DC Tom Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 Is delivery via an ocean-going vessel with sufficiently obfuscated origin into a harbor undoable? 236116[/snapback] You mean launch a missile from a ship, or just pack it in the hold? Launching a missile from your average freighter is a significant undertaking (unless you don't care what you hit - correction, launching is relatively trivial, aiming is a friggin' bear.) If you just stick it in the hold...easy in principle, and if you plan on nuking some East African dive of a smuggling port it's easy in practice...but believe it or not security in the US, while not perfect, is good enough that such a thing is more likely to fail than succeed.
stuckincincy Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 You mean launch a missile from a ship, or just pack it in the hold? Launching a missile from your average freighter is a significant undertaking (unless you don't care what you hit - correction, launching is relatively trivial, aiming is a friggin' bear.) If you just stick it in the hold...easy in principle, and if you plan on nuking some East African dive of a smuggling port it's easy in practice...but believe it or not security in the US, while not perfect, is good enough that such a thing is more likely to fail than succeed. 236374[/snapback] No, not a launch. I'm not disrespecting US security efforts, nor Japanese, nor SK's, but given the volume of ship traffic, the possibility of a long time in advance for the NK's to ship a container here, then there, then there, etc, or contract with a shipping company for a ship, move it hither and yon so that it's become just one more ocean-going cargo ships that gets lost in the mix... And bribery works well. And of course than never be anything such as 100% inspection of containers or vessels unless you want the economy to grind to a halt.
VABills Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 No, not a launch. I'm not disrespecting US security efforts, nor Japanese, nor SK's, but give the volume of ship traffic, the possibility of a long time in advance for the NK's to ship a container here, then there, then there, etc, or contract with a shipping company for a ship, move it hither and yon so that it's become just one more ocean-going cargo ships that gets lost in the mix... And bribery works well. 236393[/snapback] There is enough "monitoring" going on that it is likely that it would be sensed before it go here and close enough to do damage.
stuckincincy Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 There is enough "monitoring" going on that it is likely that it would be sensed before it go here and close enough to do damage. 236395[/snapback] Smuggling is a well-established "art". And consider "decoy" vessels that are acting suspiciously, drawing attention.
stuckincincy Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 "Nuclear" marterial isn't exactly dormant. 236400[/snapback] I know that. I've worked with them. You seem to imply that there are round-the clock sensing systems that will detect disintegrations at any level through thousands of square miles of littoral regions.
VABills Posted February 11, 2005 Posted February 11, 2005 I know that. I've worked with them. You seem to imply that there are round-the clock sensing systems that will detect disintegrations at any level through thousands of square miles of littoral regions. 236405[/snapback] I never said that. But to this point we have never had one go off in this country, and Al Qaeda and other groups who hate us have a lot of money. Something obviously is happening to prevent it.
stuckincincy Posted February 12, 2005 Posted February 12, 2005 I never said that. But to this point we have never had one go off in this country, and Al Qaeda and other groups who hate us have a lot of money. Something obviously is happening to prevent it. 236411[/snapback] For which I am extremely grateful. It seems that a lot of folks these days don't realize what a nuclear detonation can cause. This is a repeat citation, but I like to post it if the topic comes up in hopes that people will realize the terrible consequences involved. Scenario: Nuclear Detonation in NYC (it references a 150 kt blast). sorry about the lousy red text. http://www.nod-valley.k12.ia.us/students/2...ar/newyork.html
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2005 Posted February 12, 2005 For which I am extremely grateful. It seems that a lot of folks these days don't realize what a nuclear detonation can cause. This is a repeat citation, but I like to post it if the topic comes up in hopes that people will realize the terrible consequences involved. Scenario: Nuclear Detonation in NYC (it references a 150 kt blast). sorry about the lousy red text. http://www.nod-valley.k12.ia.us/students/2...ar/newyork.html 236422[/snapback] 150kT is a pretty big friggin' terrorist device... But as for smuggling a nuke in...you do consider, of course, that "port security" has a lot more depth than just the ports themselves, of course. The simple act of getting it into port and offloaded isn't necessarily difficult, considering how often Chinese immigrants are smuggled in shipping containers. But nuclear material is tracked worldwide much more closely than individual people are; the absence of thirty Chinese peasants isn't going to be noticed, but a single stray nuclear warhead is far more likely to attract attention by going "missing". Not that it isn't impossible. It's just much more difficult than it seems at first glance. I'm sure it's even more difficult than I'm assuming (e.g. I'd put money on radiation detectors already being installed in ports that we've never heard about). And anyway...if I really wanted to !@#$ things up, I'd get a good-sized warhead and detonate it underwater in the mid-Atlantic. The resulting waves would be non-trivial...
stuckincincy Posted February 12, 2005 Posted February 12, 2005 150kT is a pretty big friggin' terrorist device... But as for smuggling a nuke in...you do consider, of course, that "port security" has a lot more depth than just the ports themselves, of course. The simple act of getting it into port and offloaded isn't necessarily difficult, considering how often Chinese immigrants are smuggled in shipping containers. But nuclear material is tracked worldwide much more closely than individual people are; the absence of thirty Chinese peasants isn't going to be noticed, but a single stray nuclear warhead is far more likely to attract attention by going "missing". Not that it isn't impossible. It's just much more difficult than it seems at first glance. I'm sure it's even more difficult than I'm assuming (e.g. I'd put money on radiation detectors already being installed in ports that we've never heard about). And anyway...if I really wanted to !@#$ things up, I'd get a good-sized warhead and detonate it underwater in the mid-Atlantic. The resulting waves would be non-trivial... 236435[/snapback] Yes, the 150 kt is a bigger item - it was a convenient link, and some more technical links seem to have disappeared in recent years. Reminds me of the Brookhaven site the day after TWA 800. The fault in the Las Palmas island in the Canaries...
VABills Posted February 12, 2005 Posted February 12, 2005 150kT is a pretty big friggin' terrorist device... But as for smuggling a nuke in...you do consider, of course, that "port security" has a lot more depth than just the ports themselves, of course. The simple act of getting it into port and offloaded isn't necessarily difficult, considering how often Chinese immigrants are smuggled in shipping containers. But nuclear material is tracked worldwide much more closely than individual people are; the absence of thirty Chinese peasants isn't going to be noticed, but a single stray nuclear warhead is far more likely to attract attention by going "missing". Not that it isn't impossible. It's just much more difficult than it seems at first glance. I'm sure it's even more difficult than I'm assuming (e.g. I'd put money on radiation detectors already being installed in ports that we've never heard about). And anyway...if I really wanted to !@#$ things up, I'd get a good-sized warhead and detonate it underwater in the mid-Atlantic. The resulting waves would be non-trivial... 236435[/snapback] Not to mention that a ship transporting it might glow like the Aurora in January, on some satellites.
stuckincincy Posted February 12, 2005 Posted February 12, 2005 Not to mention that a ship transporting it might glow like the Aurora in January, on some satellites. 236440[/snapback] And NK whether we like it or not, has free passage of the ocean. Say they send 30 ships with emitting waste into the Atlantic or Pacfic. Scramble the US continental Fleets? For days or weeks or months?
VABills Posted February 12, 2005 Posted February 12, 2005 And NK whether we like it or not, has free passage of the ocean. Say they send 30 ships with emitting waste into the Atlantic or Pacfic. Scramble the US continental Fleets? For days or weeks or months? 236444[/snapback] Actually NK really doesn't have free reign of the oceans.
stuckincincy Posted February 12, 2005 Posted February 12, 2005 Actually NK really doesn't have free reign of the oceans. 236451[/snapback] Why not? Are they denied access to shipping lanes, ports of call? They need not violate any nation's waters to steam about and glow.
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2005 Posted February 12, 2005 Why not? Are they denied access to shipping lanes, ports of call? They need not violate any nation's waters to steam about and glow. 236455[/snapback] Theoretically, they do. As a practical matter...how many North Korean flagged ships do you think there are in the world?
stuckincincy Posted February 12, 2005 Posted February 12, 2005 Theoretically, they do. As a practical matter...how many North Korean flagged ships do you think there are in the world? 236498[/snapback] Lots. But most of them are costal gun boats.
chicot Posted February 12, 2005 Posted February 12, 2005 Fine. But again they cannot strike the US. Also, they had better hope it pops at the right time if they nuke Japan, or Japan will level NK. In fact they probably still would. 235289[/snapback] True. My guess is they'd only go in for such a doomsday option if they were convinced they were facing the end, in which case thoughts of survival may give way to the desire to do as much damage as possible.
Recommended Posts