Russian National Security Advisor Alexander Lebed - 60 Minutes,
I'm saying that more than a hundred weapons out of the supposed number of 250 are not under the control of the armed forces of Russia. I don't know their location. I don't know whether they have been destroyed or whether they are stored or whether they've been sold or stolen, I don't know.

It's not the Tsar bomb we need to worry about, it's these nasty little sods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb

I'm not discounting Weaver's or Tortured_Genius's points at all, in fact they make a lot of sense. It doesn't change the fact that I am astounded that it is hypothetically possible to be sitting in Hyde Park and survive a Fat Man sized blast centred on the Houses of Parliament!

I guess it just shows that the nuclear hysteria I grew up with in the 80's was more based on the idea of MAD than a tactical strike. Not that it will ever be easy, or possibly even possible, to find an ethical justification for a tactical strike.

Kingsley wrote:I'm not discounting Weaver's or Tortured_Genius's points at all, in fact they make a lot of sense. It doesn't change the fact that I am astounded that it is hypothetically possible to be sitting in Hyde Park and survive a Fat Man sized blast centred on the Houses of Parliament!

I guess it just shows that the nuclear hysteria I grew up with in the 80's was more based on the idea of MAD than a tactical strike. Not that it will ever be easy, or possibly even possible, to find an ethical justification for a tactical strike.

'Survive' is a relative term. The blast and fireball might not get you, but the chunks of Buck house flying past you, may. Being hit in the face by a burning corgi dog traveling at hundreds of miles an hour would be the topper to a shitty day!

DougC wrote:

Kingsley wrote:I'm not discounting Weaver's or Tortured_Genius's points at all, in fact they make a lot of sense. It doesn't change the fact that I am astounded that it is hypothetically possible to be sitting in Hyde Park and survive a Fat Man sized blast centred on the Houses of Parliament!

I guess it just shows that the nuclear hysteria I grew up with in the 80's was more based on the idea of MAD than a tactical strike. Not that it will ever be easy, or possibly even possible, to find an ethical justification for a tactical strike.

'Survive' is a relative term. The blast and fireball might not get you, but the chunks of Buck house flying past you, may. Being hit in the face by a burning corgi dog traveling at hundreds of miles an hour would be the topper to a shitty day!

Hence I used the term "hypothetically"...

Tortured_Genius wrote:
Final piece of good news. Check out the weapon documentation on wikileaks sometime. The stuff on there (mostly pertaining to the Fat Man bomb) makes it very, very clear that making nukes is the sole preserve of nation states with highly developed engineering facilities.

Do you have link to this? Until quite recently, it's been against laws and regulations for me to go poking around that site ...

No knocking up devices in garages for Al Quaeda (polluting dirty bombs being a different beast entirely).

Dirty bombs are bullshit. Honest reporting by the media would make it quite clear that these shouldn't even be classed as "fear" weapons, but should be put in the same category as ordinary explosives. The health risk from "dirty bombs" is almost entirely from explosive damage, plus a minuscule lifetime chance of increased cancers. If it wasn't for scare-mongering politicians and complicit media searching for exciting stories, we would never hear about this crap at all.

Always thought cities were meant to get hit with large number of smaller bombs. No one would drop a massive bomb on central London it would be 4-8 smaller ones scattered over the entire area.

Through in the case of the UK, a single nuke over finanial district of London would bring entire economy,government and country to starvation. As an country everything is incredible London centered

Reminds me of that early drama-documentary Threads, which depicts an escalating nuclear exchange that ultimately causes uncounted £billions of improvements to the north of england.

Weaver wrote:

Tortured_Genius wrote:
Final piece of good news. Check out the weapon documentation on wikileaks sometime. The stuff on there (mostly pertaining to the Fat Man bomb) makes it very, very clear that making nukes is the sole preserve of nation states with highly developed engineering facilities.

Do you have link to this? Until quite recently, it's been against laws and regulations for me to go poking around that site ...

This leads to the sucker I remembered: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/How_Britain_got_the_bomb

It was declassified in the late 90's, reclassified in 2002, attempted take-down in 2008..... All a bit of a joke really since it's all old known physics. The bit I also remembered:

The real problem about building one of these designs is the rarity (at least outside of NWS nuclear facilities) of plutonium and polonium, as well as the ability to fabricate sophisticated high explosives to exacting specifications. We’re not talking about IEDs here. To build a nuclear weapon requires a state.

No knocking up devices in garages for Al Quaeda (polluting dirty bombs being a different beast entirely).

Dirty bombs are bullshit. Honest reporting by the media would make it quite clear that these shouldn't even be classed as "fear" weapons, but should be put in the same category as ordinary explosives. The health risk from "dirty bombs" is almost entirely from explosive damage, plus a minuscule lifetime chance of increased cancers. If it wasn't for scare-mongering politicians and complicit media searching for exciting stories, we would never hear about this crap at all.

Think we are getting into terminology confusion here based on our own backgrounds. Having been trained in physics "dirty bomb" to me means things like taking nuclear material and using something like an aerial dispersant method (no bang involved, although possibly a loud fizzz - thermite springs to mind) to cause widespread disruption and fear (Note that: "Disruption and fear"). If anything the worst they could be would be an area denial weapon N.B. The biggest effect of such a weapon would be the cost of cleaning up after it, not the number of casualties caused.

I'd guess with a military background you'd be familiar with NBC precautions and the effects of such weapons on prepared troops (i.e. minimal/none). Your average journalist knows sod-all about the science and possible effects of such devices so will invent the most sensational blather that will sell the most newspapers.

Forget nuclear bombs. The real danger is from antimatter bombs!

It was in a Dan Brown book, so it MUST be true!

Weaver wrote:Dirty bombs are bullshit. Honest reporting by the media would make it quite clear that these shouldn't even be classed as "fear" weapons, but should be put in the same category as ordinary explosives. The health risk from "dirty bombs" is almost entirely from explosive damage, plus a minuscule lifetime chance of increased cancers. If it wasn't for scare-mongering politicians and complicit media searching for exciting stories, we would never hear about this crap at all.

It's all about the fear mate.

That's why they call it "terrorism".

But, agreed. The tactical effectiveness of such weapons is not that much more than conventional devices. Which admittedly makes fuck all difference for someone at ground zero.

But "honest reporting by the media"? Seriously?

The media is the whole point of terror attacks. It's like press release, except it goes "Whooomp!" and people die.

If war is the continuation of policy by other means, terrorism is the continuation of PR by psychopathic morons.

An anti matter bomb surely is a type of nuclear bomb, I doubt even annihilation of electrons/positrons would be enough to cause that much damage(its what we use in medical PET scans).

An anti matter bomb would surely be the annihilation of anti matter nuclei. They wouldnt be any more destructive than normal nukes anyway as previously mentioend any weapons bigger that the current ones would just stick most of the their blast straight out into space

Nicko wrote:

Weaver wrote:Dirty bombs are bullshit. Honest reporting by the media would make it quite clear that these shouldn't even be classed as "fear" weapons, but should be put in the same category as ordinary explosives. The health risk from "dirty bombs" is almost entirely from explosive damage, plus a minuscule lifetime chance of increased cancers. If it wasn't for scare-mongering politicians and complicit media searching for exciting stories, we would never hear about this crap at all.

It's all about the fear mate.

That's why they call it "terrorism".

But, agreed. The tactical effectiveness of such weapons is not that much more than conventional devices. Which admittedly makes fuck all difference for someone at ground zero.

But "honest reporting by the media"? Seriously?

The media is the whole point of terror attacks. It's like press release, except it goes "Whooomp!" and people die.

A couple of terrorists with AK47's at a football stadium would kill thousands, fire a few bullets into the crowd and the crush/panic would do the rest

Of course the media is a prime target of terrorist attacks - but an irresponsible media makes the whole situation much, much worse. Our media has been irresponsible to the point of criminal negligence, in my opinion, by not countering every claim of potential "dirty bomb" attacks with analysis showing that there is little to fear at all.

If the media is a business requiring viewers/readers to justify the money made through advertising then fear is a great way of sustaining themselves.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:I think the reason that we are finding the results so disappointing is that we have spent so much of our lives worrying about it but never spent any time putting it in perspective. Monsters are always scarier the less you know about them.

It would only disappoint me if the war-machine had but one bomb, but picture the overlap from a few.. we're fvcked!

Oh no! Even a Davy Crockett launched at Boston City Hall would destroy the nearby Union Oyster House!

Though the City Hall wouldn't be much of a loss. What a fuck-ugly building.

Huh...detonated the 100mt Tsar Bomba on my town, and only destroyed four other small country towns as well (Duaringa, Dingo, Comet, & Blackwater on the map)...people down at the coast in Rockhampton 180km away or the inland city of Emerald 100km away to the east would probably just say "what was that flash in the sky?"...
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?lat=-23.580058772853665&lng=149.06880568695067&zm=9&kt=100000

However, detonate the Little Boy Hiroshima bomb right on my doorstep and the people in the nearest town 20km away wouldn't be worried.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?lat=-23.580058772853665&lng=149.06880568695067&zm=14&kt=16


Depends on the country you're in I suppose and how much population density compared to land area you have...

I think what mainly did the damage in Hiroshima was an example of what happens when you build a lot of your city out of wood and paper...

Wow that is a relief. I live close to London, on a clear day I can see Canary Wharf, so I thought I would be toast if a nuke went off in London. The terrorist explosion (10kt i think) won't even get to East London let alone Essex. I feel much happier now.