It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by lkwalk
They won't need to steal one. Pakistan already has hundreds. And I agree- no terrorist is going to build one. They won't have to.
Originally posted by rogue1
I'm sure the US would hvae plans to deal with teh Pakistani nuclear arsenal if radicals came to power.
Originally posted by Zanzibar
What's all this with Pakistan? Does everyone think that they would give one to a terrorist organisation or something?
If America found out that a specific country had intentionally supplied terrorists with a nuclear weapon, that country would be ripped from the face of the planet.
Originally posted by Zanzibar
I sincerely doubt that it will, and even if it does, then it wouldn't last even a month. Not just the government, but the country.
The Western world would not allow a terrorist organisation to have readily availabe nuclear weapons, let alone a proper military.
It just wont happen.
Originally posted by Zanzibar
Okay then, if you were the leader of a country with 46,000 nuclear weapons and a terrorist organisation came to power in a country with even one nuke, what would you do?
I know what I would do, destroy it. I would find out where that nuke was and completely and utterly destroy the area.
Leaving it would just not be worth the risk.
Originally posted by Zanzibar
Okay then, if you were the leader of a country with 46,000 nuclear weapons and a terrorist organisation came to power in a country with even one nuke, what would you do?
I know what I would do, destroy it. I would find out where that nuke was and completely and utterly destroy the area.
Leaving it would just not be worth the risk.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
The recipe might be on the internet, but good luck getting the specialized tools, and getting the tolerances just right. If everything isn't PERFECT then a nuclear bomb will fizzle. So even if they steal the fissionable materials, it's no guarantee they could build a device.
Originally posted by lkwalk
North Korea has at least one nuke. And yet we have not destroyed it. Why not? That 'country' fits the bill as terrorist, evil, currupt- all the perjoratives that can be imagined- and yet the US has not struck. Maybe we will. I sort of feel that we will eventually nuke N. Korea. The problem is opening the pandora's box of nuclear war. We have a lot of nuclear-armed enemies.
Originally posted by bigx01
NK can currently deliver what nukes they have to the west coast via missle. they have a 3 stage missle that could reach any part of the us and it's one test back in the 90's faild on the 3rd stage, but they may have kept it from lighting to keep it from falling to earth on us soil instead of the pacific like it did.
that is why we have not struck them yet
During the frenzy of the Cold War, new nuclear weapons replaced older ones so
frequently that warheads rarely reached teenage years. Now there are no more new
weapons in the U.S. The age of the average warhead among the seven kinds that
the nation stocks, according to lab officials, is pushing 20, with some nearing
30. One of the most serious aging problems is posed by plutonium, the explosive
metal that, when it is tightly compressed by a surrounding sphere of chemical
explosives, triggers the nuclear explosion.
"Bubbles of helium form in it as it ages," explains Joe Martz, program director
for weapons materials at the lab. "It shows more bizarre behavior than any other
metal." He supervises a series of experiments, compressing small chunks of the
man-made element with explosives, to track the changes in its density. "Nobody
knows what 75-year-old plutonium will be like," he adds.
Contrary to folklore, the art and science of making a thermonuclear weapon
aren't readily available in blueprints or on renegade Web sites. While all
designs end up with the warhead's two crucial components -- the hydrogen bomb
and the atomic bomb that triggers it -- the challenge has always been
determining whether the device would explode or fizzle.
Originally posted by lkwalk
so what are we waiting for???
Originally posted by bigx01
Originally posted by lkwalk
so what are we waiting for???
because they could send one here on a missle. iraq couldn't
quote clean up - Umbrax
[edit on 22/3/2006 by Umbrax]
The Shahab-6 is a two or three-stage liquid/solid fuel rocket. The missile uses most of the same systems as the Shahab-5, but economies in weight and payload increase the range to approximately 6,000 km (3,728 miles). The missile is intended to carry one single warhead with a substantial yield, most likely in the area of 500-1,000 kg. As a result of its inaccuracy, the missile’s utility it probably restricted to attacking population centers and spreading radiation rather than hitting military targets. Thus, the Shahab-6 is more likely a blackmail/terrorist weapon than a military asset.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
The Shahab-6 can't even come CLOSE to hitting the US.
The Shahab-6 is a two or three-stage liquid/solid fuel rocket. The missile uses most of the same systems as the Shahab-5, but economies in weight and payload increase the range to approximately 6,000 km (3,728 miles). The missile is intended to carry one single warhead with a substantial yield, most likely in the area of 500-1,000 kg. As a result of its inaccuracy, the missile’s utility it probably restricted to attacking population centers and spreading radiation rather than hitting military targets. Thus, the Shahab-6 is more likely a blackmail/terrorist weapon than a military asset.
www.missilethreat.com...