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.

 

Nuclear threat to US city

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by leiphasw
I don't think any radiation would flow south. At least 90% or more of weather systems in the mid-atlantic states move from South West to North East. Therefore, radiation from a DC hit may float to NYC, but the other direction is fairly unlikely.


Yeah, you got it right. Fallout from DC would flow to NY, not the other way around...

Here's a FEMA map that shows likely fallout patterns.
standeyo.com...




posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor was right
imagine there IS a nuclear device detonated in NYC or chicago, and that the media informs us a DOMESTIC, ANTI-GOVERNMENT group [possibly linked to a known terrorist group] who claimed responsibility.

might that make the already stifling free-speech environment here far more oppresive and intolerant of dissent? i think we know the answer.


Already stifling free speech? Oppresion?? .........pardon me, but aren't you speaking your mind feely?.................Have any government agents gone to your home and threaten you?............Aren't you able to do today pretty much what you did 5 years ago or 10 years ago?...................................................I think i know the anwser.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by leiphasw
I don't think any radiation would flow south. At least 90% or more of weather systems in the mid-atlantic states move from South West to North East. Therefore, radiation from a DC hit may float to NYC, but the other direction is fairly unlikely.


Yeah, you got it right. Fallout from DC would flow to NY, not the other way around...

Here's a FEMA map that shows likely fallout patterns.
standeyo.com...


I should have said radiation flowing to other US Cities if a NUKE would go off in NYC. I should watch the WEATHER CHANNEL more often.


Anyway, what Cities do you all think those crazy Muslim terrorists will NUKE if they get their hands on NUKES?

If I was as EVIL as them and had 4 NUKES this is what I would do:

1) place a NUKE in an INDIAN CITY, India will think Pakistan did it and launch a NUCLEAR Strike against Pakistan then Pakistan will NUKE India.

2) Place a NUKE in an ISRAEL CITY, Israel will BLAME IRAN and SYRIA TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS and NUKE both of them. IRAN and SYRIA will then launch chemicals and biological weapons against ISRAEL.

3) Place a NUKE in a SOUTH KOREAN CITY, South Korea and the USA will think North Korea did it. South Korea and the USA will then attack North Korea. North Korea will launch their nukes against South Korea.

4) place a NUKE in NEW YORK CITY. (see my previous post). Nuking a big city like NYC will cause massive panic in all USA cities because no one would know if any other USA cities would be NUKE. I would see massive amounts of people leaving all USA cities or at least try to leave.
------------------------------------------------------
The reason why the MUSLIM TERRORISTS would do this it to START WARS every where. Millions of people would die during the NUKING and in the WARS that followed. This would be a REAL EVIL ACT.




posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   
One detonation by terorists of a nuclear device would be enough to get the message thru. If your group only had 4 devices to start with. Having 3 others gives you more leeway as you have some deterance with them. Why use all 4?

One or four would not change the USA/Nato reaction....Millitary measures would be taken against targets, likley in Iran and Syria...but i doubght there would be nuclear retaliation without seriously accurate NEED to. Any country could gain alot of prestige by suffering such an attack and not retaliating in kind. Besides, the advanced weaponry available to the US would, when fully unleashed, is versitlie and efficient.

Still having a credible deterrant could help an orginization protect some area by holding a randon european city hostage..in exchange for say limiting millitary operations in a "safe haven"..with 3 nukes you might even vaporize another target, using your last 2 for deterance and your last stand..(scorched earth policy) but your "credibillity" so to speak goes down with every blast...especially if your enemy had refrained from using a WMD in return.

If the USA loses a city this way, and doesnt use a WMD in return, the world community would likley not interfere too seriously with "coalition" plans to disarm/degrade and secure millitary and WMD's in a few key situations.

Use of even one device of this kind would lead twords more "colonialization" by western powers not less invlolvment. The bigger the blast, the bigger opportunity terrorists hand to governments to take big sweeping actions.

Lets say you as a terrorist group use all 4 of your devices, and youve really hurt the USA....we wouldnt be dead by a long shot, and really really angry....but you have shot your wad....now all you are is a group on the run with no serious threat/muscle...you may have tons of glory from your followers, and become a figurehead, but as far as living the high life in the open, forget it. Your the reason the west is slapping your people around and hunting for you.

Nukes really arent for using more than to show you can....unless your just a total sicko, murderous thug trying to justify your wretched existance.
Its the future threat of massive destruction...the TERROR of knowing it could happen again is exactly what terrorism is about.

Now, your just a threat, one atom bomb later your somebody, but only if you can maintain that "threat level" against your enemy.
All you need is 2. One for now, one for later, will get you all the power your looking for.

Its a M.A.D. world.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I think if your goal is to kill as many Americans as possible, you aren't going to spread them around the planet trying to start wars. You would most likely look for the densest population centers within the US first, then consider where fallout will go to. Lastly, you would try to make sure that you instilled fear in every area of the country. So rather then focusing everything you had in one area, say the north east, you would make sure you hit western and southern states also.

Look at a satellite photo of the US at night. See all those areas that are lite up? Find the brightest spot, and that's where you put it!



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   
The point I am trying to make is chaos. Planting Nukes in the cities I mention would start wars in those areas. The Crazy Muslim Terrorists want the world to be in chaos, so they can take over in the aftermath. The Muslims can have their Holy War they want in which Muslims are at war with all Non-Muslim nations.

If I were them I would plant the Nukes in the cities I mentioned above to start wars. The world would be in chaos if Israel launches Nukes on Iran and Syria. Oil prices would go sky high and we would have to pay like $14 a gallon. The world economy would fall apart. India and Pakistan War would cause chaos in that part of the world. Chaos would be in Korea if war started there, China might join the war on North Korea's side.

You see in chaos the Muslim Terrorist wins and we lose.

Hmmmm, I should have more than 4 nukes.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I think we are more likely to see a massive coordinated conventional attack, rather than anything nuclear. Though I am certain, as everyone else should be, that a nuclear attack is inevitable in our future.

On the conventional side, I think there is too much focus on NYC and DC. Been there, done that kind of reasoning. More likely it will be the coordinated bombing of several malls throughout the US. It would be the easiest way to spread fear quickly and comprehensively through the heartland of America. Moreover, it would certainly be the disruptive bulls-eye the terrorists are looking for. The financial impact would be devastating with most citizens refusing to visit the mega retailers exclusively located in the mall venues. There would also be the cascading impact to suppliers, manufactures, etc. Under such a scenario, a major portion of our economy would collapse like a house of cards! (Really think that one through, and you start to realize how vulnerable we really are. Scary stuff.) Add a few MINOR bridges in various places throughout the country and you increase the scope of the financial disaster, the likes of which our nation has never seen. Not landmark bridges, they are watched. Im talking about the bridges that most of us dont even realize the significance of. Take for example the two beltway bridges in the DC area. Close those down and you not only disrupt the metropolitan DC/VA/MD areas, but you effectively impact trucking routes (read: delivery of gas and consumer goods) for much of the Eastern seaboard. There are many other in-the-middle-of-nowhere-bridges in the nation that would represent easy targets with far-reaching impact.

On the nuclear side, I hope it never happens, though I am certain it will likely happen in my life. If they use them, I dont think it really matters WHERE they use them. The psychological impact to our nation will be the same. Whats worse? Eradicate a small city in Nebraska or a chunk of Miami, DC, or LA?

Id like to suggest we all adopt a stoic attitude about such possibilities. I think most realize the question is not whether, but when. I hope the strength of our character as a nation can withstand such possibilities. We will only survive as a nation, if we all BELIEVE we can survive as a nation. Help us all.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Interesting...

On bridges:

www.fhwa.dot.gov...

Worrysome...

On malls:

www.newsmax.com...



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Okay, been reading the thread, I'm no nuclear specialist (don't want to be) - but, what, if anything would happen if a nuke, or 4, where placed on a fault line like in CA?


LL1

posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 09:09 PM
link   
"It would be unlikely, unexpected, something not watched,
not a landmark and more devastating than the WTC".

Well they(authorities) seem to be watching just about everything
and everywhere, so what is not watched? AIR!
"Not a landmark" we would "expect" that.. They seem to have those covered as well, that leaves AIR again! (not something on land)
What could be "more devastating than the WTC"? That would mean more than 3,00 lives... Some place highly populated. But an "unlikely" place.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
2 points, both agreeing and disagreeing with loam.

Al-Qaida has said their goal is to attack our economy. So... wow... shopping mallsand bridges, and that is definately something to look out for. The impact to our economy from these two areas would be HUGE. I remember about a year and a half ago, a bridge that was a part of I-40 through either OK or AR collapsed. I-40 is a huge corridor for shipping, and that was a major whack.

BUT... Al-Qaida has in the past returned to targets that they missed, or didn't finish the job on. Flight 93 wasn't destined to crash in Shanksville, PA. I don't know where it was going, but that wasn't it. There is still some target in DC they want to hit.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
Flight 93 wasn't destined to crash in Shanksville, PA. I don't know where it was going, but that wasn't it. There is still some target in DC they want to hit.


It's probably been said before, but I believe that The White House was one of the targets on 9/11. I can't really see them coming back to attack it, SAM measures will have been stepped up and truck/car bombs are impossible due to the high security. The only way for them to get at the White House might be by using mortars or rockets on a vehicle outside the perimeter, but you're not talkin about a lot of damage, if any at all, unless they got real lucky.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 06:56 PM
link   
In a nutshell, Feds found a nuke in Boston, could not stop it so they dumped it underwater off of Cape Cod where it detonated.

Here is where I got it from, the poster "INVICTUS" is from NEIN. Nothing ever said here has proved to be accurate, but it is great fun to read.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by holzp
In a nutshell, Feds found a nuke in Boston, could not stop it so they dumped it underwater off of Cape Cod where it detonated.

Here is where I got it from, the poster "INVICTUS" is from NEIN. Nothing ever said here has proved to be accurate, but it is great fun to read.



Holy WhatTheHell Batman?


"on July 15th, there was an underwater detonation of a nuclear bomb of some type off the coast of Cape Cod"


Hahahahahahaha.....



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Did not get any tidal waves around here.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   
It is another BS story as ussual. To many people around here and the islands this time of year to even think of doing such a thing. Debunked!



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by IntelRetard
It is another BS story as ussual. To many people around here and the islands this time of year to even think of doing such a thing. Debunked!


Their theory seems to be based around the July 15th reading on this www.ldeo.columbia.edu... graph.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I would not consider that forum anything but an enjoyable what if.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   
If there HAD been an underwater nuclear blast, seems like a bunch of dead, radioactive fish would have started washing up on the beach by now.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Holy sh*t that's quite a story! Don't know if I believe it, but at least I know what the basis of the rumor was now; it was driving me nuts.....Good detective work guys.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join