-
Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.
Nuclear or Radiological Terrorist Attack Debate
- Thread starter Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱
- Start date
I've always wondered about that though, I mean defense agencies are tasked with imagining an endless series of possibilities. I've always wondered if it were possible to produce a few weapons with pits made from unknown reactors. Is that possible? An untraceable weapon?
No. It's not about what reactors makes the fuel but where the raw material was mined. All uranium mines are logged for this reason. We know the fingerprint of all uranium mines anywhere. The Uranium mined in America has a 100% difference fingerprint then Russian mined uranium, and same for any other nation/region.
No way to get around it. International community has a record of all uranium signatures/fingerprints from all over the world.
Oh! Ok I didn't know that. I thought the material was altered in the refinement process and that was the distinction.
That makes sense.
Now with that said its notoriously known that Russia poorly guards its decommissioned warheads and material from said warheads. Or Russian military susceptible to corruption/bribery could lead to serious breaches in containment of nuclear material.
Middle East terrorist could in theory get Russian material build their own suitcase nuke and use it on EU. Which could put the blame wrongly on Russia. Which would go without saying be really bad.
Last edited:
Didn't Mrs. Cliton sell 2o% of US uranium mining rights to russia? Would it be possible to use some of our own uranium against us through a proxy?
Well that's a interesting thought. But wouldn't it be obvious if a suitcase nuke was used on EU/US and had American radioactive fingerprint?
Only explanation would be the Uranium we gave Russia or less likely somehow terrorist got a hold of highly secured material from the West. I'd believe the first scenario more then terrorist getting a hold of American highly secured material.
That's what makes this interesting though, I mean whom do you hold responsible if that were to happen? You know the population will be blood thirsty in the aftermath
If you managed to bring nuclear material in you could possibly smuggle if adequate shielding but I did like the Tom Clancy story of attaching small radioactive samples on pigeons but I would add rats for multiple false sources scurrying all over the place making it difficult to track just where the shield source is. Or release before hand by several days/weeks to cause alert fatigue first.
Which book was that? I've read a few but thats clever
Radioactive materials from universities and hospitals for a dirty considering security probably isn't high enough. If American universities and hospitals than trace elements are easily identified. ? Is who did it is harder to point the finger at.
One nuclear warhead is the stupidest thing to detonate in the US. Its like pulling out a knife on someone who has a gun.
Russia would not intentionally do this. Now Pakistan, Iran, North Korea.... might think if they hit DC the world is saved (but you cannot nuke away the US government).
But even that is unlikely. I would say the #1 threat is terrorists in Pakistan getting ahold of Pakistans nuclear weapons (personally I think Iran is too protective of their program)
And I mean, hey, Pakistan could weasle out of the blame by reporting the stolen nuclear weapon before it was ever used.
Then again, how would a terrorist get it to America? You cant exactly put it in bananas.
I think nuclear terrorism would require some level of conspiracy. A group of someones in the US government would have to be in on it.
Russia would not intentionally do this. Now Pakistan, Iran, North Korea.... might think if they hit DC the world is saved (but you cannot nuke away the US government).
But even that is unlikely. I would say the #1 threat is terrorists in Pakistan getting ahold of Pakistans nuclear weapons (personally I think Iran is too protective of their program)
And I mean, hey, Pakistan could weasle out of the blame by reporting the stolen nuclear weapon before it was ever used.
Then again, how would a terrorist get it to America? You cant exactly put it in bananas.
I think nuclear terrorism would require some level of conspiracy. A group of someones in the US government would have to be in on it.
DucknCover
Guest
The terrorist nuke wouldn't have that big impact, if it's just a single one.
But if they could manage to smuggle a couple nukes in It would make the US government vulnerable to blackmail.
And that would have a huge impact.
But if they could manage to smuggle a couple nukes in It would make the US government vulnerable to blackmail.
And that would have a huge impact.
Well my original scenario was a handoff of an "orphaned" weapon up to a nuke but not necessarily one either. I agree it would be suicidally stupid for Russia to launch one solitary nuke at us. Putin is cornered not stupid.
Besides I don't actually believe this will happen in the first place.
They wouldn't need to have more than one. Just detonate one and threaten them with more.
The material from hospital or university isn't high grade enough to make a atomic/nuclear bomb. Make a dirty bomb sure. But weapons grade fissile material is only in US gov hands or military/government facilities.
Sorry I did state dirty for dirty bomb. Granted not as effective but still nasty and terrorism capable.
Oh yes. Sorry missed that. Surprised it hasn't happened yet to be frank with you.
And much harder to throw the blame considering anyone could do it from anywhere. You would have to catch them through previous evidence like security cameras ect. Now if 2-3 with organisation like 911 , managed to set them up in 2-3 major cities, well that would be more devastating, maybe not in damage or deaths.But to the American population. Until you could prove who was responsible, really not much you could do and reaction to the country found responsible would be limited. You certainly couldn't nuke back. Difficult decision on repercussion.