It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Nuclear Strike on NYC - Scenario

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 09:00 AM

Originally posted by akilles
Hmmm, wouldn't that be IRONY if the city that produced the Manhattan Project were to get a taste of its own medicine?

Why bother calling it anything else?

If you live in New York, move. Its not justifiable to live there any more, its just a big target on a map.

NY is where the Money is. Sorry but it aint that bad here and I ya reakky arent safe anywhere you live.

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 09:54 AM
Why just one city. Not to sound macabre but if this scenario really gets played out I would think much like 9-11 'they' would hit more than 1 location. Maximum chaos is their objective and martial law would ensue. I don't think you have to worry about getting CNN/FOX live feeds, public communications would most likely be limited. The days of sitting on your couch with a bucket of Haagen Das watching the likes of some pinhead like Geraldo spewing the daily scoop would be over.

One comment was that this type of act is inconceivable and by another admission not even plausible. That's just being extremely naive. With the pre-Christmas 2004 elevated security level and department of Energy involved is there really much to guess about here. I pray this never happens but it has been too quiet since 9-11.


posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 10:17 AM
if this happens, the bad guys better start ducking coz america will have to find someone to pick on to sate the public's bloodlust for revenge. Not only that, I fear it will be yet another nail in the coffin for the rise of extreme nationalism and a reduction of civil liberties in the United States.


posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 11:46 AM
SonofSpy, that is the most plausible, if not possible, scenario after a nuke attack on NYC.

However, two key issues you should consider: China would most likely take Taiwan by force because the US military would be concentrating all their efforts on Iran and Syria and it would be too late for the US to intervene and "save" Taiwan from China.

The second key issue: Europeans' change of heart after witnessing the aftermath of NYC's nuke explosion. In their minds, it could happen to them in the future. Europeans would be more likely to get on the Americans' side in spite of transAtlantic differences and support any American retaliation regardless of sensitive concerns they may have with the consequences.

One more thing: the UN building located in NYC, its destruction and the losses of people from all over the world representing and working for their countries' interests, the important symbolic representation of world peace among nations destroyed in a flash of a terrorist nuke attack, that would resonate with the rest of the world, so deeply felt other peoples in other countries would demand justice at all costs for the attack. It would certainly mean that some countries would turn against countries that gave silent tacit approval or celebration of the nuke attack on the US soil.

Good post, SonofSpy.

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 12:32 PM
Strange.. Reading this reminded me of the first post I had made here at ATS over a year ago.. I also posted it on another site discussion dealing with the subject of dreams and premonitions.

I had this very unusual series of nightmares and the theme was consistant and each time seemed to have more detail.. At that time I kept a sort of dream journal and would write down some of the things I could remember and that made sense.. Sometimes I would get names and see things to clearly that I would wake up very shaken... I ended up believing that it was all a result of being absorbed in world events and the news at the time... It is amazing what the sleeping mind can come up with.. When I read the original post in this thread it was in a way a chilling reminder of those nightmares I had over a year ago..

The post can be seen here...

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 01:06 PM
I joined the RCAF when I was 17 and seen all the movies and text available then and it was the same so this is real old news.

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 01:08 PM
Guess I'm getting old,I joined the RCAF when I was 17 in 1966.

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 02:24 PM

Originally posted by colsislander
Guess I'm getting old,I joined the RCAF when I was 17 in 1966.

Some of us were but a mere glimmer in our parents eyes in '66. We didn't grow up in the age of "Duck & Cover". We haven't had all the nightmare scenarios drilled into our heads, and a fresh reminder of the devasation may be just what it takes to prevent it.

Your post detonation scenarios are quite plausable.

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 03:46 PM
This page may be useful in understanding what a 'gun-type' nuke is.

I tend to broadly agree with SonofSpy on the outcomes to this.

I could quite imagine that a number of countires would suddenly come to the conclusion that being a bit more, shall we say, forthcoming, towards the 'west' would probably be a rather good idea.

Sure, you'll still get some people standing on their back legs and burning flags, but at a diplomatic level I'd expect to see a lot of pretty quick movement towards the US. I'd also be expecting to find that serveral key 'terrorist' figures turn up dead within a short space of time.

The scenario involving Russia is interesting.

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 04:49 PM
Al Qaeda has a very very long view of history and are incredibly patient. The twin towers bombing of 91 was seen as a failure by Al Qaeda. When they want a target destroyed they obviously will wait and bide their time for however long it takes in order to ensure that the original target does indeed get destroyed. Now remember that the plane that went down in Pennsylvania was the 2nd DC bound plane and was headed for the Capitol buliding itself. New York was the greatest victory Al Qaeda ever had and even though it remains a big bullseye for jihadists from around the world and possibly domestic terrorists too New York is more than likely and hopefully off their strike list for a while.


DC is most likely the next target seeing as the DC operation was only half completed. Al Qaeda is notorious for finishing what they start. I hate to say this but it will most likely be with more hijacked planes full of passengers and loaded with fuel. Dulles is the most likely boarding spot for the hijackers instead of Reagan National since Reagan National doesnt handle the bigger planes cause its runway is way to short. They will want as big of a plane with as much fuel as possible and that says Dulles. Dulles was one of the only airports in the world large enough to handle the Concordes.


Hijacking a plane out of Reagan National is made even more unlikely since its easily the most monitored airport in the world since its right in the city. Any plane that deviates from allowed flight paths will most certanly be shot down be it directly over the city or not. This time it may be 4 planes or more that are hijacked to ensure at least one makes it to Capitol Hill. I live less than 15 min south of the city and recall very vividly the thick black smoke spiraling skyward from the burning Pentagon that morning while I was driving to work. Sadly I think Im still going to see more soon.

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 05:31 PM
Sonofspy, what you say makes a lot of sense. I agree that AQ probably thinks they have unfinished business there and are determined to strike DC hard. But, by solely targeting DC it wouldn't have the financial devastation that they are looking for.

I think it will be years before anything happens again, IF it does. As you said, AQ is a patient group and it was 10 years between the first WTC attack and the second. I don't think AQ thinks our guard is down enough yet so they are waiting it out and I'm hopeful that we'll get them before they feel it's safe to get us!


posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 07:53 PM
I'm not sure where this fellow gets the notion that Europe and Russia would attack us after an incident like this. Frankly, the idea is completely ridiculous. There would be nothing to gain from a nuclear attack by our allies. It would just result in our retaliation and the destruction of civilzation. I don't see China attacking us either. Depsite what this fellow thinks, they couldn't take a nuclear walloping and just bounce back.

Edit: Oh...I just noticed that the guy that wrote this is the same guy that wrote "Unfit for Command". No wonder he thinks the rest of the world would turn on us...

[edit on 4/24/2005 by Flinx]

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 08:46 PM
Oh yeah, there's no doubt that some of his post nuke scenarios in the original article are completely off the mark. Some of the other possibilities offered here are much more likely.

For instance, the fact that the world would rally based on the destruction of the UN building. Now that is a hell of a lot more plausable. We saw an example of that after 9-11. I would just hope that the "political capital" gained in such an instance wouldn't be squandered like last time.

No doubt the world would expect for the US to retaliate. The problem would be against who? Even if Usama, pops up on Al Jazeera dancing and laughing, who do you hit? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Iran?

The world would expect it, but in my opinion, showing a little restraint prior to an immediate backlash would be the most judictious thing. Still, that shouldn't preclude the US from really doing what is in their own best interest. Just maybe not without some international backing.

[edit on 4/24/2005 by phreak_of_nature]

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 09:39 PM
there will never be a nuclear bomb attack on the US:

1. Al-queda or other group will never be sophisticated enough to construct or get an A-bomb, even a big country like Iran with an extensive industrial infrustructure had to struggle to develop it, but countries like that will never give a bomb to al-queda or similar group.

2. even if they did get a bomb they woudn't use it, during the 9/11 they could have simply crashed the planes into a nuclear reactor causeing a meltdown killing 100,000s but they didn't, one of the captured conspirators noted during interogation that they had quickly ruled out such an attack because they feared that it would go "out of control" in other words it could cause the US to retaliate with an A-bomb on one of their countries-they don't want that, they just wanted the US to do something stupid like invade Iraq, that way they could cost the US billions and pick off their troops every day..

posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 09:59 PM

Originally posted by xphantomx
there will never be a nuclear bomb attack on the US:

1. Al-queda or other group will never be sophisticated enough to construct or get an A-bomb, even a big country like Iran with an extensive industrial infrustructure had to struggle to develop it, but countries like that will never give a bomb to al-queda or similar group.

Do not underestimate the abilities of al Qaeda to carry out a nuclear attack by any mean.

A Tutorial on Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear-Explosive Materials from NTI:

Countries with limited access to nuclear-weapon expertise would not be able to make nuclear weapons nearly as small as those developed by the United States and Russia for such purposes as nuclear artillery shells, man-portable nuclear land-mines, and the "primaries" for compact thermonuclear warheads on multiple-reentry-vehicle missiles. Even less could terrorists do this. But such countries might well get down to the 1,000-2,000 pound range for fission weapons with yields in the range of 10 to 30 kilotons, and a weapon of 2,000 or 3,000 pounds with a yield likely to be between 1 and 10 kilotons might not be beyond the capabilities of a sophisticated terrorist group that is able to acquire the needed nuclear-explosive materials.


Terrorists would be likely to choose more "primitive" delivery methods, as countries also might that wanted to attack someone without revealing the origin of the strike. Such methods could include stashing a bomb on an airliner; using a light aircraft to deliver a bomb over more modest distances (in much the way such aircraft are routinely used for smuggling drugs); or stowing a bomb on a boat (a freighter, a fishing trawler, a luxury yacht) to explode at pier-side in any coastal city.

A bomb that had already been smuggled into the target country, or assembled there, could also be delivered by train, bus, truck, or car. Boats, airliners, trains, buses, and long-haul trucks could handle nuclear weapons of any plausible size, no matter how crude and heavy. Only in the cases of delivery by light aircraft, automobile, or pick-up truck might it be necessary to confine the weight of the bomb to under a ton. And it cannot be ruled out that a bomb would be assembled at the location where it is intended to be detonated, in which case only the nuclear-explosive materials and other components would have to be "delivered" and there would be essentially no constraint on the size of the completed device.

From NTI

[edit on 4/24/2005 by the_oleneo]

[edit on 4/24/2005 by the_oleneo]

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 11:21 AM
I couldn't imagine a terrorist group creating a refined nuke. It would most likely be a crude device, and very large. But if you think about what Tim McVeigh was able to accomplish with a Ryder truck, I don't think it's inconceivable that a crude nuke in the back of a panel truck would be out of the question.

The article mentions the device being a crude "gun type" nuke, and uses that as it's basis for the destruction. It also assumes that the cell would have to manually trigger it.

With enough money it would be possible to purchase the design, and a little expertise to build one.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in