Proliferation of Nuclear bombs

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
All the main focus of all this nuclear bomb talk at the moment with North korea, has got me thinking about patriot missiles etc, taking the threat out in an air to air manner. But no body has even mentioned a threat of an off shore nuke, that could cause a tsunami wave. Most of our main cities are coastal, which leaves a massive gap in the defence plans. Thats just a curve ball i know,but with the proliferation of nukes in unstable regimes,The clock is ticking. Sanctions just dont seem to be cutting it. Even with China and Russia using the veto card, they must be getting worried that todays friends could quite easily be tomorrows enemy.If im barking on this one let me know.




posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
What do you mean off shore? Like a suicide boat??
I'm completely lost with this



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Banquo
What do you mean off shore? Like a suicide boat??
I'm completely lost with this


Detonating a nuclear bomb on the surface or in shallow waters can produce a tsunami sized wave who's size is determined by the strength of the nuclear bomb.

Even a small nuclear device detonated in shallow waters just off the coast of a city could send a wall of water on shore.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by anonentity
 

If you mean hitting things like the Lava shelf off Hawaii or the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica (I seem to recall reading DOD stuff from about a thousand years back in the cold war saying Russia had such a plan for the Ice)? I don't think Kim or his Generals have that level of creativity OR ..more importantly, willingness for taking the risks. If they missed, they'd have signed their death warrants...and probably from the WHOLE world, once it sank in to everyone just what they had tried to make happen.

...Nor do I think they have guidance systems tested to that level of accuracy. I'm not even sure Russia could hit THAT accurate. We could...but that's why we spend more than the next several nations combined, per year on just defense (and ruining ourselves in the process). So we can hit something no one should ever shoot at in the first place, with the precision to make nightmares come true.

Russia just made them BIG enough so accuracy was not longer a factor. lol.. Gotta love that Russia approach. K.I.S.S. in it's ultimate form. Kim just doesn't have it in him, IMO though. Not that he wouldn't watch the movie and dream of it though. (maybe we'll see that in the next cheesy propaganda film..lol)
edit on 4-4-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Banquo
What do you mean off shore? Like a suicide boat??
I'm completely lost with this


Detonating a nuclear bomb on the surface or in shallow waters can produce a tsunami sized wave who's size is determined by the strength of the nuclear bomb.

Even a small nuclear device detonated in shallow waters just off the coast of a city could send a wall of water on shore.


What I'm getting at here is wouldn't the nuke be shot down anyway? Wether or not it'll it land or water?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Banquo

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Banquo
What do you mean off shore? Like a suicide boat??
I'm completely lost with this


Detonating a nuclear bomb on the surface or in shallow waters can produce a tsunami sized wave who's size is determined by the strength of the nuclear bomb.

Even a small nuclear device detonated in shallow waters just off the coast of a city could send a wall of water on shore.


What I'm getting at here is wouldn't the nuke be shot down anyway? Wether or not it'll it land or water?


Yes it would, if it was a missile.

However, one could, in theory, load their bomb onto a boat or in a sub (if you're planing on it being suicide mission).

Boat would most likely be stopped.

Subs are a bit harder to do that unless you can find and track them.

However, if you have missiles that can carry a nuclear warhead, you normally wouldn't target the water near a coast, you would just target the cities or bases, etc.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I meant a bomb just dropped from a boat or even a sub.It sits on the seabed untill its detonated. Then generates a tsnami. Unless the bays in question were inspected on a regular basis ,who would know it was down there.Or even who dropped it off? it wouldnt require a suicide mission. The trouble with the shape of a bay is that it shelves and a wave would just increase in size.If a rough power has a device the rest is low tech.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Just imagine a container ship going up the coast of the US and one of the containers 'accidentally' falls overboard. The location is precise due to the ship's GPS system. Once the container is overboard, the timer starts and a bit later, boom!

It is quite possible and quite practical for a nation without other delivery systems. A container is certainly big enough. Hell, you could drop a whole line of them causing multiple tsunamis that add to each others power.

This is one of the reasons I do not take stock of the "we will knock them out of the sky" mentality.

Other delivery systems exist and in this scenario there would not be much if any warning of the approaching deadly wall of water.

P



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Yeh billions spent on delivery systems, and the delivery could be a scummy old fishing boat, the only high tech would be if it had a sonar digital type arming system, then youd have to hope that a handfull of chattering dolphins talking about the latest fishing ground dont set the thing off.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by anonentity
 


You do realize of course, that the US considers its territorial waters as going to 200 miles out? This presents a big challenge for the theory. It'd be far more reliable to hide a nuke in a shipping container and detonate it in a major port city, and THIS concern, has been mentioned many times, as it is probably the most likely scenario for NK to be able to effectively nuke a US city. Of course, there are numerous countermeasures in place to prevent such a thing, but always still a chance of it.

Regardless though, we lose a city, they lose a nation, if they do it....doesn't seem to be a good trade to make.
edit on 5-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


How is anybody going to know for certain who sent it after it has exploded. For all you know it just as easily could be Israel or Pakistan. It could be South Africa as a warning to stay out of Africa. It could be anyone.

If the US launches against NK with no credible proof, China will retaliate and MAD hell breaks loose.

P



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Gazrok
 


How is anybody going to know for certain who sent it after it has exploded. For all you know it just as easily could be Israel or Pakistan. It could be South Africa as a warning to stay out of Africa. It could be anyone.

If the US launches against NK with no credible proof, China will retaliate and MAD hell breaks loose.

P


While we can't exactly track who detonated the bomb, we can in fact figure out EXACTLY where the material came from. Meaning, a bomb goes off, we will know for a fact if that came from Russia, the US, etc.

Now, that doesn't account for Russia selling a bomb and having it bounce around in the market for awhile, make it more difficult to figure out where it came from. But if a country lets a nuke go missing, they are in hot water with the whole planet, not just the victim of the bomb. For that reason countries would cooperate in tracking down from both ends who and where that bomb came from.

As far as China attacking the US on behalf on NK, that's a joke. China would have nothing to gain, and everything to loose. The second China takes military actions against the US, the US would wipe out the debt to China, they wouldn't get a single cent. China is also getting fed up with NK, as the entire planet is.

There is not a single thing China would gain from attacking the US for any reason, let alone for something as useless as defending NK. They want to keep NK in line, but if NK gets out of line they aren't going to defend them. China cares about China, the idea that asians stick together against the west is a stupid one, and it would be bad news for China to attack the US for the sake of NK.

As far as the OP's premise, as someone else mentioned, the US claims several hundred miles out to sea as it's territory. Any random ship moving in would be intercepted before it got close enough to be a danger. A sub would be a different story, but if you can get close enough to cause a tsunami which would effect the cast, they would be better off just launching the nuke against the city in the first place.

One thing to consider too, while nukes seem powerful, they pale in comparison to mother nature. The Japan earthquake which caused the Tsunami, for instance, was many many magnitudes greater in energy than a nuclear weapon. With a nuke, a lot of the energy produced would be wasted vaporizing water, instead of moving the water to cause a Tsunami. Overall, with north Korea's capabilities, a nuke would be best spent actually attacking a city, not attempting to cause a tsunami. And the best way for them to do that, would be hiding it in a shipping container somewhere, but even that is problematic due to the ease of detecting radiation from a nuclear weapon.

Think about the fact that people who have a slight amount of radiation in them from drinking that radioactive dye used in medial diagnostics will set off radiation alarms, an actual nuclear weapon would be rather easy to detect.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Gazrok
 


How is anybody going to know for certain who sent it after it has exploded. For all you know it just as easily could be Israel or Pakistan. It could be South Africa as a warning to stay out of Africa. It could be anyone.

If the US launches against NK with no credible proof, China will retaliate and MAD hell breaks loose.

P


It's called Nuclear Forensics.

The only problem with that however is time. It could take days or even months, and only if they are able to get enough samples.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


Personally, I think Russia, China, Pakistan, India and South Africa would all end up having a good belly laugh first. Yes they may all investigate but all they will really do is find out where the Nuclear Material originated then the excuses would start.

Funny part is, the US has a lot of material missing, never found. Would be really funny if all the other countries determined the source material came from the US. Then the whole world would be screaming false flag while the US would be petulantly saying 'It was stolen material!'

It is not so easy and the world would not be helping each other. Everyone else would be laughing way to hard for any serious work to be done.

An offshore container dropped off a legitimate freighter would be near impossible to detect in real time and in any case once it exploded there would be no evidence that it was in a container thus everyone is still a suspect. When the water turns to steam you get a steam event which all by itself is one hell of an explosion. Since water does not compress all the energy is transmitted too the water. As well, dropping the device such that it is at the bottom of an underwater cliff could direct a larger portion of the force toward land and the resultant tsunami.

As for a device intended as EMP, a commercial cargo aircraft could do it and as I understand later developments, they don't have to have nuclear material to make an EMP weapon. I could be wrong on this one!


P



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Interesting but DPRK does not have the Tsar bomb or anything near it 150kt is about the size they have, still big enough to take out a city but not big enough to take out the country side 1Mt is designed to do just that not only your target but the surrounding areas. here is a 150 kt over Manhattan and the after effects, it is an H bomb.. www.history.ucsb.edu...



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 



For maximum amount of damage to a city or a facility, you'd want an air burst bomb detonating just over the city.

This causes much, much more destruction than one detonating on the surface in the city, and much more damage than one detonated in the water of a coastal city.

Both of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were detonated that way using an altimeter for the trigger as the bombs fell.

Shallow water detonations would spread radioactive material inland for sure, but you'd not see death from that for longer periods.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Eric, we all know that airburst is the best. What we are saying is that if you can't do that because your tech is just not good enough, then what other options are there.

If you can't sneak a weapon into a port then this is the next best alternative. A bomb denoted at just the right distance could cause a tsunami to devastate a port city.

Just think of a tsunami hitting that lovely row of carriers just sitting there like ducks on a still pond. Tempting?

P



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Eric, we all know that airburst is the best. What we are saying is that if you can't do that because your tech is just not good enough, then what other options are there.

If you can't sneak a weapon into a port then this is the next best alternative. A bomb denoted at just the right distance could cause a tsunami to devastate a port city.

Just think of a tsunami hitting that lovely row of carriers just sitting there like ducks on a still pond. Tempting?

P


Actually no.

Think about it for a minute. Think about Kim. Think about Kim's generals. Think about the bluster that NK has sent out.

NK wants the world to think it has the "Might" and should be a force to be realized by the rest of the world.

Detonating a nuke in a shipping container is what terrorists would do.

It would not gain NK anything at all. No one would be impressed with it. Most other nations would decry it, and all it would do to the US is piss us off even more.

There would be no military or political gain at all for NK in doing that.

NK wants to impress the world with their military might. Not how sneaky they can be. They want other nations to fear their missiles, not shipping containers.

They also know that using a nuke in any case would unite most of the world against them, and would show exactly what we and other nations have been saying:

"North Korea should not have nuclear weapons because they will use them."

By doing something as stupid as sneaking one in a shipping container and detonating it, that is exactly what they will have proven. That they can not ever be trusted with nuclear weapons.

You've posted in other threads, that you think NK is being picked on and should be left alone and allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I'm sure they think the same thing, and they KNOW that if they use one on someone else, that they will have cut their own throats in that regard.

While your posts in the NK threads have clearly shown you hate the US, they are starting to take on a almost gleeful expression at the idea of the US being hit by a nuclear weapon.

Most civilized people should be horrified at the idea of any nuclear weapon being used against anyone, especially after the horrors of seeing it in action in Japan when we did it (something I'm not proud of in my heritage, but it did happen, and I think that's why we'd never do it again if we can avoid it).

So I hope I'm wrong, and that you don't wish that on anyone no mater whom they are.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Please show me one, just one post where I have a 'gleeful expression'

I do not hate the US, I do think the US govt is sick and depraved. I think the US people want peace more than anything (well, they want their guns too.)

You can not keep stomping around the globe and not expect blowback at some point. I am opposed to war but I also see the inevitability of WW3, caused primarily by the US.

P





new topics
 
2

log in

join