Let's suppose that a major terrorist organization actually acquired nucelar material, transported it to an area over which they have firm control, and then had the materials and know-how to safely store it covertly over a long term period of time. This is an unwarranted assumption, but, for the sake of argument, we'll assume it's true. Let's also assume that the people looking for the stolen material won't find the terrorists, no matter how much satellite surveillance and military power is thrown at the problem.
Now it comes time for the technical know-how of building a weapon, without the benefit of scientific testing (because your supply is limited, and a tested nuclear strike would draw a LOT of attention to your little base of operatons) to make sure it's all fool-proof. There's no guarantee on this part...you may remember that North Korea's nuclear test wasn't exactly what one might call "fully successful," and they have a large area and body of research to work with. Terrorists lack such advantages.
But let's even grant that this was possible: they made a weapon, and we'll say it'll work.
Now, they have to transport such a device, with a live nuclear load, into the United States.
Umm...how? An aircraft to deliver the payload out of their country would be eventually picked up and tracked on radar, and either forced or shot down. A boat is certainly a plausible way to get it out of the country, but small boats that could go undetected by warships would not do very well over the ocean, nor would they have enough fuel to make a trip all the way to the United States. The most likely solution involves several stops, possibly via boats and small aircraft all the way to the U.S. shores through several countries...but this method requires a LOT of chatter to coordinate the route and times, and that stuff is monitored closely. Even if you have no break in the chain from the base to the target, you can still get caught. Authorities from any nation could be waiting to stop them at any point.
Now, you have to smuggle this device into American borders. A small car could not carry a large bomb, and border patrol would be very curious about the heavy lead case you have in the back seat.. A box truck might be a smarter move, as you can hide it among other crates, but such trucks are caught at crossings the longest, and the stress of waiting might be telling on a terrorist carrying a live load. Border guards are trained to watch for these things to better select which "random" trucks need to be thoroughly searched.
But, let's assume you get passed that line of defense. You now have to deliver your load to a major population center. You have to park your truck (presumably) in a populated area, and then detonate your device. Let's assume this is a suicide bomber scenario, so that an escape route doesn't have to be planned.
So, you head to the back and fiddle around with the casing to expose the bomb for maximum effect. Let's say that any passing officers, security guards, or alert citizens aren't wondering why you stopped your truck and began fiddling around with a hidden container in the back.
You now take out the bomb, and you detonate it.
If the bomb was large (requiring more of the illicit material), you might kill a million people, if the winds are in your favor and you're lucky, and irradiate the immediate area, requiring evacuation for a month or so. You are not taking out the whole city...not with a bomb that you could carry in a truck.
A smarter move would be to head for a tiny airport and load the bomb on a small plane, detonating the bomb at a higher point, or taking it up to a tall tower. In this case, your irradiate a larger area and have more unpredictable fall out, as well as possibly damaging more structures, depending on the specifics of the attack. Unfortunately, you're talking about more chatter and more movement in this method, increasing the likelihood of getting caught.
All of this...for one devestating attack that won't really cripple the U.S. Despite what Hollywood and the Cold War occassionally tries to tell us, one nuclear blast, even from a large bomb, is not the end of the planet. You do not need an "emergency survival plan."
I'm sure the government has thought all of this through and understands that the cost of preparation for the effects of such an attack is not worth it, considering the low risk.
2007-06-18 12:09:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by jtrusnik 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
This is all possible and even likely. The Bible talks about the end of the world - the elements melting with searing heat etc, which sound like Nuclear disaster.If it did happen, would not that leave the way clear for a world dictator (Antichrist?) to take control. The Bible also talks about the Tribulation. However, it also seems to promise that God's children, those who have given their lives to Jesus, will be taken away before all this happens. Hope this helps.
2007-06-18 11:54:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by SKCave 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would hope that the government IS preparing for such an event. It would be naive to think there isn't a real possibility of that happening. And I'd like to think the government will have something in place to deal with it if it does.
2007-06-18 11:54:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Are you kidding me, ALL governments are in on the satanic conspiracy to create a NWO with a one world religion of the antichrist! Al-queda does NOT exist, it's media controlled programming to get you to focus an enemy that's not your enemy! 9/11 was an inside job, haven't you found this out yet? There's 100 million documentaries, websites exposing this lie! The planes were for show, it was a controlled demolition, bombs inside the buildings brought them down! The American gov't had this planned for decades, it's even in their secret document the 'Northwoods documents' how they needed a catastrophe on American soil to help bring their NWO! The whole purpose of it was to create anti-freedom laws and use it as a pretext to gain control of all the opium production in Afghanistan and look like 'heroes' to the brainwashed dumbasss public!
2007-06-18 11:55:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
They are. Fema has built over 10,ooo camps around the United states for this eventuallity. 12-12-2012.
2007-06-18 11:51:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think the government is secretly trying to bring about Armageddon, myself. You can't claim to be fighting a war on terror at home when your foreign policies do nothing but promote terrorism overseas.
2007-06-18 11:54:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
sure .. of direction. You do comprehend the final time around they rounded up all the destructive and despatched them to Australia and North u . s . a ... specially to sparkling the land for sheep. real tale That became additionally the Tories.
2016-10-17 23:03:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
the shrub says God speaks to him, so should this be true ( ha ) he would know. I've noticed many in the west live in a culture of fear and it seems its being pulled along by mass consumption, but then again I could be wrong.
2007-06-18 11:54:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
At the end of the day, does it really matter...? Nobody's made it off this planet alive since Day 1....
What makes you think the Gvmt cares one way or the other...
2007-06-18 11:58:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by BobAndrews 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Armaggedon is the final battle between Jesus Christ and satan (and his army). It will not happen until after the millennial reign of Jesus is over, and He will not even return until the end of the tribulation period.....which has not started yet.
If you are using the term just to refer to an all out nuclear war, that's something different.
2007-06-18 11:51:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Esther 7
·
0⤊
2⤋