Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
What are the chances of a US city being nuked?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Norseman" data-source="post: 18432439" data-attributes="member: 34010"><p>If you were smart, and wanted to cause serious damage or casualties, nukes would be one of the worst ideas. And seeing as you need to be fairly smart to begin with to construct or operate a nuke, that probably means there won't be any terrorists nuking anything. They'd be more likely to poison the water supply, blow up a chlorine plant, or kill some people in the presence of the media (the effects of terrorism are much more damaging than the acts which caused terror). Simple things. Neither expensive nor difficult and only minimally risky. A nuke either must be stolen (risky and difficult) bought (expensive) or built (very difficult). It must be transported to where it will be detonated which is both risky and difficult, as the US government has placed geiger counters on many freeways, so transport could only be done on less common roads, and even then there is no guarantee the vehicle won't be detected. Going across states would also be rather difficult, but I suppose not impossible. Or, with almost no effort, they could plant a truck bomb at a chlorine gas plant, and the resulting gas could kill an entire city if the wind is blowing that way. Same damage, but with way less effort, risk, and financing. Incidently, that's why I think we should have greater security measures around potentially dangerous facilities.</p><p></p><p>In any case, it's highly unlikely that terrorists, or nutcases, or hate groups (?) would nuke us. But what about Russia, Iran, China, or North Korea? Well, that's where MAD comes in. No foreign ruler would send a nuke our way unless he wanted to die along with his entire family, all his friends, and pretty much everyone he's ever known when we retalliate. Again, it's not very likely. Indeed, a foriegn ruler could probably cause more harm more safely by just supporting groups that are already fighting us, such as Al Qaeda. They wouldn't get nuked, but they could still be indirectly killing us and blaming it on them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Norseman, post: 18432439, member: 34010"] If you were smart, and wanted to cause serious damage or casualties, nukes would be one of the worst ideas. And seeing as you need to be fairly smart to begin with to construct or operate a nuke, that probably means there won't be any terrorists nuking anything. They'd be more likely to poison the water supply, blow up a chlorine plant, or kill some people in the presence of the media (the effects of terrorism are much more damaging than the acts which caused terror). Simple things. Neither expensive nor difficult and only minimally risky. A nuke either must be stolen (risky and difficult) bought (expensive) or built (very difficult). It must be transported to where it will be detonated which is both risky and difficult, as the US government has placed geiger counters on many freeways, so transport could only be done on less common roads, and even then there is no guarantee the vehicle won't be detected. Going across states would also be rather difficult, but I suppose not impossible. Or, with almost no effort, they could plant a truck bomb at a chlorine gas plant, and the resulting gas could kill an entire city if the wind is blowing that way. Same damage, but with way less effort, risk, and financing. Incidently, that's why I think we should have greater security measures around potentially dangerous facilities. In any case, it's highly unlikely that terrorists, or nutcases, or hate groups (?) would nuke us. But what about Russia, Iran, China, or North Korea? Well, that's where MAD comes in. No foreign ruler would send a nuke our way unless he wanted to die along with his entire family, all his friends, and pretty much everyone he's ever known when we retalliate. Again, it's not very likely. Indeed, a foriegn ruler could probably cause more harm more safely by just supporting groups that are already fighting us, such as Al Qaeda. They wouldn't get nuked, but they could still be indirectly killing us and blaming it on them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
What are the chances of a US city being nuked?
Top
Bottom