Unthinkable? (terrorists nuking cities)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | November 21st, 2004 | Charles Burrress

[maestro]

They would nuke D.C. and 'certain' areas of N.Y. city first,.....then many 'other' (Salt Lake) cities,....all with a view to MAKE San Francisco and Toronto, Canada....their New Capitols...

/sarcasm

[antidisestablishment]

Teh suitcase nukes are not an issue. The smallest nukes are portable, but they require extensive maintenance and materials. Tritium is used for triggering and it has a 12 year half life. Even if terrorists were able to get ahold of a "suitcase" nuke, it wouldn't work.

The dirty bomb scenario is more plausible. It is also possible that a crude little boy could be assembled given relatively few resources. While the yield from such a "crude" device would be inefficient, it would produce a disproportionately dirty fallout.

[ßuddaßudd]

San Francisco bashing is so 90's.
Let me guess, you also want an earthquake to sink the whole state into the ocean and all of America's problems will be solved?

[CaptSkip]

I'd say New York and Washington would be on the top of the list.

Agree, and add Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc.

Houston: Red State. Bush 1 & 2 homes. Petrochemical Center. Way important Ports. Access from Mexico or Gulf.

[EEDUDE]

"I have always been under the impression that so many things must be "just right" for there to be a blast."


Unfortunately, this is not the case.

An implosion type plutonium bomb is very difficult to properly trigger, but this is not the case with an enriched uranium bomb.

It really only takes two subcritical masses of enriched uranium placed at opposite ends of a "gun barrel" type bomb
fired at each other with high explosives.

The timing devices to ensure proper timing of the detonation of the HE are critical, but not nearly so critical as plutonium bombs.

A crude device of this type could produce a nuclear detonation.

[GeronL]

You know that was tongue-in-cheek right??