Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No place to run (Scary description of what a nuclear attack on the United States would be like)
WorldNetDaily ^ | 4/29/06 | Robert Pfriender

Posted on 04/29/2006 5:02:09 PM PDT by wagglebee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: Dallas59

Clicky Here to Watch How To Survive an Atom Bomb




What a startling "Adult " film.

I have a collection of Civil Defense pamphlets from the 50s and 60s and they have the same adult to adult, informational writing style.

The same pamphlets from the 80s talk down to the reader, and don't really give any usable information, it is mostly "try not to panic and wait for the govt." repeated in different ways.

That old black and white film at your link is a reminder of when we were a nation of grownups and men, and it has a lot of useful information.


41 posted on 04/29/2006 7:00:55 PM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sig226; wagglebee
Commercial airliners would be the easiest.

Planes take off from all over the world and land here.

It can't be that hard to replace the passengers with a nuke at the start and fly into US airspace as a standard scheduled flight. No suspicion as it is allowed to fly over/into any major city in the country.

Game over.

An oil tanker would make a good transporter as well (other than being sea level at detonation). There's no way to tell what's buried in millions of gallons of crude oil. Inspection would be impossible. There's plenty of major oil ports near large cities.

The bottom line is trying to prevent a nuke from getting into the country by inspections or interceding at the border is basically impossible. It is a waste of resources pursuing an impossible goal.

The only hope is taking them out at the source long before they get here.
42 posted on 04/29/2006 7:16:06 PM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DB
They'd be better off buying a small private jet and just detonate on approach to Reagan national. We wouldn't even know what the hell happened.
43 posted on 04/29/2006 7:36:01 PM PDT by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369

Why so expensive? How about a Cessna 180 or smaller?


44 posted on 04/29/2006 7:43:20 PM PDT by TaMoDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: redpoll
a lot of the high school students I teach - and I don't know if they'll really fight

you can be certain that they will fight.

They will fight you and anyone else that gets in the way of them having what they want and need, following a catastrophy such as this.

Our internal enemies will will be our biggest problem, post nuke attack.

45 posted on 04/29/2006 7:44:16 PM PDT by Bear_Slayer (When liberty is outlawed only outlaws will have liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
The thing the enemy has on their side is that they know that they just have to bide their time and there will be a weak President elected that they can blackmail.

You woud think that this administrations response to Iran at a minimum is to put anybody who prays to Allah on notice that they will be targeted in retaliation for any nuclear strike.

Instead we are being told that Saudi Arabia and Dubai are our allies.

Muslims are treacherous insane maniacs who will use nukes the moment they are able to precisely because they believe that we will not know who to retaliate against.

With this bunch in the White House and anybody else on the horizon that may take its polace the ragheads are probably right in their assumption.

Don't think China and Russia won't threaten to strike us back if we retaliate against the mideast either.

All because our leadership is clueless.

46 posted on 04/29/2006 7:49:37 PM PDT by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: djf

Who would seal the borders after an attack? The powers that be, which would be the powers that are, would argue that they need more people to take are of the people sick with radiation exposure that the Americanos do not want to care for.


47 posted on 04/29/2006 7:58:42 PM PDT by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Something I posted earlier on a Bird Flu thread:

"I had a dream last night that a cat-4 hurricane was hitting Houston and as the eye crossed the city, terrorists decided to explode a dirty bomb in the eye and the hurricane dragged the radiation all across the eastern US. (I don't know what the life or lethality is of a dirty bomb so, another silly dream/idea?) I'm not prepared for a dirty bomb!"

23 posted on 04/29/2006 7:35:59 PM CDT by blam

48 posted on 04/29/2006 8:00:56 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redpoll

They would fight each other for the local spoils - there would be no enemy further away from that, and no planning further than today, and no supplies to ration except for this afternoon.


49 posted on 04/29/2006 8:02:01 PM PDT by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

No one wins in a nuclear war.

Does any would-be enemy foolish enough to attack us really think that they could escape the wrath of our boomers (nuclear subs)?

If we are attacked the attacking country will be utterly destroyed.


50 posted on 04/29/2006 8:04:18 PM PDT by Supernatural (I used to care but things have changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Supernatural

You are 100% correct, the problem is that the Islamofascists WANT to die.


51 posted on 04/29/2006 8:05:27 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Well, then, let us oblige them with a good old-fashioned pre-emptive strike.

Better them than us.


52 posted on 04/29/2006 8:07:15 PM PDT by Supernatural (I used to care but things have changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

He makes a good point, but he sounds awfully self-important.

It's kinda offputting. :P


53 posted on 04/29/2006 8:11:35 PM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RHINO369

Good point.

Just further proving the futility of it all.

The only real chance at success is bringing it to them where they are first.


54 posted on 04/29/2006 8:21:25 PM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Wasn't it Hiram Maxim who thought that the machine gun would end war because using it would be too terrible to contemplate?


55 posted on 04/29/2006 8:29:24 PM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

bump for later


56 posted on 04/29/2006 8:32:35 PM PDT by JDoutrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaMoDee
"Why so expensive? How about a Cessna 180 or smaller?"

A nuclear weapon is very large, and it needs to be something with ability to travel internationally. I'm assuming they'd build the weapon somewhere other than the North America.

Or like someone else said a silkworm missile on a small boat.

If I were magically king of America I'd just start meeting with middle eastern kings and dictators and tell them they are now protectorates of the US. If they say no, I'd just wipe them out with cruise missiles. The oil and the terrorism is a dangerous mix.
57 posted on 04/29/2006 8:35:18 PM PDT by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
In the very little of what remains of Manhattan people are still dying.

Destruction of masonry structures can be expected about 2 miles out from a 100kT ground burst.

Manhattan island is 13.4 miles long and about 2 miles wide, river to river.

Assuming that a container was detonated on the Brooklyn waterfront or at Port Elizabeth, there actually would be quite a bit of Manhattan left.

If a 100 kT device were trucked INTO Manhattan, the destruction would be greater, but it is still a gross exaggeration to refer to "the very little of what remains of Manhattan".

58 posted on 04/29/2006 8:49:39 PM PDT by Jim Noble (And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson; wagglebee

And we all know that anything in a book must by lying propaganda.

Only stuff on the internet is true.

wag - thanks for posting this. When I was a kid I read "Hiroshima" by John Hersey. Everyone should read that book.


59 posted on 04/29/2006 10:04:18 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Tolerating evil IS evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Constantine XIII
>>Wasn't it Hiram Maxim who thought that the machine gun would end war because using it would be too terrible to contemplate?<<

You don't suppose the added disincentive for using nukes comes from the fact that unlike the machine gun the civilian leadership that decides whether to go to war is not safely tucked away out of the line of fire?
60 posted on 04/30/2006 12:53:53 AM PDT by gondramB (He who angers you, in part, controls you. But he may not enjoy what the rest of you does about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson