From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Sun Jun 22 2003 - 21:06:01 MDT
Brett Paatsch stated:
<<I heard Australian PM Howard talking
about possibly being a buyer of nuclear defence shielding
systems. This seems completely nuts to me. The chances of
being attacked by ICBMs etc seem virtually zero in comparison
with say a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb or something similar.
ICBMs leave a trail that's like a return to sender with interest
message. >>
1. Smuggled weapons appear less likely, since the creation of several NEST
teams in various countries. NEST = nuclear emergency search teams, Since 9-11
there have been many passive monitors that wait for a nuclear weapons profile to
enter ports and critical cities like DC. A suitcase bomb would likely be
under 500 ton (not kilo or megaton). A small nuke detonating in a harbor would be
unlikely to have the same kill ratio as an explosion in Los Angeles or
Houston. Thus, considerably less psychological intimidation.
2. An ICBM is just nifty if you wish to slay hundreds of thousands in just 45
minutes. Very short evacuation time, there would be a very useless trip-wire
for evacuation. You have a better chance of impacting your enemy with
"unaccpetable damages" that way. You could also MIRV your warhead to deliver triple
damage (3 warheads) onto or near a target city, base, hostage zone.
3. All the big kids have done it. The US, the CCCP and its successor, the PRC
and so forth. If smiggling small nukes into cities was so effacious, it would
have been tried before. I am guessing some dry attempts have been practiced
in the last 55 years; and have been found wanting.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 22 2003 - 21:15:23 MDT