The most likely location for a nuclear attack? [Archive]

ITR champion

12-22-2003, 12:15 AM

I would say the most likely is Moscow. Just because there are a bunch of fringe groups running around in the former Soviet Union, nuclear weapons lying around and not guarded properly, and some wackos might see a benefit is sowing total chaos in Russia. The impression that I get is that the situation in some parts of that region is far more unstable than some people realize.

Now if terrorists were to strike with a nuclear bomb in the U.S., it wouldn't be in Washington or New York because security has been beefed up the most there. Terrorists look for the weakest link. The most likely target would be a port city, and one with economic importance. My answer would be New Orleans, because a blast there would interrupt all the shipping that goes up the Mississippi River.

The Long Road

12-22-2003, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Depends who's throwing the party. I could imagine a small nuke being landing somewhere south of the 39th parallel, courtesy of the ROK. If instead it's an act of terrorism, I expect putting the nuke on a small boat and piloting it to South Ferry, New York City would be pretty tempting.

In any case, I find it any scenario unlikely.

A small nuclear weapon in a storage container aboard a ship bringing cargo to the United States would seem the easiest way to get it into a port. The steel might hide the radiation signature and the ship would not draw notice as a small craft trying to get into the port would. With all the cargo coming into the US, it can't possibly all be searched.

adaher

12-22-2003, 12:19 AM

I would think that if Al Qaeda specifically got their hands on a single weapon, they'd want to use it on something they knew they could probably hit. An operation to get it to the US would be extremely risky. Al Qaeda is also very active fighting Russia over Chechnya. I would think that this would be a very tempting target, although they might thing twice since Russia might just turn around and wipe Chechnya and any other possible Al Qaeda supporting nation off the map. Putin doesn't play around.

The Long Road

12-22-2003, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by ITR champion

Now if terrorists were to strike with a nuclear bomb in the U.S., it wouldn't be in Washington or New York because security has been beefed up the most there. Terrorists look for the weakest link. The most likely target would be a port city, and one with economic importance. My answer would be New Orleans, because a blast there would interrupt all the shipping that goes up the Mississippi River.

I've thought about this happening on Mardi Gras day. Millions of people very close to the river all day.

HPL

12-22-2003, 01:02 AM

What about any of the US West Coast Ports?

San Fransisco, Los Angeles, Honalulu and possibly Seattle. All easily reachable by container ship and Al Queda has a following in certain pacific rim nations that trade with the US.

gouda

12-22-2003, 02:31 AM

Most likely? The India/Pakistan theatre. I can imagine a few scenarios where nuclear weapons could come into the picture - and it's not a pretty picture.

toadspittle

12-22-2003, 02:05 PM

I don't see China NEEDING to use nukes in Taiwan. Seems to me they'd just give us the bum's rush, saturate the island with conventional missiles, land as many troops as they could, and call it done.

I can see the US fighting a naval standoff with China ... I can't see us wanting to get on the ground to dig out thousands of entrenched Chinese.

bump

12-22-2003, 04:03 PM

Hell... if we're talking about shipping and US targets, why not Houston?

First in the United States in foreign waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and sixth in the world.

Plus, the Houston Ship Channel is lined with refineries and chemical plants- a small nuke nearby would wreck those and start all sorts of fires, as well as release lots of nasty stuff into the environment.

JohnBckWLD

12-22-2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by devilsknew
Pakistan is my top choice. According to a 6/2003 Report from ABC (when tensions were @ a high level) (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/nuclearattacks_health020604.html)...A U.S. intelligence report estimated that a full-scale nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would result in the deaths of up to 12 million people directly related to the blast and the lethal doses of radiation that follow...It sound macabre, but I assumed that estimate would've been much higher.

I don't even want to consider the notion of it happening in the mainland US.

As far as a prediction goes: The port of Haifa.

Saddam Kamel was on record as stating it was Iraq's plan prior to his assasination. Even though some intelligence reports refuted his claims, they can't deny the fact Israel is public enemy #1 in the eyes of that regions zealots & megalomaniacs.

Kleine Raupe

12-23-2003, 12:18 PM

Prime locations for smaller scale suicide bombings on US soil:

--Disney World
--Major sporting events
--The DC Metro. (Pentagon stop perhaps?)

Yes, I have anxiety problems.

Fuji Kitakyusho

12-23-2003, 08:38 PM

Las Vegas, Nevada

Declan

12-23-2003, 08:42 PM

A chinese civil war, due any time now

Declan

hlanelee

12-24-2003, 07:42 AM

Why a nuclear attack?

Granted, large explosions are impressive and get attention but a truckload of strychnine would be easier to get than a nuke and would ruin someone's water supply in a big way.

Have a nice day.

treis

12-24-2003, 10:52 PM

First in the United States in foreign waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and sixth in the world.

Can I get some sort of cite on that?

No Offense meant but if I was ranking ports in the U.S. I would never even consider Houston.

ravage2

12-25-2003, 12:46 AM

I'll second Taiwan.

If anybody has read The ideas that conquered the world Michael Mandelbaum claims it is the most dangerous place in the world. Note, however, that it was written just after 9/11, ie before that flare up between India and Pakistan and just as China was becoming a (somewhat) respected member of the international community.

China will not win a conventional battle against Taiwan, ie one that involves invading and forcibly imposing a government on the native people.

Sofa King

12-25-2003, 01:43 AM

I'd have to say Pathankot, India. It's in the extreme north of Punjab, and appears to be the crucial canal, road and rail bottleneck (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/images/pathankot-tpc.jpg) which connects Kashmir to the rest of India. The airbase also has a 10,000 foot runway (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/images/pathankot-ik-br1.jpg), which was put to good use against the Pakistanis in the 1971 war (http://www.freeindia.org/1971war/skies_west.html).

If and when Pakistan thinks they can get away with snagging Kashmir, Pathankot must be "neutralized." If on the other hand India actually tries to make a move against Islamabad, the best way to logistically isolate Indian forces attacking from Kashmir is, again, to neutralize Pathankot.

You could try to capture and hold the area, but then your forces are dangerously exposed. It's much cheaper and easier to deny India the use of the area, which appears to have a population of around 150,000, and the cheapest way to do that is with nukes, if you can deliver them. Pathankot is less than 100 kilometers from the Pakistani border, well within range of some missiles and conventional aircraft.

Since Pakistan has only a handful of comparatively low yield atomic bombs, the city would probably be the recipient of more than one, because the airport and the road, rail, and canal links would probably have to be targeted separately.

Since neither India nor Pakistan possesses a nuclear arsenal large enough to ensure the total destruction of the other, I would argue that there is actually an incentive to use nukes early in any major conflict between the two countries. And if that happens, the first places to go are going to be the strategic points through which the enemy must move in order to attack you. Pathankot must be very, very high on the list of targets.

adaher

12-25-2003, 04:34 AM

Since India is ahead of Pakistan both in nukes and delivery systems, and probably in quantity too, I would think there would be a strong temptation on India's part to strike first and fast in an attempt to destroy Pakistans' entire nuclear capability. They'd have a decent chance of succeeding too.

Scruloose

12-25-2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by treis
Can I get some sort of cite on that?

No Offense meant but if I was ranking ports in the U.S. I would never even consider Houston.

From: http://www.portofhouston.com/geninfo/overview1.html

The Port of Houston
The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of diversified public and private facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico. The port is ranked first in the United States in foreign waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and sixth in the world.

Magiver

12-25-2003, 11:48 PM

Moscow is an interesting prospect because of Chechnya. Someone strapping on a bomb (or driving a vehicle carrying one) doesn't really care what the bomb consists of since they will be dead anyway. The bigger the better.

If you were referring to the US then I would consider a large city in a border state with Canada or Mexico. Seattle has been targeted before so that would be logical. Al Queda's MO has been one of single mindedness (they failed with the WTC 10 years ago). LA would be my next guess. It would be an easy trip through South America and there is a ready-made conduit at the border with people who transport illegal aliens.

The French have a cultural identity crisis on their hands that will get worse over time. Combine this with a previous plan to drive A/C into the Eiffel Tower and Paris becomes a good choice.

India has suffered a direct attack on their political system so the close proximity of New Delhi to Pakistan makes it a potential border-crossing target.

Paul in Qatar

12-26-2003, 12:08 AM

India/Pakistan.

The next nuclear attack would almost certainly be government-sponsored. The nations in this region have a long history of irrational behavior.

The real horror is once the nuclear threshold is lowered, the next blast becomes more and more likely.

(sigh)

Canadjun

12-26-2003, 10:56 AM

I don't think the original question is answerable (where would the next nuclear attack be), because there's too much sh-t going on in the world to predict. However, I don't believe the next catastrophic attack will be nuclear; chemical and biological weapons are so much easier to get and work with. A "well done" smallpox dispersal in a major city would be just as effective as a small nuke (maybe even a big nuke) when you take panic into account as well.

longhair75

12-27-2003, 11:03 AM

good morning friends,

the threat has changed with the fall of the soviet union. startegic air command headquarters in bellevue nebraska is about fifteen minutes from where i am typing this.

i used to have a sweatshirt that said on the front: welcome to bellevue nebraska. ground zero, usa

on the back it said: first and foremost in the hearts and minds of the soviet defense department.

in the late fifties and early sixties, we had "duck and cover" drills. the school bell would simulate the air raid siren, and we would duck under our desks and pray the rosary to ward off the nuclear attack that would probably hit ten miles away.

China Guy

12-28-2003, 12:49 AM

I'd be willing to bet Taiwan would be the first to use nukes in a cross straits nightmare scenario.

I think it's more likely that NorKor nukes somebody. S Kor, Japan, China, take your pick.

India and Pakistan scare me a lot because they are so close

Magiver

12-28-2003, 02:41 PM

Pakistan rises to the top again with the 2nd assassination attempt of Pervez Musharraf. Radical religious groups could overtake the government and then there would be instant access to nuclear weapons.

gouda

12-29-2003, 12:40 AM

Actually, there is plenty of speculation hereabouts that the assassination attempts were stage-managed by Musharraf himself. Possibly as a signal to India and the US that he, Musharraf, is the best bet for Pakistan.

Another theory is that the assassination was odered by his own military personnel, who might be getting pissed at the turn-around in Pakistani policy wrt Afghanistan, and his peace moves towards India.

Cite (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/385212.cms)

More (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EL19Df05.html)

Radicals within the Pakistain establishment, with control over its nuclear weapons, is scary.

adaher

12-29-2003, 04:40 AM

Assassination rarely brings about true regime change though. All it does is allow the person next in line to take over, usually someone ideologically similar. So even if Musharaff is nailed, there is little chance of a substantive change in Pakistani policies.

Bouncer

12-30-2003, 12:34 AM

No offense Longhair75, but as a resident of the militarily packed state of VA I take exception that. :)

Between the Pentagon in the north, Langley AFB, Norfolk Naval Base (CINCLANTFLT, CINCSUBLANT, CINCAIRLANT), Little Creek Amphibious Base, Oceana Naval Air Station, The Greenbriar command and control facility and various other bases and facilities pretty much all of VA was guaranteed to be a radioactive blob on the first strike. :)

You wanna read some scary bedtime stuff?

Projected US Casualties and Destruction of US Medical Services by Attacks from Russian Nuclear Forces.

52 to 100 Million dead.

http://www.ippnw.org/MGS/V7N2Helfand.pdf

Regards,
-Bouncer-

gouda

12-30-2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by adaher
Since India is ahead of Pakistan both in nukes and delivery systems, and probably in quantity too, I would think there would be a strong temptation on India's part to strike first and fast in an attempt to destroy Pakistans' entire nuclear capability. They'd have a decent chance of succeeding too. India has a declared no-first-use policy regarding her nuclear weapons. Furthermore, India and Pakistan have signed a pact whereby they agreed not to target each other's nuclear facilities in times of war.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Uzi

12-30-2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by gouda
India has a declared no-first-use policy regarding her nuclear weapons. Furthermore, India and Pakistan have signed a pact whereby they agreed not to target each other's nuclear facilities in times of war.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Yep, perfectly clear....But, how would one go about enforcing a pact with a country you are at war with? Threaten to war harder?

Back to the OP. I'd bet the most likely location of a nuclear attack would be wherever the terrorist is preparing the bomb. While some terrorists are pretty cunning, most aren't the brightest bulbs in the pack. You always hear about someone blowing themselves up as they are putting their explosives together. I can picture some terrorist with a hammer and chisel trying to bash open the access hatch of a nuclear bomb because he doesn't have the proper hex wrench in his tool kit to open it properly.

Bromley

12-30-2003, 10:26 AM

Most likely I'd go with New York, if only because the number of Jews there makes it twice as attractive to certain nutjobs. Most sensible, I'd go with La Palma, one of the Canary Islands. It'd just be too easy to get the nuke there.

See why. (http://www.disasterrelief.org/Disasters/010831tsunami/)

Of course, it's not guaranteed. But if successful can you imagine the pay-off from even a small nuke? Of course, there'd be a lot of involuntary martyrs in Morocco, but that's not stopped them before.

spectrum

12-30-2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by E-Sabbath
I still say, the town so nice, they named it twice, where I live and breathe, the crossroads of the world.

New York... New York.

That would be my prediction as well. Or, possibly, Houston, TX. A lot of tankers from the Middle East go to Houston, and slipping a nuke onto one might be hard, but it wouldn't be impossible.

toadspittle

12-30-2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Uzi

Back to the OP. I'd bet the most likely location of a nuclear attack would be wherever the terrorist is preparing the bomb. While some terrorists are pretty cunning, most aren't the brightest bulbs in the pack. You always hear about someone blowing themselves up as they are putting their explosives together. I can picture some terrorist with a hammer and chisel trying to bash open the access hatch of a nuclear bomb because he doesn't have the proper hex wrench in his tool kit to open it properly.

Cute, but not likely. Nukes are very hard to set off properly. Why do you think we did so much research (and are still doing computer sims. of nuke detonations)? Uranium doesn't go off like nitroglycerin does.

Loopydude

12-30-2003, 01:40 PM

It's really kinda hard to pick a better target for al Quaeda to hit again than the Big Apple. However, there is the "been there, done that" aspect. Chances are, the kind of bomb these guys could get into the US and successfully detonate would cause about the same number of deaths if it were placed in any major American city, since a single bomb could only destroy a portion of the city. Simply go for the region of highest population density in any big town and light the fuse.

I tend to think, though, that if al Quaeda came to posess a bomb, it might be the only one they could ever expect to get their hands on. It would be their most precious and valuable posession. Merely causing economic mayhem and killing a large number of people could be accomplished in any number of cities. Only New York had the nations tallest buildings. Beyond that, it's distinguished primarily by its size. Meanwhile, Washington DC is the heart of our democracy. Pick a day when congress is in session and the Prez. is in town, and you've killed off, potentially, all the heads of every branch of our Federal Govt., and incinerated the headquarters of our military. You might not kill as many people, but what people!

But maybe DC is too hard. Too obvious, and hence too well guarded. One might go for something symbolic, and also manage to kill off a boatload of folks while your at it. My next nominee would then be Philidelphia, the birthplace of the Nation, and a major East Coast metropolis. The City of Brotherly Love. It adds insult to injury that bombing, say, Chicago, just wouldn't get you. Hell, a lot of people wish LA would fall in the ocean as it is, so, again, what's a more attractive target if you really wanna hit the Americans where they live, after NY and DC?

Uzi

12-30-2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by toadspittle
Cute, but not likely. Nukes are very hard to set off properly. Why do you think we did so much research (and are still doing computer sims. of nuke detonations)? Uranium doesn't go off like nitroglycerin does.

Yes, banging on a nuke with a hammer is not likely to make it go off. But what would happen if you had to replace the electronics with a home-made version because you don't have the arming codes for the originals? Terrorists don't have the years of research of which you speak to fall back upon, nor the quality components, nor are likely to build in the fail safes that the original electronics had in them.

Magiver

12-31-2003, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by adaher
Assassination rarely brings about true regime change though. All it does is allow the person next in line to take over, usually someone ideologically similar. So even if Musharaff is nailed, there is little chance of a substantive change in Pakistani policies. Musharaff took office by force. IMO, Pakistan is a tightly wound collection of opposing forces and Musharaff doesn't have control of his own borders.

adaher

01-01-2004, 12:41 AM

Yes, but it will take a force to remove his government. A mere assassination doesn't accomplish that. Assassinations that change governments happen after coups, not before.

longhair75

01-01-2004, 08:04 AM

friend bouncer,

think also of our friends living around the norad base outside of colorado springs....

gouda

01-02-2004, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Uzi
Yep, perfectly clear....But, how would one go about enforcing a pact with a country you are at war with? Threaten to war harder? IIRC, the idea behind the pact was to keep civillian casualty resulting from nuclear meltdown (not unlike Chernobyl) to a minimum. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear facilities not too far from heavily populated cities, and it would be in both countries mutual interest not to target these facilities.

Which is not to say that it definetly won't happen. I'm just explaining the rationale behind the pact.

Uzi

01-02-2004, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by gouda
IIRC, the idea behind the pact was to keep civillian casualty resulting from nuclear meltdown (not unlike Chernobyl) to a minimum.

My first response: So, they made a pact that would allow them to nuke a city thus killing everyone, but not be allowed to nuke a nuclear facility near the city because the meltdown might kill everyone....:rolleyes:

But, I suspect the pact refers to using conventional weapons and the targeting of nuclear facilities. If not I stick with my first response. I still have no idea how they'd enforce either one, though.

gouda

01-02-2004, 07:23 AM

Yup, that's exactly what I said... a pact to not target nuclear facilities. Nothing about not using nuclear weapons. And like I said, it'd be in each other's mutual interest not to violate the pact.

Besides, IMO targeting nuclear facilities, even with conventional weapons is as good as using nuclear weapons, thereby inviting nuclear retaliation. Not violating the pact makes more sense now, doesn't it?

Uzi

01-02-2004, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by gouda
Yup, that's exactly what I said... a pact to not target nuclear facilities. Nothing about not using nuclear weapons.

Yes, but you used the quote in a thread about the most likely location for a nuclear attack. Thus the confusion arose, you see?

gouda

01-03-2004, 12:26 AM

No, I don't see. My post was in response to a comment by Adaher, which I duly quoted, regarding India targetting Pakistan's nuclear installations. Towards the general goal of fighting ignorance, I pointed out yada yada yada.

You drew your own conclusions from there on.

adaher

01-03-2004, 12:31 AM

I did not know that. Thank you.

Although I would caution that pacts signed about these situations tend not to be followed. India would actually have to trust Pakistan and may not be in a very trustful mood while a war is raging.

gouda

01-03-2004, 01:56 AM

Both countries continue to supply each other with updated lists of their nuclear installations, and the hope is that the pact will be abided by. Having said that, I do indeed doubt Pakistan's sincerity regarding this pact, and I'm sure the same hold true on the other side.

But history has shown, in the wars India and Pakistan have fought, that Pakistan has realised when the war was lost and has surrendered, before allowing any more damage to its own. Hopefully the same sense will prevail if it comes down to war again.