Scary thought.

Posted this in another thread but to be honnest it requires a thread of its own as it such a pants crapping scarly thought.


Just thought what's to stop North Korea (or one day Iran) using Q-Ships to deliver nukes? They could get a large civilian vessel hide a SCUD or other short range missile on it tipped with nuke and discreetly sail to the coast of the USA or Europe then deliver there weapon? Ok the ship will be sunk as soon as they fire but the payload would be delivered.

You wouldn't even have to launch them if the crew willing to die. You could build the nuke into the ship and just sail into port and detonate.


Just imgaine a bomb going off in New York, Baltimore, San Fansicio, Los Angeles, Seatle, Miami ,New Orelans and San Dieago all at once?

It wold be 9/11 x Million

Any Millitary guys on here know if there is such a counte measure for such a attack?

The only counter measures are the same as for any other terrorist attack really. Intercepting, discovering such a plot and the ships involved prior to them doing it. There really is no other way to mitigate the damage.

However, you also have to realize that the largest bomb they've tested to date, (NK), is at best, 20kt, and that is probably being generous. Many still even doubt it was nuclear in nature.

Here's a nuclear blast simulator.

www.nucleardarkness.org...

Pick a spot (like a harbor) and enter for a 20kt blast. I think you'll be surprised at the results. It would give a city a black eye, no doubt, and be horrible, but wouldn't destroy as much of the city, as you would think it would.

Even one such blast though, pretty much assures that the NK leadership would be taken out, and with the rest of the world (even China) cheering us on as we did so.

Originally posted by Gazrok
The only counter measures are the same as for any other terrorist attack really. Intercepting, discovering such a plot and the ships involved prior to them doing it. There really is no other way to mitigate the damage.

However, you also have to realize that the largest bomb they've tested to date, (NK), is at best, 20kt, and that is probably being generous. Many still even doubt it was nuclear in nature.

Here's a nuclear blast simulator.

www.nucleardarkness.org...

Pick a spot (like a harbor) and enter for a 20kt blast. I think you'll be surprised at the results. It would give a city a black eye, no doubt, and be horrible, but wouldn't destroy as much of the city, as you would think it would.

Even one such blast though, pretty much assures that the NK leadership would be taken out, and with the rest of the world (even China) cheering us on as we did so.

True but then this doesnt just apply to North Korea. And if a war did happen North Korea would pull out nay trick to save itself even something stupid like this.

reply to post by Gazrok


Hi Gaz,

Depending on atmospheric conditions there could be more damage in long term caused by the fallout no?

If my memory serves me right around 70 to 80% of fallout occures in the 24 to 48 hours after the explosion

Not to mention the thermal radiation and EMP at the moment of the blast
Kindest respects

Rodinus

reply to post by Rodinus


I'm not doubting the damage...my point is that it would be regime suicide. Just seems a bit crazy to punch someone when they have a gun to your face, and that is essentially what Un would be doing...giving the US a black eye, while ensuring his death, and the end of his regime.

Well the real Scary thought is that Un does have an ICBM with a 150kt nuke that can reach the US and we all say no till it hits, Just as it was in ww2.
With the V1and V2
"no way could Hitler have a missile that could hit London let alone Briton"

they laughed at him as well till the Buzz bomb and the V2 started to fall from the sky ,[ unlike missiles then that had to fly all the way, today's missile ICBM are launch platforms it goes up, puts war head in space to arc its way to its target. the Unha-3 rocket could do this, 1/2 ton pay load with 10,000km range]
so too we say about Un. is there proof no could he do yes does he have the Tech? possibly does, would he do it you bet. are the missiles armed ? to match the tread yes Japan, Guam, Pearl Harbor, Seoul all have been targeted by Un so if it is to be then yes nukes will be used.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Rodinus

 

I'm not doubting the damage...my point is that it would be regime suicide. Just seems a bit crazy to punch someone when they have a gun to your face, and that is essentially what Un would be doing...giving the US a black eye, while ensuring his death, and the end of his regime.

For logical reasonble people yes.


You guys forget 9/11 and pearl Habour. Both cases of stupid people and countrys doing something really really dumb and ensureing the fall weight of the USA fall down on them and crushes them.

Sometimes people are just out to kill and cause damage or cling to unrealistsic ideas of victory.

Also if North Korea is as unstable and near to collaspeing as some experts say then this could be a case of a cornerd freightend animal. And cornerd Freigntend animals can and do act without reason.

reply to post by bekod


If he only had one or 50 missiles to send over, he might find it a huge waste of money....

If not for being short two barrels of heavy water...in WWII, we might all be speaking German right now...so yeah, it is pretty sobering. Still, for NK to get a missile that far, on the first test fire, would certainly be a miracle given their track record at this. Not impossible, just improbably. No, I think the smuggled bomb idea is the more real threat sadly. Missiles can be intercepted...but a cargo container sitting somewhere for months? Still, the concept of Assured Destruction is pretty potent.

Who needs a missle? What's to stop them from putting a nuke in a little sub, then surfacing and setting it off? They could even sneak far up one of the inland waterways and set it off. Seattle, San Francisco, Houston, New York...


Doesn't North Korea have a couple of subs missing?

reply to post by crazyewok

You guys forget 9/11 and pearl Habour

Apples, Oranges, and Pears.

Pearl Harbor was actually a genius attack (on the part of the Japanese). They simply underestimated our resolve and didn't know of the A-bomb. Otherwise, the quick destruction of so many naval vessels would have drastically reduced our role in the Pacific. Pearl Harbor was tactically worth the risk, especially as (as far as they knew) we had no ability to assure their destruction.

9/11 wasn't done by a state, but by a group..a much more difficult target to focus on.

Then you have NK. A nation where we can topple the regime in likely under three weeks, threatening us with missiles we can blow out of the sky. Hard to compare this pear to those other apples and oranges.

To another:

Doesn't North Korea have a couple of subs missing?

Yes, some diesel ones, without missile capability, and without the range to reach Hawaii even on a one-way trip...so unless they plan on torpedoing someone....Aside from the range issue, subs are more actively looked for. Their best bet would be a smuggled cargo container. The upside being that in such a scenario, half of the bomb's effect is just affecting the water.

reply to post by Gazrok



Sorry, maybe i might have misworded what i meant to say Gazrok...

I totally agree that this would be regime suicide.

In a way what i meant to say was just add a little extra info and mention that even when one receives a black eye the bruise tends to spread out a little further than the area that was hit.

Kindest respects

Rodinus

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by crazyewok

 

You guys forget 9/11 and pearl Habour

Apples, Oranges, and Pears.

Pearl Harbor was actually a genius attack (on the part of the Japanese). They simply underestimated our resolve and didn't know of the A-bomb. Otherwise, the quick destruction of so many naval vessels would have drastically reduced our role in the Pacific. Pearl Harbor was tactically worth the risk, especially as (as far as they knew) we had no ability to assure their destruction.

9/11 wasn't done by a state, but by a group..a much more difficult target to focus on.

Then you have NK. A nation where we can topple the regime in likely under three weeks, threatening us with missiles we can blow out of the sky. Hard to compare this pear to those other apples and oranges.

To another:

Doesn't North Korea have a couple of subs missing?

Yes, some diesel ones, without missile capability, and without the range to reach Hawaii even on a one-way trip...so unless they plan on torpedoing someone....

edit on 11-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

3 weeks ? Honnestly ready my post in the 250,000 predicted dead thread.

And no the pacfic war was lost before it beguin. The USA could'nt lose even if the armed forces had been in charge of a brain dead comma pateint. All the USA tatics could do is decide how many died and how quick it could win. The industral power of the USA meant it would defeat Japan in the long term.

The first problem would be North Korean ships are stopped and searched as a part of santions on a regular basis. The second problem would be taking your only strategic asset and putting it on a boat and hoping the ships crew, securty people, and technicians needed to maintain and the detonate the bomb and hoping they all do not mind dying for the cause. Then you have to hope that the US some how loses the location of the ship since they keep and eye on everything going and coming from NK. Then you have to hope the Coast Guard does not notice an unscheduled ship showing up and dropping anchor while the techs try and detonate it instead of jumping ship and defecting. So many things could go wrong that nobody would waste what they see as their most valuable asset with such a tiny chance of success.

reply to post by crazyewok

3 weeks ? Honnestly ready my post in the 250,000 predicted dead thread.

I don't assume our commanders are imbeciles. 3 weeks for the regime to fall. Putting boots on the ground and POLICING NK is a completely different ballgame.

How long do you think it took in Iraq? Actually, about the same, as far as removing his regime from power.

I think you're reading my regime removal as winning the war...no, that's a longer duration. But, as far as Un is concerned, he would be out of power in less than 3 weeks.

reply to post by MrSpad


Some very valuable points, but to add, inspections are seldom thorough, and it could be part of REAL cargo, etc. It is about the only possible means they have of delivering a nuke to US soil.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by crazyewok

 

3 weeks ? Honnestly ready my post in the 250,000 predicted dead thread.

I don't assume our commanders are imbeciles. 3 weeks for the regime to fall. Putting boots on the ground and POLICING NK is a completely different ballgame.

How long do you think it took in Iraq? Actually, about the same, as far as removing his regime from power.

I think you're reading my regime removal as winning the war...no, that's a longer duration. But, as far as Un is concerned, he would be out of power in less than 3 weeks.

As I said read my post on page 7 of the Pentagon Estimates 250,000 US Dead In A North Korean War thread.

I listed some good reason why it wont be anything like Iraq,

And no the I dont think the USA Comanders are imbeciles but even a genuis commander will have trouble winning North Korea in 3 weeks with minimal losses.

In my opinion your looking at 3 months hard fighting with 20,000 -30,000US dead 100,000 allies dead and up to 5 Million civilians.

I think that some members on ATS are over estimating North Korea, now I know over estimating your enemy is better than underestimating him but it does have its risks such as losing sight of the real threats.

The OP asks what’s to stop a North Korea smuggling a nuke into American waters and then launch a short range nuclear missile at a large city.

Its probably pertinent to point out early on that North Korea does not have a strong nuclear arsenal they have a hand full of bombs that are not even as powerful as the bomb the yanks dropped on Hiroshima. In addition to this there is no evidence so far that North Korea have any missile based delivery system for these weapons. But for the purpose of this post lets assume they do have the technology to put a nuke on a short range missile and have on a boat heading to the states. What’s going to stop them?

The first line of defence for such a situation is good intelligence you can bet that the vast intelligence network of America is focusing on North Korea (and others) they are the first line of defence. That is to say that they would either spot North Korea moving the nuclear bomb on to the ship via satellite, they would intercept a communication or a informant would put them in the loop. After that the Americans would simply sink the ship and disaster averted.

Failing that most ports have radiation detection technology, they are designed to detect if terrorists are trying to bring in dirty bombs, some bridges and public buildings also have them. I have no doubt that they have other surveillance means of checking on these threats. So if the boat got close enough then the bomb could be detected. Then there are the searches of the ships with the sanctions there is a good chance that someone would search the boat and find the nukes. Even if they do get through all of that and manage to get the missile into a position that they can fire it its going to take time to set up for a launch. Logistically I honestly don’t know if its possible to fire a scud from a rocking ship at sea, I would imagine not but assuming it is, its going to still take some time to get it ready to launch. In that time some is going to start to take notice and again uncle Sam is going to skink kimmys fishing boat.

If all else fails and they launch depending on the missile and its target and so on its possible that the missile defence system could take it out of the sky. If nothing else they are going to track it back to the boat and blow it up. They will also probably know where the boat came from and then bring about nuclear death to North Korea, and North Korea know that this would happen so they’re not going to even dream about hitting lady liberty with a nuke.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I think that some members on ATS are over estimating North Korea, now I know over estimating your enemy is better than underestimating him but it does have its risks such as losing sight of the real threats.

My theory is just a theory and can apply not just to North Korea.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Its probably pertinent to point out early on that North Korea does not have a strong nuclear arsenal they have a hand full of bombs that are not even as powerful as the bomb the yanks dropped on Hiroshima.

It could be only 1 KT but it can still kill thousands.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
In addition to this there is no evidence so far that North Korea have any missile based delivery system for these weapons.

Dont need a missle system. Can keep the device in the boat itself and use the boat itself as a delivery system.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
The first line of defence for such a situation is good intelligence you can bet that the vast intelligence network of America is focusing on North Korea (and others) they are the first line of defence. That is to say that they would either spot North Korea moving the nuclear bomb on to the ship via satellite, they would intercept a communication or a informant would put them in the loop. After that the Americans would simply sink the ship and disaster averted.

Actually one of the new artical this week has said how little intel souces they actually have. And anyway you did not see 3 planes being flown into 2 skyscrapers and your pentagon.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Failing that most ports have radiation detection technology, they are designed to detect if terrorists are trying to bring in dirty bombs, some bridges and public buildings also have them. I have no doubt that they have other surveillance means of checking on these threats. So if the boat got close enough then the bomb could be detected. Then there are the searches of the ships with the sanctions there is a good chance that someone would search the boat and find the nukes.

If I was useing this tatic I would buy a cargo ship in another country. Smuggle the devive in or go from that country and pick up the divice in North Korea, Iran ect store the nuke in depths of the ship and do a few real cargo runs in neutral countrys over a number of months before going to the target country. And I would put the device in a lead lined container to sheild from any radiation.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Even if they do get through all of that and manage to get the missile into a position that they can fire it its going to take time to set up for a launch. Logistically I honestly don’t know if its possible to fire a scud from a rocking ship at sea, I would imagine not but assuming it is, its going to still take some time to get it ready to launch. In that time some is going to start to take notice and again uncle Sam is going to skink kimmys fishing boat.

IF they use a Missle as I said they could just detonate the bomb on the boat if in port.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
If all else fails and they launch depending on the missile and its target and so on its possible that the missile defence system could take it out of the sky. If nothing else they are going to track it back to the boat and blow it up.

Missle defence cant shot it down if its not a missle. And if its a sucide mission being sunk is not a deterrant.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
They will also probably know where the boat came from and then bring about nuclear death to North Korea, and North Korea know that this would happen so they’re not going to even dream about hitting lady liberty with a nuke.

As I said just theroy but who knows with insane dictators.

I read the thread, and I'm still saying 3 weeks until Un and his regime would have zero command and control ability, and more likely, he'd be dead within that timeframe. In any case, the regime would have no power three weeks into the fight.

I'm not saying the fighting would be over, I'm just saying he'd be ousted from power within that timeframe.

Scarier thought to me is Un having 50 missiles and launching at Russia or China. Would that be enough for them to "counter fire" on the other nations in an attempt to maintain the status quo?