Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

On Nuclear Terrorism

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2016 9:51:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
When asked to identify what they regard as the most serious threat to national security, U.S. political leaders are in near universal agreement over what issue worries them most: nuclear terrorism. Obama describes it as "the greatest threat to global security." In the 2004 Presidential debates John Kerry called it the "gravest danger," and Bush agreed, adding that we "shouldn't wait for the mushroom cloud before we act." The reason this fear transcends political boundaries so easily is that the evidence, to which political leaders are regularly exposed, clearly and unambiguously shows the threat to be far more realistic than most of the population assumes. In fact, security experts warn that the likelihood of such an attack occurring in the next few decades is in the double-digits, with some amazed that it hasn't happened already. Yet how often do you hear about it in the media? I can't even remember the last time I heard the phrase "nuclear terrorism" used in the media or mentioned in public discussion.

It's not totally clear what's behind the disconnect between public perception of the danger on the one hand, and the concern it evokes among political leaders and security experts on the other. It probably has something to do with the fact that most people aren't aware how easy it is to construct a bomb once the required nuclear material is in hand, and how poorly guarded much of this material is. They think back to the Manhattan Project, and how hard it was for us to build one, and assume terrorists would need to overcome similar hurtles before they could get a bomb. To this extent they are just ignorant. We're long past the point where any physics magic is required to build a nuclear bomb (hydrogen bombs are significantly harder to build, however). With the information now more or less publicly available, building one is little more than an engineering challenge, one so simple that it has been posed to engineering students as part of their final exam in which the majority of students passed I.e. Successfully built nuclear bombs absent the actual nuclear material.

Building a crude nuclear device is as straightforward as slamming one piece of highly enriched uranium against another piece at a certain velocity. This can be done with a standard artillery piece, the kind sold at military auctions (it would first have to be made usable again, but that's not exceedingly difficult). Crude just means it's not up to the safety/reliability standards of states and can't be easily delivered to a target. No one doubts that a "crude" terrorist nuke could kill well over 750 thousand people if set off in Manhattan or London or Tokyo. Manufacturing the highly enriched uranium is very costly and technologically difficult, probably beyond the capacity of any terrorist group. But stealing some is definitely within their reach. It's happened before, and in some cases gone *unnoticed* for many days. Russia doesn't even make the pretense of being able to account for all of its nuclear material from the Cold War days. Since just a little bit of material is needed to build a bomb large enough to wipe out e.g., Midtown Manhattan, nuclear security is only as good as the weakest link, and some of the links are not even close to meeting any reasonable standard of safety. If we consider the potential dangers of terrorists getting their hands on this material, it's not very far from the truth to say "the continuation of the human species is being defended with padlocks". Those who doubt that terrorists would be able to get the material to the United States once they obtain it should spend some time pondering Graham Allison's challenge: could terrorists not just hide the material in one of the thousands of barrels of marijuana that reach our shores undetected every day?

The more pressing danger of a nuclear terrorist attack is the possibility that it would prompt an invasion against the country thought to be responsible -- and in the panic ensuing an attack the list of countries could be ludicrously long -- and escalate tensions to the point of triggering a nuclear war. Those who have studied the Cuban Missile Crisis know how close we've come to utter destruction in the past. Unfortunately, it's not all too clear what can be done to address this problem short of a massive global campaign in which all states cooperate to implement global nuclear safety standards and get serious about enforcing them. But would getting tough on rogue states improve the situation or would it make matters even worse? It's not clear. One thing is clear, however: the world apparently has no interest in tackling the problem or even asking the relevant questions. Whether due to ignorance, denial or sheer stupidity, the world's population has failed to put enough pressure on its leaders to make sincere efforts to meet the threat. Will it really take the destruction of a city to wake them up?
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2016 9:53:38 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
The Tombstone reads:

Here lies Catlow;
Dead of fright,
Scaredy-Catlow
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2016 9:56:54 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/3/2016 9:53:38 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
The Tombstone reads:

Here lies Catlow;
Dead of fright,
Scaredy-Catlow

Your tombstone:

I went to NYU against Dylan's warnings, and died in a nuclear terrorist attack
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2016 9:58:58 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/3/2016 9:56:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/3/2016 9:53:38 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
The Tombstone reads:

Here lies Catlow;
Dead of fright,
Scaredy-Catlow

Your tombstone:

I went to NYU against Dylan's warnings, and died in a nuclear terrorist attack

(
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2016 10:06:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/3/2016 9:51:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
When asked to identify what they regard as the most serious threat to national security, U.S. political leaders are in near universal agreement over what issue worries them most: nuclear terrorism. Obama describes it as "the greatest threat to global security." In the 2004 Presidential debates John Kerry called it the "gravest danger," and Bush agreed, adding that we "shouldn't wait for the mushroom cloud before we act." The reason this fear transcends political boundaries so easily is that the evidence, to which political leaders are regularly exposed, clearly and unambiguously shows the threat to be far more realistic than most of the population assumes. In fact, security experts warn that the likelihood of such an attack occurring in the next few decades is in the double-digits, with some amazed that it hasn't happened already. Yet how often do you hear about it in the media? I can't even remember the last time I heard the phrase "nuclear terrorism" used in the media or mentioned in public discussion.

It's not totally clear what's behind the disconnect between public perception of the danger on the one hand, and the concern it evokes among political leaders and security experts on the other. It probably has something to do with the fact that most people aren't aware how easy it is to construct a bomb once the required nuclear material is in hand, and how poorly guarded much of this material is. They think back to the Manhattan Project, and how hard it was for us to build one, and assume terrorists would need to overcome similar hurtles before they could get a bomb. To this extent they are just ignorant. We're long past the point where any physics magic is required to build a nuclear bomb (hydrogen bombs are significantly harder to build, however). With the information now more or less publicly available, building one is little more than an engineering challenge, one so simple that it has been posed to engineering students as part of their final exam in which the majority of students passed I.e. Successfully built nuclear bombs absent the actual nuclear material.

Building a crude nuclear device is as straightforward as slamming one piece of highly enriched uranium against another piece at a certain velocity. This can be done with a standard artillery piece, the kind sold at military auctions (it would first have to be made usable again, but that's not exceedingly difficult). Crude just means it's not up to the safety/reliability standards of states and can't be easily delivered to a target. No one doubts that a "crude" terrorist nuke could kill well over 750 thousand people if set off in Manhattan or London or Tokyo. Manufacturing the highly enriched uranium is very costly and technologically difficult, probably beyond the capacity of any terrorist group. But stealing some is definitely within their reach. It's happened before, and in some cases gone *unnoticed* for many days. Russia doesn't even make the pretense of being able to account for all of its nuclear material from the Cold War days. Since just a little bit of material is needed to build a bomb large enough to wipe out e.g., Midtown Manhattan, nuclear security is only as good as the weakest link, and some of the links are not even close to meeting any reasonable standard of safety. If we consider the potential dangers of terrorists getting their hands on this material, it's not very far from the truth to say "the continuation of the human species is being defended with padlocks". Those who doubt that terrorists would be able to get the material to the United States once they obtain it should spend some time pondering Graham Allison's challenge: could terrorists not just hide the material in one of the thousands of barrels of marijuana that reach our shores undetected every day?

The more pressing danger of a nuclear terrorist attack is the possibility that it would prompt an invasion against the country thought to be responsible -- and in the panic ensuing an attack the list of countries could be ludicrously long -- and escalate tensions to the point of triggering a nuclear war. Those who have studied the Cuban Missile Crisis know how close we've come to utter destruction in the past. Unfortunately, it's not all too clear what can be done to address this problem short of a massive global campaign in which all states cooperate to implement global nuclear safety standards and get serious about enforcing them. But would getting tough on rogue states improve the situation or would it make matters even worse? It's not clear. One thing is clear, however: the world apparently has no interest in tackling the problem or even asking the relevant questions. Whether due to ignorance, denial or sheer stupidity, the world's population has failed to put enough pressure on its leaders to make sincere efforts to meet the threat. Will it really take the destruction of a city to wake them up?

They already have access to enriched uranium.

http://www.cnsnews.com...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2016 10:27:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/3/2016 9:53:38 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
The Tombstone reads:

Here lies Catlow;
Dead of fright,
Scaredy-Catlow

Headed towards a Hiroshima near you.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2016 10:28:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/3/2016 9:51:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
When asked to identify what they regard as the most serious threat to national security, U.S. political leaders are in near universal agreement over what issue worries them most: nuclear terrorism. Obama describes it as "the greatest threat to global security." In the 2004 Presidential debates John Kerry called it the "gravest danger," and Bush agreed, adding that we "shouldn't wait for the mushroom cloud before we act." The reason this fear transcends political boundaries so easily is that the evidence, to which political leaders are regularly exposed, clearly and unambiguously shows the threat to be far more realistic than most of the population assumes. In fact, security experts warn that the likelihood of such an attack occurring in the next few decades is in the double-digits, with some amazed that it hasn't happened already. Yet how often do you hear about it in the media? I can't even remember the last time I heard the phrase "nuclear terrorism" used in the media or mentioned in public discussion.

It's not totally clear what's behind the disconnect between public perception of the danger on the one hand, and the concern it evokes among political leaders and security experts on the other. It probably has something to do with the fact that most people aren't aware how easy it is to construct a bomb once the required nuclear material is in hand, and how poorly guarded much of this material is. They think back to the Manhattan Project, and how hard it was for us to build one, and assume terrorists would need to overcome similar hurtles before they could get a bomb. To this extent they are just ignorant. We're long past the point where any physics magic is required to build a nuclear bomb (hydrogen bombs are significantly harder to build, however). With the information now more or less publicly available, building one is little more than an engineering challenge, one so simple that it has been posed to engineering students as part of their final exam in which the majority of students passed I.e. Successfully built nuclear bombs absent the actual nuclear material.

Building a crude nuclear device is as straightforward as slamming one piece of highly enriched uranium against another piece at a certain velocity. This can be done with a standard artillery piece, the kind sold at military auctions (it would first have to be made usable again, but that's not exceedingly difficult). Crude just means it's not up to the safety/reliability standards of states and can't be easily delivered to a target. No one doubts that a "crude" terrorist nuke could kill well over 750 thousand people if set off in Manhattan or London or Tokyo. Manufacturing the highly enriched uranium is very costly and technologically difficult, probably beyond the capacity of any terrorist group. But stealing some is definitely within their reach. It's happened before, and in some cases gone *unnoticed* for many days. Russia doesn't even make the pretense of being able to account for all of its nuclear material from the Cold War days. Since just a little bit of material is needed to build a bomb large enough to wipe out e.g., Midtown Manhattan, nuclear security is only as good as the weakest link, and some of the links are not even close to meeting any reasonable standard of safety. If we consider the potential dangers of terrorists getting their hands on this material, it's not very far from the truth to say "the continuation of the human species is being defended with padlocks". Those who doubt that terrorists would be able to get the material to the United States once they obtain it should spend some time pondering Graham Allison's challenge: could terrorists not just hide the material in one of the thousands of barrels of marijuana that reach our shores undetected every day?

The more pressing danger of a nuclear terrorist attack is the possibility that it would prompt an invasion against the country thought to be responsible -- and in the panic ensuing an attack the list of countries could be ludicrously long -- and escalate tensions to the point of triggering a nuclear war. Those who have studied the Cuban Missile Crisis know how close we've come to utter destruction in the past. Unfortunately, it's not all too clear what can be done to address this problem short of a massive global campaign in which all states cooperate to implement global nuclear safety standards and get serious about enforcing them. But would getting tough on rogue states improve the situation or would it make matters even worse? It's not clear. One thing is clear, however: the world apparently has no interest in tackling the problem or even asking the relevant questions. Whether due to ignorance, denial or sheer stupidity, the world's population has failed to put enough pressure on its leaders to make sincere efforts to meet the threat. Will it really take the destruction of a city to wake them up?

The liberals won't hear you cat. They want to intermix with the terrorists singing zippity do da in a cloud of nukes.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2016 11:32:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/3/2016 10:24:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
13 years ago....

Now it's too late and probably inevitable.

Yeah, this is probably my stance as well. It's sort of like worrying about an asteroid. Nukes are also less personally threatening to people living outside of metropolitan areas, while terrorist attacks involving guns or bombs seem more unpredictable in their targets, and therefor have a universal psychological effect.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 12:17:14 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/3/2016 11:32:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/3/2016 10:24:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
13 years ago....

Now it's too late and probably inevitable.

Yeah, this is probably my stance as well. It's sort of like worrying about an asteroid. Nukes are also less personally threatening to people living outside of metropolitan areas, while terrorist attacks involving guns or bombs seem more unpredictable in their targets, and therefor have a universal psychological effect.

I live in a metro area... The the kilo x that idiots could get their heads on, the closest a target that would effect me is Ft Knox and it's close to an hour away. I'm in a good size city (1.5 mil) but what truly would a target be here? Churchill downs. It's good people plan and plot, but unless the utter randomness of life were to catch up, not too concerned.

If I were them, I'd pick a place like Vegas: maximize damage from both tourism and the valley is not very big.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 12:49:00 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/3/2016 11:32:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/3/2016 10:24:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
13 years ago....

Now it's too late and probably inevitable.

Yeah, this is probably my stance as well. It's sort of like worrying about an asteroid. Nukes are also less personally threatening to people living outside of metropolitan areas, while terrorist attacks involving guns or bombs seem more unpredictable in their targets, and therefor have a universal psychological effect.

It's not a law of nature that nuclear security has to be such a joke. There are steps that can be taken to reduce the threat right away. Whether that's politically feasible or not is another story of course. I don't think serious change is coming until after an attack. We might even reach a point where people don't want to live in big cities anymore without the government even needing to evacuate them, in which case the risk would largely disappear.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 12:50:02 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 12:17:14 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/3/2016 11:32:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/3/2016 10:24:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
13 years ago....

Now it's too late and probably inevitable.

Yeah, this is probably my stance as well. It's sort of like worrying about an asteroid. Nukes are also less personally threatening to people living outside of metropolitan areas, while terrorist attacks involving guns or bombs seem more unpredictable in their targets, and therefor have a universal psychological effect.

I live in a metro area... The the kilo x that idiots could get their heads on, the closest a target that would effect me is Ft Knox and it's close to an hour away. I'm in a good size city (1.5 mil) but what truly would a target be here? Churchill downs. It's good people plan and plot, but unless the utter randomness of life were to catch up, not too concerned.

If I were them, I'd pick a place like Vegas: maximize damage from both tourism and the valley is not very big.

You can simulate an attack on your local town with this: http://nuclearsecrecy.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 1:11:02 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 12:49:00 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/3/2016 11:32:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/3/2016 10:24:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
13 years ago....

Now it's too late and probably inevitable.

Yeah, this is probably my stance as well. It's sort of like worrying about an asteroid. Nukes are also less personally threatening to people living outside of metropolitan areas, while terrorist attacks involving guns or bombs seem more unpredictable in their targets, and therefor have a universal psychological effect.

It's not a law of nature that nuclear security has to be such a joke. There are steps that can be taken to reduce the threat right away. Whether that's politically feasible or not is another story of course. I don't think serious change is coming until after an attack. We might even reach a point where people don't want to live in big cities anymore without the government even needing to evacuate them, in which case the risk would largely disappear.

Oh, I'm not saying that it has to be a joke, I'm just saying that there will never be much public will behind it until, as you pointed out, there's an actual attack or a close call.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 1:36:37 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 12:50:02 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/4/2016 12:17:14 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/3/2016 11:32:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/3/2016 10:24:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
13 years ago....

Now it's too late and probably inevitable.

Yeah, this is probably my stance as well. It's sort of like worrying about an asteroid. Nukes are also less personally threatening to people living outside of metropolitan areas, while terrorist attacks involving guns or bombs seem more unpredictable in their targets, and therefor have a universal psychological effect.

I live in a metro area... The the kilo x that idiots could get their heads on, the closest a target that would effect me is Ft Knox and it's close to an hour away. I'm in a good size city (1.5 mil) but what truly would a target be here? Churchill downs. It's good people plan and plot, but unless the utter randomness of life were to catch up, not too concerned.

If I were them, I'd pick a place like Vegas: maximize damage from both tourism and the valley is not very big.

You can simulate an attack on your local town with this: http://nuclearsecrecy.com...

I launched the experimental Tsar bomba on a French Canadian island, and it injured 6 people.

That would probably be the biggest troll of all time: orchestrate an unbelievably catastrophic nuclear detonation on a remote island, with prevailing winds into the arctic.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 1:47:18 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Belgium recently issued iodine tablets to all of their citizens, to protect from nuclear fallout. They fear that ISIS is building a dirty bomb, and as everyone knows ISIS has dozens if not hundreds of operatives within Europe.

Thanks, Merkel!

http://www.nbcnews.com...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 2:42:00 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 1:36:37 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/4/2016 12:50:02 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/4/2016 12:17:14 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/3/2016 11:32:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/3/2016 10:24:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
13 years ago....

Now it's too late and probably inevitable.

Yeah, this is probably my stance as well. It's sort of like worrying about an asteroid. Nukes are also less personally threatening to people living outside of metropolitan areas, while terrorist attacks involving guns or bombs seem more unpredictable in their targets, and therefor have a universal psychological effect.

I live in a metro area... The the kilo x that idiots could get their heads on, the closest a target that would effect me is Ft Knox and it's close to an hour away. I'm in a good size city (1.5 mil) but what truly would a target be here? Churchill downs. It's good people plan and plot, but unless the utter randomness of life were to catch up, not too concerned.

If I were them, I'd pick a place like Vegas: maximize damage from both tourism and the valley is not very big.

You can simulate an attack on your local town with this: http://nuclearsecrecy.com...

I launched the experimental Tsar bomba on a French Canadian island, and it injured 6 people.

That would probably be the biggest troll of all time: orchestrate an unbelievably catastrophic nuclear detonation on a remote island, with prevailing winds into the arctic.

Maybe launch this on the south pole?

https://en.wikipedia.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 7:46:15 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 1:36:37 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/4/2016 12:50:02 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/4/2016 12:17:14 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 9/3/2016 11:32:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/3/2016 10:24:36 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
13 years ago....

Now it's too late and probably inevitable.

Yeah, this is probably my stance as well. It's sort of like worrying about an asteroid. Nukes are also less personally threatening to people living outside of metropolitan areas, while terrorist attacks involving guns or bombs seem more unpredictable in their targets, and therefor have a universal psychological effect.

I live in a metro area... The the kilo x that idiots could get their heads on, the closest a target that would effect me is Ft Knox and it's close to an hour away. I'm in a good size city (1.5 mil) but what truly would a target be here? Churchill downs. It's good people plan and plot, but unless the utter randomness of life were to catch up, not too concerned.

If I were them, I'd pick a place like Vegas: maximize damage from both tourism and the valley is not very big.

You can simulate an attack on your local town with this: http://nuclearsecrecy.com...

I launched the experimental Tsar bomba on a French Canadian island, and it injured 6 people.

That would probably be the biggest troll of all time: orchestrate an unbelievably catastrophic nuclear detonation on a remote island, with prevailing winds into the arctic.

lolol I found someone in the Sahara Desert all by themselves and bombed them like 100 times trying to triangulate their exact location.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 8:04:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/3/2016 9:58:58 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/3/2016 9:56:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/3/2016 9:53:38 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
The Tombstone reads:

Here lies Catlow;
Dead of fright,
Scaredy-Catlow

Your tombstone:

I went to NYU against Dylan's warnings, and died in a nuclear terrorist attack

(

It's okay. Doomed York City will be the last to go, I'm sure :)
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 8:04:55 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 8:04:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/3/2016 9:58:58 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/3/2016 9:56:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/3/2016 9:53:38 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
The Tombstone reads:

Here lies Catlow;
Dead of fright,
Scaredy-Catlow

Your tombstone:

I went to NYU against Dylan's warnings, and died in a nuclear terrorist attack

(

It's okay. Doomed York City will be the last to go, I'm sure :)

):)
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 8:08:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 8:04:55 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/4/2016 8:04:05 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/3/2016 9:58:58 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 9/3/2016 9:56:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/3/2016 9:53:38 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
The Tombstone reads:

Here lies Catlow;
Dead of fright,
Scaredy-Catlow

Your tombstone:

I went to NYU against Dylan's warnings, and died in a nuclear terrorist attack

(

It's okay. Doomed York City will be the last to go, I'm sure :)

):)

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

The skyline is even prettier when set ablaze IMO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 8:10:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 1:47:18 AM, thett3 wrote:
Belgium recently issued iodine tablets to all of their citizens, to protect from nuclear fallout. They fear that ISIS is building a dirty bomb, and as everyone knows ISIS has dozens if not hundreds of operatives within Europe.

Thanks, Merkel!

http://www.nbcnews.com...

If building a nuclear bomb is easy, building a dirty bomb is as hard as throwing a cat out your window and hoping it lands somewhere on the ground.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 9:02:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/3/2016 9:51:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Have you watched/read The Sum of All Fears?
"You're more of a fluentic fail doer who sometimes does a doo dah with a diggity ding, managing to push open doors that weren't meant to be opened, only to find that there's no floor, so you instead become spiderman and crawl on the walls." -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 9:17:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 9:02:11 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/3/2016 9:51:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Have you watched/read The Sum of All Fears?

Yes. I don't remember liking it very much. There's another movie about nuclear terrorism I did like called "unthinkable" or something like that.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2016 9:23:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 9/4/2016 9:17:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/4/2016 9:02:11 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 9/3/2016 9:51:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

Have you watched/read The Sum of All Fears?

Yes. I don't remember liking it very much. There's another movie about nuclear terrorism I did like called "unthinkable" or something like that.

The movie was relatively unrealistic. But the book goes into much more depth, from acquiring the materials to the assembly of the device, and even getting it into America. Another book called "Memorial Day" outlines a similar situation in which this is more than possible.
"You're more of a fluentic fail doer who sometimes does a doo dah with a diggity ding, managing to push open doors that weren't meant to be opened, only to find that there's no floor, so you instead become spiderman and crawl on the walls." -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door