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.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. envoy to stalled North Korea nuclear talks says the United States will not tolerate a nuclear North Korea and has warned Pyongyang not to test a nuclear weapon.
Originally posted by Faint
Yeah it all seems very imtimidating and such but of course the world will do Nothing ,me...i think the US should go in right this second and take that pshyco out but hey...what do i know
If North Korea does conduct a test, it "will realize that they had a bad day when they made that choice," he said.
Originally posted by Faint
Well you could simply bomb the holy be-jesus out of him with the USA's incrediable airforce , and there is always the option of withdrawing from iraq if needs bee
Originally posted by super70
If NK is going through with the test, I guess we would only hear about it if it were successful.
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't say "dang, we spent billions of dollars on this thing and it doesn't work! We have no idea what we're doing!"
So it seems to me they are painting themselves into a corner here.
1. If they go through with it and it works, the world is going to condemn them.
2. If they try it and it doesn't work, they will look like they caved into western pressure.
Originally posted by Neon Haze
Imagine Hezbollah armed with a dirty Bomb???
We live in very dangerous times people.
NeoN HaZe.
Originally posted by john_bmth
Originally posted by Neon Haze
Imagine Hezbollah armed with a dirty Bomb???
We live in very dangerous times people.
NeoN HaZe.
Dirty bombs have been proven to be fear-mongering with no substance. Many world experts on the topic have said that dirty bombs simply aren't dangerous. However, it does get the masses all scared up nice and proper
Originally posted by john_bmth
dirty bomb not equals nuke.
Repeate after me:
dirty bomb not equals nuke.
One last time for clarity:
dirty bomb not equals nuke.
There, cleared that one up, didn't we?
[edit on 5-10-2006 by john_bmth]
Basically, the principal type of dirty bomb, or Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD), combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite,
with radioactive material. In most instances,
the conventional explosive itself would have more immediate
lethality than the radioactive material.
At the levels created by most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present in a dirty bomb to kill people or cause severe illness.
For example, most radioactive material employed in hospitals for diagnosis or treatment of cancer is sufficiently
benign that about 100,000 patients a day are released with this material in their bodies.
Originally posted by Neon Haze
Just exactly where did I say that a dirty bomb = nukes....???
Originally posted by Neon Haze
What are you talking about?
Do you know what the cause of lasting damage is after the event of a nuke going off???
FALLOUT!!!!
The North’s announcement prompted outcry from a host of nations including China, the North’s main ally. Beijing’s ambassador to the United Nations urged Pyongyang Wednesday not to go ahead with a test, warning of “serious consequences.”
Wang Guangya said at the U.N. that “no one is going to protect” North Korea, if it goes ahead with “bad behavior.”
Originally posted by crisko
But even if you still think nothing will be done if N.K. tests this missle / warhead - well - we may not have to do anything at all as China has stepped onto the scene...
Originally posted by john_bmth
Originally posted by Neon Haze
What are you talking about?
Do you know what the cause of lasting damage is after the event of a nuke going off???
FALLOUT!!!!
...and around we go.
What Dirty Bombs Are, and What They Are Not
The first step in appreciating the threat of dirty bombs is to understand that they are not nuclear weapons. Indeed, the only difference between a dirty bomb and a conventional explosive is that the dirty bomb is laced with some sort of radiological material. Therefore, it is better to think of the threat not in terms of the dirty bomb, but instead in terms of any devise that disperses radioactive materials.
A radiological dispersal device may not even require an explosion. It is quite possible to separate the "dirty" from the "bomb." A terrorist could choose any number of methods to disperse dangerous radioactive material. The dispersion method may well be a conventional explosion, but putting radioactive material in a trashcan or sprinkling it on a sidewalk could also be an effective--and covert--means of contamination.
The initial destruction caused by a dirty bomb would likely result from the explosion itself and not from the nuclear material. Its destructive capacity would be a function of the amount and type of explosive materials used, not of the radioactive additives. A car bomb laced with radioactive cobalt-60 would look no different from a car bomb without the extra material.
Likewise, the radiological affect would be defined by the type and amount of radioactive material. A bomb with a small amount of radioactive material might wreak economic havoc and spread terror, but it would have little biological effect on local populations. On the other hand, a bomb laced with large amounts of strontium-90 (a highly radioactive isotope found in old Soviet power generators), highly enriched uranium, or spent nuclear fuel from a nuclear power plant could be devastating.
However, like most threats, the highest risks are also the least likely. Not only are the more dangerous materials much more difficult to obtain, but the successful dispersal of a highly radioactive material would require an extremely sophisticated terrorist.