for such an attack. They would simply put a bomb - dirty or a clean one in one of the hundreds of containers arriving from foreign countrys and then by remote control or timer set of a bomb big enought to kill almost 50.000 people instantly and the fallout would kill about 100.000 + civilians after that. They are making progress in securing U.S harbours but the security experts and terrorist experts told the CNN reporters that the work was not conducted fast enough.

It have been some rumors about a big possible terrorist-attack and it seems like it will take place on a big holiday when alot of people are at their homes, one expert told the CNN that if a attack of this magnitude would accure the whole world economy would be effected and the 9-11 attack would fade away as a tooth pic attack. I know that the terrorists will attack sooner or later and Bin Ladins right hand was out in time to let us all know that an attack is on its way because it is a custom in the arab community to always send a warning before any major "holy" attack.

Bin Ladin was talking about the 9-11 attack only 3 weaks before it accured so dont be to suprised if the geostrategic impact on this attack will drive us in to a new WW3-WW4 scenario when it hits. And to comment the European liberal way to handle this war on terrorism with few exceptions amongs the EU countrys I found out a perfect holliday eye-opener from Illusions And Reality by Jules de Gaultier that stated, "Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality."

I think the "war against reality" is the process of aging and imagination is our naivet that shields us from the frightening world. By imagining that situations will never be uncomfortable; girls will never experience heartbreak; men will always have jobs to support their families; and people will never become sick, we are setting our selves up for a slap in the face when, inevitably, we are forced to notice how the real world works. Disillusionment is the acceptance of truth and the understanding or reality. To be disillusioned, one becomes disappointed when his or her opinion or belief is found out to be false.

Usually an act forces them to realize the truth when they probably would rather continue in their own beliefs. Santa Clause, for instance, is precisely an illusion. As great and magical it is for a child to believe in the jolly, fat man with a snow white beard sliding down their chimney on Christmas to leave the "good" kids presents, there comes a time when kids learn that Santa is only a spirit; a story told them by the same parents that actually provided the gifts.

This is a good explanation of the liberal and EU supported way of looking into this major problem. But as author Zbigniew Brzezinski have stated in one of his books - Europe have become increasingly the object, rather then the subject, of global power politics, and that will obvious reflect on all citizens when or if a WW3-WW4 scenario would accure if the geostrategic imperatives would be shifted even more then they are today. A bomb in the U.S would affect Europe in a way many people never tought would be possible and that is what I think will be this worlds biggest slap in the face that have ever taken place if I may say so.

Cheers:
Doc.S
December 6th, 2004  
Bratwurst
 
Quote:
europe is already under invasion, so far its mildly bloody. just wait till the situation is in favour of those who want to destroy europe, then the game really begins.
By who?

If you are referring to our Muslim population... We call them "citizens" here. If you are referring to the slim percentage of Islamists, although they are increasing as a direct result of Middle Eastern warfare, we still call them "terrorists" and "criminals". They are dealt with accordingly and they are not viewed as "invaders" we wage a "war" on.

And please indulge me on how "the situation" could be "in favour of those who want to destroy Europe". You are comparing large, highly industrialized societies to small terrorist cells here that face alert intelligence agencies.

(But if you deem Nostradamus and the Bible as valid sources of evidence on this, please talk to somebody else.)
December 6th, 2004  
gladius
 
No one really here was using Nostradamus and the Bible as hard evidence, someone was simply making a prophecy, and I countered that these two sources had better track records than he. Didn't you also make a prophecy, which again didn't agree with these two sources with better track records.

These prophecies AREN'T, and I don't think can be used for evidence, they merely confirm what I already see happening for a coming world scenario. I don't need prophecy to tell me this. But if it does, maybe I may be on to something.

As far as any evidence, the growing imigration if left unchecked will have a Europe of the future that CANNOT make any policy agaisnt the Middle East or Muslim country without it costing the politicians dearly back home. Any looming threat would be allowed to grow bigger and bigger until it will cost a bloodbath to stop it. You may call them citizens, but their number one loyalty is not to your country.
--
December 6th, 2004  
egoz
 
The problem with detonating a nuc in a container in a harbor is that the fallout wouldn't get picked up into the atmosphere as much as an aerial detonation would. The experts on TV tend to think of worst case scenerio, which makes sense sometimes. But acquiring a nuclear device large enough to kill 50k people and kill 100k more through fallout isn't as easy as they make it sound.
December 7th, 2004  
Doc.S
 
egoz yes I agree a bomb in the harbour would probably dont effect as much people as If it was a aerial detonation, what I didnt explain enough was that the security people talked about the container loaded unboard a trailer and then transported from harbor to central parts of a city and then detonated. The nuclear elements to construct a bomb of that size that they were talking about could fit into a cocacola cantine so it is not much of those dangerous materials that is needed if they want to make a dirty bomb and kill alot of people I guess? Also I agree that some experts talking about security have in mind that publicity can give them more founding so the work with securing harbours will come quicker if they show the worst case scenario, they simply stear up some public anxiety but still I think even if it is a worst case scenario I would not take any chances, just look back at the 9-11 attack that was a masterpice of combined but still separate attacks that probably went out perfect in the terrorists eyes and among their suporters and other people that really wanted to make their point. I mean I didnt think it was real untill my friend called me up and told me that this was not a new Hollywood movie that afternoon 2001 over here in sweden.

Cheers:
Doc.S
December 7th, 2004  
egoz
 
well if we're looking at dirty bombs then you have to look at the source of the radioactive material. the easiest to acquire and handle would be radioactive material from medical equipment. this is the most likely candidate for material in a dirty bomb. but the amount is so small that infection would be similiar to the amount you would recieve while walking around on a sunny summer day. weapons grade radioactive material would be another story. but being able to transport that type of material is difficult and dangerous. not only that it's hard to acquire. but if you were to get that and put together an explosive then it could be deadly.
something else that could happen is just leaving a piece of radioactive material in a subway with no bomb and just letting it sit there. enough people would passby it and get poisoned for months and no one would know the better. the problem with that is you can effect thousands of people, but by the time they notice the effects, which could be 20 years down the line, no one could trace it back to a terrorist attack. therefor the attack would have been ineffective.

the harbor security problem is a LONG ways away from being fixed. at the moment we're relying more on tips from the longshoreman then from actual searches. people don't realize that there are hundreds of ports across the country and thousands of containers at each port. usually there is a relatively small team of customs agents searching too. so it's damn near impossible to effectively search all containers.
December 9th, 2004  
NgoDinhdiem
 
if a nuke ever hits acity in the state i think i would feels sorry for any1 with a terriost connections.. you know americans would go crazy and be very patriotic they will wave the saber, and any country that piises the USA off will get a royal beating,
December 9th, 2004  
jz
 
But why 9-11 didnt happen in China,France,India...
December 9th, 2004  
Kane
 
It all started from the U.S's role in the Hostage Crisis in Iran + U.S. support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
December 9th, 2004  
egoz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz
But why 9-11 didnt happen in China,France,India...
because they aren't super powers and don't have the influence on the international community that the US does. but that can be a completely different topic (new thread).