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.


4 Places a Nuke could be easily sent too.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 10:59 PM
So I have been pondering easily accessible places a terrorist could screw over the world and I came up with 4. These places would not only ruin one country but possibly more and even effect the whole world.

[1] Caldera
If a nuke were to release the pressure of a major caldera anywhere on the Earth the ramifications would be world wide. Destroying the immediate area, launching sun blocking particles into the atmosphere taking us into a new ice age.

[2] Major Glacier
Not only would a nuclear explosion vaporize the immediate ice in the area, reducing the Earth's ability to reflect sunlight. It would melt even more glaciers in an unending cycle of rising temperatures and raising oceans effecting the entire globe.

[3] Middle Eastern Oil Fields
Making the area around these oil fields inaccessible because of radiation would disrupt the flow of oil to the world possibly creating wars and conflict over the remaining oil.

[4] Panama/Suez Canal
If either Canal were attacked with a nuclear weapon, world trade and commerce would be majorly effected for over 50 years. Increasing the price of oil, goods and inciting fear around the globe.

Of course any place would be majorly effected by a nuclear explosion, these are just the few I could think of that are not as obvious as most people think of.

posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:48 PM
Bet on #3. Biggest disruption and most pain for the world. Caldera blasting might not work well. Glacier melting would be glacial in its effect, and the canals would hurt but not as much as $500/bbl oil.
If you wanted to keep the oil safe and still disrupt the world, set one off in Cumbre Viejas in the Canary Islands.

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:05 AM
But you have to get round the fact that all nuclear isotopes like plutonium 239 and the rest, can be tracked via satellite with radiation sensors, as each radioactive substance has its own identity so it would be hard to get the nuke there, unless of course you surround it in a very thick lining of lead, then you have to acquire said nuke.

But yes those places would be lethal, i always thought to bring the world to a standstill and back into the 1940's would be an electromagnetic pulse bomb, a far more easily constructed and cheap flux compression device placed around the major city hubs and silence! every circuit fried within a radius big enough to put us back a few decades.

Worse still, similar to your nuclear wipe out, a dirty bomb, imagine a no go area that is uninhabitable for thousands of years.

Or Yellowstone caldera! on its own! power equivalent to a million nuclear bombs!!! NOT GOOD.

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:06 AM
Interesting theory, but all these ideas create problems for the whole world. Now, considering terrorists live in whatever country, say, Pakistan for example. Setting off a nuke in somewhere like the locations you mentioned would disrupt their country too, the nuke would have global consequences, negative for everyone, including the country they lived in, and probably supported/agreed with in terms of politics. Which I'm guessing isn't what they'd want. My guess is they'd want damage only to the country/countries they didn't like. My guess, the US and some of the other western countries. Whereas, dropping one in some city in the US, would cause mostly localised damage..only one that ends up in trouble is the US, really.

Edit: That explanation sucks.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by DarkPassenger]

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:08 AM
reply to post by Tentickles
Seems to me that mayor harbors like Rotterdam and Antwerpen who are the most important "hubs" wordwide seem easy targets to . When i see how many containers are send in every single day , i can imagine a terrorist putting something in one of them. There is no way they can tell for sure that a freighter is holding the same load in the same state as he left. The point i'm trying to make is that anyone could put a very smal nuke into a shipment ,it doesn't even have to be on the boat before it leaves.

And if either of the above mentioned harbors would be wiped of the map it would cripple the whole EU, if not the world.

And if they decite to take out Antwerpen for sure the fallout would be nasty in Brussels to. And some pretty important stuff is located in Brussels.

While i was thinking about how to close my post it struck me that every target wordwide is a easy target . U say 4 places a nuke could be easily sent to. Ill bet ya i could drive my car to Paris without being harrased by cops and detonate a decent nuclear device under the Eiffeltower or very close to it . (And i really have no intention on doing anything like that )

anyway nice thread nd star and flgged

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:35 AM
Would be nice if you could get all the garbage around the world and nuke them with something like the 100 megaton Tsar bomba. Garbage problem vaporized!

Seriously though, just nuking one major city would cause a chain reaction of problems that maybe impossible to control. Say a nuke went off in NY, people may actually go crazy in LA and horde goods and stuff for surviving a potential nuke showdown. Eventually, it might breakdown to looting and total breakdown of law and order.

Another thing we should equally be worried about is EMP devices. While nuke-based emp doesn't cause any initial casualties, they can affect a much larger area and can cause breakdown of technological infrastructure and eventually law and order.

Hope I never said that but hope this thread gets closed soon!

top topics

log in