Posted on 07/19/2004 7:30:11 PM PDT by thinkahead
As it stands the U.S. would have to undergo an internal revolution before Washington could enact the policies most needed to defend against the suitcase nuclear threat. Simply put, the country is not ready to accept such measures. The country is not convinced that such measures are absolutely necessary. Therefore, the government cannot accept the reality of suitcase nuclear bombs sitting on U.S. soil! To admit of such a thing would be tantamount to admitting that our form of government must come to an end.
The basis of our nuclear defense for half a century has been “deterrence.” Unless you can pinpoint your enemy, unless you can locate him on a map, you cannot send a missile against him. You cannot retaliate. In the case of terrorists hiding in remote mountain caves, there may be no deterrence even if you threaten to locate them and nuke their cave. Since they do not care about their own lives, since they are determined to die for their cause, deterrence is ineffective.
YOU SAY YOU WANT A REVOLUTION??......
backpack/briefcase nukes aren't a credible threat.
---------------
I'll bring the beer and hot-dogs (pork-based of course).
yes
Maybe they are an incredible threat?
Given the Chechen realities, if they had even one such device, they would have used it themselves in Moscow instead of staging movie theater hostage attacks. Therefore to believe that they had these devices and sold them instead of using them, strains one's imagination.
LOL...single worded answer BUMP!
ping to various persons for various reasons
how 'bout: "not a threat, period, to those of us who live in the real world."
the threat of the threat, though, is showing to have some legs as a panicking agent.
And if they did, exactly what are we suppose to do? Don't tell me duct tape and plastic, again.
Not just the US but the whole western world altho' we're at the top of the list. Europe would be an easier target overall.
Don't suitcase nukes require periodic maintenance ? Seem to remember reading that they did.
Please humor me.
Why aren't they?
I have heard several times that the suitcase nukes have some kind of neutron emitting fuse material, and that the lifespan of a fuse is only six months or so. Still, whether it could go critical to it's full rated power, it would still make a hell of a mess, dirty-bomb-type wise.
BUT - if they strike, it will be the only time that they strike.
They will all die.
By my own hand, if need be.
Just watched my new DVD, The Atomic Bomb Movie: Trinity and Beyond...very cool on DVD with my Subwoofer clipping! Anyway, Trinity was a 21 kiloton blast. Hiroshima was a 24 kiloton blast. The "alleged non-existant" suitcase size nukes are 11 kiloton. At half the punch, they are still nasty little kritters, IMHO....
I believe the article by Nyquist simply poses such a possibility. Like many of you, I certainly hope the entire scenario is Bravo Sierra!!
Think-A-Head
Look at the bright side... If the threat is a massive nuclear attack on dense urban populations this fall, could it server to depress turnout in heavy democrat precincts? ;-)
Not advocating nuclear terrorism, but the RUMOUR of such could be good for our side? *WINK* *WINK*
duck and cover comes to my mind for some reason
It has something to do with tritium trigger mechanisms or something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.