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.

 

Impact of a nuclear bomb in New York?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
The blast itself would not be as damaging as the panic following afterwards. That is my view.




posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by Night
It would depend on who did it, we wouldn't know for several hours.

There aren't that many people who have these capabilities, so the wide spectrum is narrowed down to just a few targets. Now, if the warhead was delivered and detonated by ground and not from the air, that's a whole different story. But if it rained down from the heavens, you can find out where it came from.

Shattered OUT...

Incorrect.

Anybody and their grandmother can fly a small aircraft and use a nuclear device onboard.

Anyone can purchase a nuclear weapon these days if they have money and the right connections.

The source of any uranium or plutonium can be traced, however it would most likely lead to somewhere in the former USSR. Since the USSR collapsed, many of it's nuclear weapons (generous estimates indicate around 200) nuclear devices were smuggled out of Russia.

We would know if it was of Russian or other nation's origin if launched in a missile. However, most of these nations would never use a nuclear missile on the U.s.

It would be suicide and they know it.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
1. Securities trading would cease and be frozen for a week, at least, this is already well understood.

2. Trading mechanisms between members of the WTO would remain the legal standard, on the basis of pre-catastrophe values.

3.America would dictate post catastrophe terms to the world on the basis of it's undamaged nuclear arsenal and C3I infrastructure.



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Night, well I don't about you, but I myself am learning to fly, and let me just say, I'm not quite at the point of operating a nuclear capable bomber. Handling the device itself while in the air is completely different situation.

The necessary skills involved would boil down to the crew, you would need people who actually know what they're doing, so no, not just anybody can fly a nuclear capable aircraft and drop one in American Airspace.

And if it were as easy to obtain nukes and drop 'em on the US as you so put it, then how should they fear the US? If anyone does use nukes against America, they could probably care less about themselves after they do it, chances are they're just trying to inflict as much damage as possible as were the Al Queda bombers on 9/11.

And yes, I am aware that if it were dropped from a plane or fell from space it could be traced, I did say that after all.


Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Night, well I don't about you, but I myself am learning to fly, and let me just say, I'm not quite at the point of operating a nuclear capable bomber. Handling the device itself while in the air is completely different situation.

The necessary skills involved would boil down to the crew, you would need people who actually know what they're doing, so no, not just anybody can fly a nuclear capable aircraft and drop one in American Airspace.

And if it were as easy to obtain nukes and drop 'em on the US as you so put it, then how should they fear the US? If anyone does use nukes against America, they could probably care less about themselves after they do it, chances are they're just trying to inflict as much damage as possible as were the Al Queda bombers on 9/11.

And yes, I am aware that if it were dropped from a plane or fell from space it could be traced, I did say that after all.


Shattered OUT...

I am learning to fly aswell !

I may mention that a briefcase operated nuclear weapon would not be any more complicated to operate in the air then to operate it in the ground. Neither would any similar device in such a size.

I think we share the same opinion on this matter I don't understand why I still argue technicalities with you


They would never have to drop the device from the aircraft, it would be a "jihad".



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I think we have different ideas of what we're talking about, when I talked about a warhead, I mean the things that attach to bombs and are either launched on missiles or dropped from planes on bombs, and that gets complicated.

It's important to be technical because there are many forms of weapons and delivery systems, so as to avoid confusion, it is best to be clear on what we mean.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 24 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
As gruesome of an exercise as this is, the most probable nuclear explosion would be a even smaller yield (5-10 kiloton? how much nuclear material is in that )nuclear device coming into NYC and being exploded at sea once in good range of southern Manhattan would be my guess. This of course assumes a terrorist attack, not a strike by an established nuclear power.

The second most probable would be a ground blast in southern Manhattan. The least likely would be a nuclear device on a plane which is detonated above Manhattan. That one would cause the most damage but is probably the hardest to pull off.

Once you figure out the altitude of detonation and yield then you can start describing the losses from it, which will be staggering if this ever occurs.

Opinions?



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   
If a faction could transport a tactical nuke (artillery shell for example) in the US, airbursting it over Manhattan should not be a unbeatable obstacle.
YOu can fit it into a cessna and rig the detonation controls to altimeter, thus causing the bomb go off at set height even if the carrying plane was shot down.

btw what is a yield for an nuclear artillery shell?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mammoth
The blast itself would not be as damaging as the panic following afterwards. That is my view.


Whoa I don't think so not with around 8 million people in the city itself. Fallout, radiation, blast itself would kill millions. Economic effects after the explosion would be disastrous for the Stock Market. More importantly if New Orleans is taking billions to rebuild just imagine the rippling effects of an American Powerhouse city like New York. MAn I hope it doesn't happen.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
An atomic or nuclear detonation in NYC would also spell the end of the United Nations as their headquarters is in Manhattan. This is actually one of the reasons I see it as likely to happen. In my opinion there are forces in this world that would love to see the UN gone as it stands in the way of a one-world-government. Just my thoughts...

Vas



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Do you know that in Arizona detonating a nuclear bomb gives you a fine of 25 dollars. It is a real law not playing.
Going to get a nuke now and moving to Arizona I want to experiment



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Night

Incorrect.

Anybody and their grandmother can fly a small aircraft and use a nuclear device onboard.

.


I beg to differ.
free-fall delivery of a nuclear warhead is a very complex thing, especially detonating the warhead.
Infact the main delivery systems for countries like India, Pakistan and France are a/c
platforms. Not all a/c can carry a nuclear payload.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
The movie Threads is an excellent primer on the economic and social impacts of a nuclear strike on the UK,from the survival in immediate aftermath to life 10years later...



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Aside from the devastating blast effects and the aftermath there would be a great deal of life lost. Considering that the gov cancelled the emergency evacuation sytsem about 30 years or so back. There is at present no plan for mass evacuation because it simply would not be feasible. Hence, a lot of folks would die.
Big mess anyway you look at it.



posted on Aug, 6 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by Night

Incorrect.

Anybody and their grandmother can fly a small aircraft and use a nuclear device onboard.

.


I beg to differ.
free-fall delivery of a nuclear warhead is a very complex thing, especially detonating the warhead.
Infact the main delivery systems for countries like India, Pakistan and France are a/c
platforms. Not all a/c can carry a nuclear payload.

.....

You know, I really wish people would read my ENTIRE POST.

I never said anything about letting it drop from the plane. A simple briefcase nuclear device would work on a cessna, or any small plane which can fit a pilot and a passenger...it would create an air shockwave that would multiply the damage of the bomb, and the EMP would trave farther.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Night is correct, to achive maximum blast effect, a modern 500 lbs bomb ( biggest you could carry in a 172 with minimum fuel, anerexic pilot) ,20-40 Kilotons(+tritium), could be detonated in a cessna at about 1800 FT(about the same as hiroshima) for maximum blast effect. Even if it did not detonate properly, you would still spread a large amount of radioactive material over the city.


excuse the grammer, spelling, im going to bed.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join