Exaagerated Threats

[Dennis Toy]

Does anyone in here think that the Bioterror, Nuclear and Radiological threats have been exaggerated beyond belief. I mean the media just loves to ratchet up the fear of society. They dont tend to tell the truth that these types of terrorism is waayy unlikely and to look out for more conventional terrorism like bombs and guns.. For example...

Nuclear Terrorism: First it is hard and i mean hard to get nuclear materials let alone be able to make a bomb

Radiological Threats: The materials used won't even glow on a radium watch.

Bioterror: The most EXAGGERATED threat of all, bioterrorism is unreliable and uneffective.

any comments on this...

[Sea Skimmer]

There is no doubt about it that the threats of all three have been greatly exaggerated and especially in the case of radiological and nuclear arms our defenses greatly understated. However an exaggeration does not mean the threat does not exist or is not serious.

[Vympel]

Chemical weapons too. In terms of how lethal they are, and how extremely dependent on the environment/terrain/weather conditions they're used in, no terrorist would bother using them. Conventional explosives are more effective.

[kojikun]

You can buy radiological substances, theyre very cheap. Americium is in every smoke detector. You can actually turn americium into fuel grade uranium, I believe, using alpha particle guns made from the very same americium. I think. some kid tried to build a nuclear reactor and actually got REALLY far along with it.

[The Yosemite Bear]

The kid was in Utah and is terminal.

He actually got a Refining system working, grabbing all kinds of shit and not using proper procautions.

The DOE had to reclassify a bunch of Documents over it.

[TrailerParkJawa]

The threats are overstated, but I agree with Sea Skimmer, they are real. The problem is the media makes them seem far more dangerous than they really are. Look at the damage the aircraft did on 9/11, a dirty bomb would not do anythign near that much. But its potential terror is worth a lot. ie) Everyone freaking out and being scared of radiation.

[Sea Skimmer]

Chemical weapons too. In terms of how lethal they are, and how extremely dependent on the environment/terrain/weather conditions they're used in, no terrorist would bother using them. Conventional explosives are more effective.

That's a stupid statement since there have already been chemical attacks by terrorist groups.

[Vympel]

That's a stupid statement since there have already been chemical attacks by terrorist groups.

And they *sucked*. Tally up the damage done by aforementioned chemicals vs conventional explosives, factor in how little chemical weapons are used= voila.

[Sea Skimmer]

And they *sucked*. Tally up the damage done by aforementioned chemicals vs conventional explosives, factor in how little chemical weapons are used= voila.

Lets see a small canister in a paper bag which might have held two pounds of explosives killed eleven people and injured 5000 and that was with poorly refined Sarin with a fraction of the lethality of the real thing. The reason chemical weapons are little used by terrorists is because they require significantly more infrastructure not because there less effective at killing.

[Vympel]

Lets see a small canister in a paper bag which might have held two pounds of explosives killed eleven people and injured 5000

That sucks. Injured 11 people? Yawn. If it had been a guy with explosive strapped to him, he could've gotten a much higher death-count. Who cares about injured? Certainly not terrorists- it's deaths that get people going. And this is in practically optimum conditions we're talking about (confined crowded rail system)

and that was with poorly refined Sarin with a fraction of the lethality of the real thing. The reason chemical weapons are little used by terrorists is because they require significantly more infrastructure not because there less effective at killing.

They are less effective than killing than explosives. They're too finnicky, costly to get your hands on, and environment dependent.

[Sea Skimmer]

That sucks. Injured 11 people? Yawn. If it had been a guy with explosive strapped to him, he could've gotten a much higher death-count. Who cares about injured? Certainly not terrorists- it's deaths that get people going. And this is in practically optimum conditions we're talking about (confined crowded rail system)

The attack wasn't suicide, and injured certainly do matter when scores of them are comatose for the first of there lives. The gas killed basically everyone in the car which was a semi sealed enivoriment, even the most potent bomb will kill few if you dont place it correctly.

They are less effective than killing than explosives. They're too finnicky, costly to get your hands on, and environment dependent.

And recruiting suicide bombers outside of the islamic world is a real bitch.

[Vympel]

And recruiting suicide bombers outside of the islamic world is a real bitch.

They don't have to know it's suicide

[Guest]

Interesting fact is that Russia has several hundred decaying nuclear submarines that have no purpose but to sit there and rot. Interesting tidbit as well, when I asked the federal 26 ny plaza director whether they were prepared against a nuclear attack he said “Well erm you know if it hits it won't really matter". When you start to think about all of the other chemical and biological cold war left over in Russia it's only a matter of time before something gets stolen. Radiation is a far more lethal threat then the actual nuclear blast in the long run so don’t disqualify dirty nuclear bombs either. Better safe then sorry. We definitely are no safe so better to be aware.

[Sea Skimmer]

Interesting fact is that Russia has several hundred decaying nuclear submarines that have no purpose but to sit there and rot.

If the terrorists have the capability to cut open a nuclear sub and extract the fuel rods we've got bigger problems, like the fact that there actually a nation state. Course that problem can be removed quite easily.

Interesting tidbit as well, when I asked the federal 26 ny plaza director whether they were prepared against a nuclear attack he said “Well erm you know if it hits it won't really matter". When you start to think about all of the other chemical and biological cold war left over in Russia it's only a matter of time before something gets stolen.

Things already have been stolen and the Chechens actually planted a radiological bomb in Moscow, but then notified a local TV station of its location. However it wouldn't have done much, any radioactive material that's potent enough to kill anyone will also kill off the terrorist while there handling it.

Radiation is a far more lethal threat then the actual nuclear blast in the long run so don’t disqualify dirty nuclear bombs either. Better safe then sorry. We definitely are no safe so better to be aware.

Actually you've got it the wrong way around. The people who get major radiation dosages from a nuclear blast also get horrible burns and suffer from vaporization both of which will kill them first.

[Guest]

Actually you've got it the wrong way around. The people who get major radiation dosages from a nuclear blast also get horrible burns and suffer from vaporization both of which will kill them first.

Well in Japan plently more people died long after the bomb, the radioactive presence is the largest threat of such a weapon. It it wasn't we could all just stay in bomb shelters and then come back out again.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well in Japan plently more people died long after the bomb, the radioactive presence is the largest threat of such a weapon.

Many did die, but nowhere near as many as where killed by the initial burst and radioactivity is not the largest threat from anything but an extremely low yield device, a Neutron bomb. Those are very rare and are only useful for tactical strikes, not city busting.

[quoe]
It it wasn't we could all just stay in bomb shelters and then come back out again.[/quote]

Actually we could. Notice how Hiroshima and Nagasaki where rapidly rebuilt and remained quite habitable.

[Guest]

Now mutiply hiroshima by 50 times and mutlipy that by some hundred plus warheads. Coming out of that in a nuclear war? Even one 50x hiroshima plus?

[phongn]

In that war scenario the primary radiation danger is not from residual radiation from citybusting airbursts but rather fallout from groundbursts (against hardened facilities, railway yards, missile silos and airfields, for example).

However, you appeared to specifically refer to the prompt radiation from a nuclear airburst - and that is not incredibly dangerous in the long term. Highly radioactive substances will naturally have a short half-life and go away fairly soon.

[Guest]

Actually it is, most plant life will die within a month of a full out nuclear war. The fallout merely prevents growth for 75-100 years.

[Sea Skimmer]

Now mutiply hiroshima by 50 times and mutlipy that by some hundred plus warheads. Coming out of that in a nuclear war? Even one 50x hiroshima plus?

You have no concept of the capability of nuclear arms do you? Even after an all out attack by the Soviet Union with many thousand warheads the vast majority of the US population would remain alive and would not be killed by lingering radioactive effects. Outbreaks of disease because of the collapse of the sanitation system would be a far greater concern.

To give you a smaller example, a 5-megaton airburst (mind you 5 megatons is very large, most devices are in the hundreds of kilotons) over the city of London would only kill 20% of the population and destroy 15% of the city.

That's with about 330 times the energy release of Hiroshima BTW

[Crown]

I wouldn't say bio-weapons are exaggerated. Small pox for example, I read somewhere that if the virus were to be released in say NY city, and 100 people were infected, you would need to surround them with 100,000 vaccinated people to stop the virus.

Anyone have any idea how many vaccines the CDC has on hand?

Having said that however, I seriously doubt that any terrorist organisation (using the term loosely) has small pox in a test tube.

[Joe]

Actually it is, most plant life will die within a month of a full out nuclear war. The fallout merely prevents growth for 75-100 years.

Wrong, dumbass! Nuclear winter is a myth. I challenge you to produce figures to prove that it isn't.

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually it is, most plant life will die within a month of a full out nuclear war. The fallout merely prevents growth for 75-100 years.

Except for the minor problem that a nuclear winter is physically impossible and the idea was created by a group of discredited idiots.

[Guest]

The best defense is an offense. Keep yelling wise guy. Let me guess another nuclear Physicist?

[Crown]

The best defense is an offense. Keep yelling wise guy. Let me guess another nuclear Physicist?

Best not to get on the wrong side of The Great Leader ass-hat. Especially when you have yet to present any evidence to support your case.

Interesting.