Place your bets, 51-to-49 odds in favor of Nuke attack on US soil

[wacki]

Can you believe this?
---------------------
"With a 10-ton nuclear weapon stolen from the former Soviet arsenal and delivered to an American city in a cargo container, al Qaeda could make 9/11 a footnote," said Allison, founding dean of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and a former assistant secretary of defense for policy and plans."

"A nuclear terrorist attack is more likely than not within the next decade," he told The Chronicle. To dramatize the point, he's accepting bets, at 51-to-49 odds, on such an event."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/21/INGOV89K4J90.DTL

[A_C_Slater]

A better bet would then be what city would they target? I would have to pick Detroit unfortunately, since it's an industrial powerhouse. Oh well. I'm dead.

[wacki]

A 10 ton or even 10 kilo ton would be much better suited for manhatten. Detroit would require a 1 megaton.

Still, I can't believe he accepting bets, and at those odds!

[Sponger15SB]

Those odds do not shock me in the least. I think its only a matter of time.

I think San Diego could be a nice target if they want to seriously f up our military, lets just hope I'm in school at the time.

[A_C_Slater]

Why did we have to go around being such infidels? Now we're gonna get it, finally our comuptence.

[sam h]

Ever since I heard about Allison's prediction and others from different defense policy people, I've been having a serious debate with myself. I love New York. I really want to move back there at some point (although I wonn't be able to for the next 4-5 years anyway).

But can living in New York in the next ten or fifteen years possibly be a smart move?

I'm serious about this. I just don't know.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
But can living in New York in the next ten or fifteen years possibly be a smart move?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would strongly lean towards no. I'm not sure it would stop me though.

[Edge34]

Doesn't this belong in the politics forum? Who let you out, wacki?

BTW, I'd bet against...if it was going to happen, you'd think it would have happened by now.

[wacki]

It's a fine line, no politics are being discussed yet though. So I think it's safe to put in it OOT.

Correction, AC Slater brought up a little politics.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
I would strongly lean towards no. I'm not sure it would stop me though.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's basically where I stand too.

Just to pull some figures ous my ass: Let's be conservative and say its actually a 25% chance of attack in the next ten years. And maybe its a 1/3 shot that they decide to hit New York. That's still a 1/12 chance. Granted you might not get killed if you're out of town or its a small bomb or whatever. But I still don't like those odds.

[Michael Davis]

What do people think of this bet? I am thinking of e-mailing this guy and asking him if he will take a 10K bet, but obviously he knows a lot more than I do about this subject and if he thinks it's an even bet, that's a problem.

-Michael

[wacki]

What would you bet 10K on, that we don't get nuked?

[hoyaboy1]

If "dirty" bombs (which aren't real nukes) don't count, I would take this bet for sure. I think the chances are MUCH less than 50% (and I have read Allison's book).

[sfer]

Well, now there's clearly no good reason to stop smoking.

[John Ho]

I guess if you project all the way out until the end of mankind the chances of this happening are close to 100%. But I wouldn't expect it to happen anytime soon. Everyone is so freaked out these days.

I'm sorry but the fact that one group of terrorists brought down the world trade center does not mean the world is going to hell in a handbasket. More people die of car accidents than in buildings hit by terrorists or by nukes but I don't shake in my boots when entering my car.

[wacki]

I agree. If you read the article, or even my quoted text, the odds are for the next 10 years, not eternity.

[nothumb]

Ever since 9/11 I have tried not to go to NYC if I can avoid it. I have a lot of friends there, and my girlfriend's folks live right over in Teaneck across the GW Bridge. I have never liked big cities and this makes me like them even less.

Let's see, why not go live in a city where everything costs a zillion dollars, I get a tiny apartment for my thousand bucks a month, I am exposed to exponentially more germs, bacteria and cancer causing toxins, people are rude and always in a hurry, and where I might get blown to pieces by some goat herder strapped to a Soviet missile. Or, there's the off chance they'll just come in to the city and snipe us off or take us hostage (if the crack dealers and muggers don't get me first).

Sounds great!

NT

[nothumb]

BTW, what does a ten megaton bomb do? What would be the radius of fallout and whatnot?

NT

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, what does a ten megaton bomb do? What would be the radius of fallout and whatnot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Go here and type in your zip code to see what a puny 10 kiloton nuke can do.

http://www.nuclearterror.org/blastmaps.html

Go to this site and see what some of the bigger bombs can do:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/blastmap.html

The russians have 100 megaton bombs.

" In districts hundreds of kilometers from ground zero, wooden houses were destroyed, and stone ones lost their roofs, windows and doors; and radio communications were interrupted for almost one hour. The atmospheric disturbance generated by the explosion orbited the earth three times. A gigantic mushroom cloud rose as high as 64 kilometers (210,000 ft)."

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

By the way, current 100 megaton bombs can easily fit in the trunk of a Volkswagon.

Nukes are scarrrryyyy!!!

[nothumb]

Yeesh, I'm sorry for asking. I don't think I even want to go to those sites. I'll just cross my fingers.

NT

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]

Go here and type in your zip code to see what a puny 10 kiloton nuke can do.

http://www.nuclearterror.org/blastmaps.html


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah the 92130 area code is gigantic yet for some reason my moms house is in the red zone.

Creepy.

[Michael Davis]

Yes I want to bet 10K against a nuclear attack in the next ten years.

That this kind of thing is inevitable is obvious. Just another reason that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is horrible. Russia coming out with a new bomb sickens me, although the "progress" can't come to an end now. But really the destruction of mankind was in the seed.

All of the admittedly compelling reasons for nuclear energy go out the window because of this type of thing.

Sorry if I made this political.

-Michael

[hoyaboy1]

I do not believe that the Russians currently have anything near 100 megatons.

[Richard Tanner]

Sad truth is that we can't be protected, and if someone wants to hit us they will. So jsut go out and take all those negitive EV bets now 'cause there isn't going to be any long run.

Cody

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

Ive got 10k on no nukings.

[Senor Choppy]

NYC is the obvious target for terrorists. They aren't out to cripple our military since most of it is worthless against them anyway, so other targets are pretty much out of the question.

It's really hard to imagine getting through the next 10 years without a nuke getting in the hands of someone prepared to use it.

[Alobar]

see if he will take the 10K bet, I think if he says he will, then it's really scary.

[Topflight]

What do people speculate will be the result of a nuke going off. It seems like one going off would be the first link in a chain of nuclear events.

Are you guys trying to make me lose sleep at night?

[Alobar]

I dont see it starting a chain of nuclear strikes. We certainly wouldn't retaliate with nuclear force against a terrorist attack.

[mackthefork]

If you got evens on that bet, it would be the best bet you ever placed.

[ QUOTE ]
Ive got 10k on no nukings.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real odds are probably 100/1 or more.

Regards Mack

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, current 100 megaton bombs can easily fit in the trunk of a Volkswagen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great links and an important thread but from what I know of our own Mike test (the first H-bomb needed a small building to contain the device) and what I just read of the Tsar bomb it would take at least a Volkswagen bus with extra heavy duty suspension.

Anyway, to the best of my knowledge neither side made deliverable weapons with a greater yeild than one megaton (obviously, that's big enough).

BTW, I remember doing a poll on 2+2 on this very subject about a year ago (I think I made it yes or no before the end of the decade not counting dirty bombs). Can't find it but the forum's archives continue to confound me.

~ Rick

[Matt Flynn]

this is all foolishness. truth is Al Queda and other terrorist organizations are poorly led, lack superior creativity and lack serious cash and contacts. otherwise it would already have been done - and much more. they were fools to used planes to hit the towers. that degree of coordination and funding could've been used to scare millions, incovenience tens of millions much more than asinine security checks at airports, and kill hundreds of thousands. and that's without nerve gas or radiation or biologics.

i try not to talk about this because my "what i would do if i were a terrorist" speech tends to get people pale and is gonna get me arrested. e.g., one man with a pickup and $500 to spend at Radio Shack could take down either seaboard's power grid acting alone, all in a weekend, and without specialized knowledge.

for max terror people saying you can't kill a big city with a little nuke are missing the point. it's irrelevant. just the fact of a nuke is all that's needed. i would never nuke new york first. the goal of terrorism is to induce terror. so i would hit another city, not new york or washington d.c. miami is an obvious choice. another one would be a port city in texas. those people think of themselves as not vulnerable. hit them and everyone near the ocean gets seriously scared. but miami would be spectacular.

it's hard for "normal" people to fathom what anyone with a little genetic knowledge and a few scientific catalogs could do. and you don't need smallpox to make a tough bioweapon. the equipment and supplies are mostly available off the shelf. heck even a modified flu virus would be disruptive and focally fatal.

moreover, there are ways to poison the water supply that would be cheap and devastating. we could defend/detect much better, but bush is so unfathomably stupid / working to get his friends paid off instead of keeping us safe that he won't have taken those steps. e.g., he's spending billions on missile defense when he hasn't bought up the loose nukes yet! it's insane. long-range rockets are much harder to get than nukes - why would anyone launch one when then can hijack a tanker at sea. plus the launching city gets nuked anyway, and it's not like you can sneak an icbm into paris. utter silliness - just screwing the taxpayers to help his buddies.

knocking out the power grid is trivial.

if you actually get shoudler fired rockets you could simultaneous strike several nuke plants near populated areas and very likely escape. same vs. commercial aircraft.

but those are obvious. add a little creativity and knowledge and you get a much darker picture.

matt

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, current 100 megaton bombs can easily fit in the trunk of a Volkswagen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great links and an important thread but from what I know of our own Mike test (the first H-bomb needed a small building to contain the device) and what I just read of the Tsar bomb it would take at least a Volkswagen bus with extra heavy duty suspension.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bomb in that link was made to be extremely clean. Plus that bomb was made from 1960's technology. Part of the reason the bomb was so large is because they had to create a large amount of compression to start fusion with as little fallout as possible. The bomb had to be clean or the fallou t would affect most of the planet. Current technology can make much smaller warheads and still be clean. Or you can use old technology and make a very dirty bomb in a very small amount of space. You are right about the extra heavy suspension though. Those things are heavy!


[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, to the best of my knowledge neither side made deliverable weapons with a greater yeild than one megaton (obviously, that's big enough).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, the russian SS-9 Scarp uses 25 megaton warheads and is MIRV capable (meaning 3 small cones that are nuclear warheads and all go to different locations). There are also plenty of other >1 megaton bombs.

Interesting fact, there is a backpack nuke called the Mk-54 SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition) with a weight of only 51 lb (23 kg) and a 1 kiloton yield.

If I were to guess which one would get used on us, I would say one of the mirv (small cone) warheads that aren't properly secured in Russia would be used. The small cone could fit in a trunk. The good news is, that without proper maintenance, these bombs would either provide minimal yield or be complete duds. Even with only a 10% yield that is still 100 kilotons which is pretty massive. I'm hoping the nuke ends up a dud.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm