September 06, 2005

Lack of perspective

from - Buck

I pulled an old Boortz out of the archive today.

Neal's Islamophobia is clear but his denial of the situation on the ground in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is stunning

what we are seeing in New Orleans today is nothing compared to what we might see if Islamic terrorists ever manage to realize their dream of bringing a nuclear device into this country. We're seeing tremendous losses and devastation in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. This is nothing compared to what you might see if the radical adherents of the wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam realize their dreams.

Can a suitcase nuke really devastate 90,000 square miles?

::

Posted by Buck at September 6, 2005 10:21 AM
Comments

Buck,

This is kind of a who has the uglier step sister argument. Katrina totally destroyed 90,000 square miles and the suitcase nuke would only be able to destroy part of one city, but the suitcase nuke carries a pretty heavy kick. Figure 10 kilotons -- same size as Hiroshima (http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/suitcase-nuclear.htm).

In a city with a population of 340,000, the bomb blast killed 60,000 to 70,000. Radiation killed another 70,000. It totally destroyed everything within 4 sq. miles. (http://www.greatestcities.com/Asia/Japan/Chugoku_Region/Hiroshima_Prefecture/Hiroshima_city_regional_capital.html)

So if you are measuring based on total area destroyed, Katrina wins hands down. If you are measuring on total impact -- loss of life and long term effects of radiation on both people and infrastructure a suitcase bomb are going to be pretty bad. Add the impact of notice vs no notice, the need to immediately restrict movement into / out of the area destroyed, the FUD that if they can detinate one tactical nuke they can detinate others, and other challenges and the suitcase bomb should probably get the nod as being the uglier stepsister.

m

univar.jpg Posted by m on September 6, 2005 11:13 AM
Link to comment

Thanks M.

I have got to do some more research into suitcase nukes.

I have always considered them to be more of a scare tactic than a reality.

But if it is as you say and it is possible to get a bomb that would do the damage that was done to Hiroshima or Nagasaki inside of a suitcase then it could get rather ugly.

univar.jpg Posted by Buck on September 7, 2005 09:18 AM
Link to comment

Buck,

I would say that the whole idea of using weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons) is currently more scare than reality.

There are lots of little technical details that make deploying NBC harder than it looks and it typically is going to require expertise and planning from a relatively large group of well financed people. This makes keeping it secret harder (not impossible, just harder).

I don't think many non-state sponsored terrorist groups have the resources -- either in terms of cash or expertise -- to pull it off. Though doing a small scale operation -- like the Sarin attacks in Japan -- is certainly possible.

As a scare tactic, the idea that someone could kill millions of people definitely gets your attention.

m

univar.jpg Posted by m on September 7, 2005 11:52 AM
Link to comment
Comments for this entry are closed. Please leave your notes on a more recent comment thread.