Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Nuking a major city
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 22:30:26 +0100
Fade said on 15:04/20 Aug 97...

> > and send in some anti-terrorism unit to take
> > over the ship -- a big plus here is that the Americans could even actually
> > use Delta Force (or whatever it's currently called) instead of the FBI's
> > Hostage Rescue Team, since the ship isn't US territory...
> Or any other of a number of forces. Other countries also has
> options.. Spetsnaz, SAS, and so on. All very skilled units.

I picked Delta Force because you placed this in the USA. I highly doubt
they Americans would turn to Spetsnaz (if only because this unit is much
too large to be of the same quality as western special forces) or the SAS,
since they're all foreigners...

> Consider this... it's very similar to a hijacked plane situation. Not
> many of those go off successfully. There is a big advantage, though,
> on behalf of the special forces, an advantage often overlooked.
>
> Who is in that ship?
>
> They are, basically, morons. They volunteered to press the button on
> a nuke at ground zero. You don't get educated, skilled personell to
> do that. Now they would probably be the best of the morons, but still
> morons. (They would probably prefer to be called patriots, freedom
> fighters, or whatever.).

I don't 100% agree with that... You'd be amazed at the number of
highly-educated people willing to die for The Cause (listen to the NOFX
song of that title someday, BTW :) and although they would want to be
known as patriots or whatever, IMHO they'd certainly not be "morons" as
you seem to refer to them.
(Although that leads to the discussion of whether willingly dying for
something is moronic or not, but that's like discussion religions or
operating systems...)

Up until here it's still and advantage for the assaulting team. However:

> But whoever rigged the ship's defenses didn't have to be morons.. they
> could stay behind. Motion trackers, sensors, infrared, watchers,
> whatever.
>
> My money would likely be on the morons, as long as the ship was well
> prepared. Too much can go wrong.

With no real defenses, the SF team has a field day since they can walk
(okay, sneak) right in and take out the terrorists. With well-prepared
defenses it will be much harder, but it can always be done. It just gets
much harder to not mess up the mission, because once you're spotted they
may detonate the weapon.

> And remember, one of the scenarios was that the offender would not
> even threaten its use; just detonate it as a diversion. Without
> foreknowledge, there wouldn't be anyone even looking for it.

Of course. That's why I was thinking about what to do when you do get
warning from the country/dictator in question.

> For this foreknowledge you need the CIA or its equivalent.. or a
> stupid dictator. You can't count on stupid dictators.

You should never think a dictator is stupid in the first place -- mad,
maybe, but not stupid -- stupid dictators don't stay in power.

> > With that over, they may only bomb a few of your cities into oblivion to
> > teach you not to do it again :)
>
> Despite the smiley, I'll bite. The threat of nukes isn't enough to
> use nukes yourself; the political environment will not tolerate
> nuclear first strike. (It might, but it depends a lot on the
> situation... enough so that I'd say it would most likely not be
> acceptable.).

Maybe I should have made clear that I meant a conventional bombing
campaign -- suppress their AA defenses, load up a couple dozen B-52s with
iron bombs, and open the bomb-bay doors over whatever target may look
useful to the enemy.

> Doesn't stop you from using FAB's, though; almost as powerful without
> the radiation. Why go for the 'Big Bad Weapon' when all you need is
> to kill everything and everyone in the city? There's no money in
> making it Cancer City for a hundred or so years. (FAB's.. Paul
> Addams can tell you all about'em, I bet.).

You mean fuel-air explosives? It's the only weapon name I can make of the
acronym (by replacing "explosive" with"bomb"). From what I've read,
they
can be highly effective but the fuel cloud has to be able to form.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Looking over the edge...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 2
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 04:45:54 +0000
First off, my apologies. Writing this I'm about 80% asleep. G'night
everybody!

Gurth wrote:
> > > and send in some anti-terrorism unit to take
> > > over the ship -- a big plus here is that the Americans could even actually
> > > use Delta Force (or whatever it's currently called) instead of the FBI's
> > > Hostage Rescue Team, since the ship isn't US territory...
> > Or any other of a number of forces. Other countries also has
> > options.. Spetsnaz, SAS, and so on. All very skilled units.
>
> I picked Delta Force because you placed this in the USA. I highly doubt
> they Americans would turn to Spetsnaz (if only because this unit is much
> too large to be of the same quality as western special forces) or the SAS,
> since they're all foreigners...

I was vague. I meant in case the same trick was used on any other
major player.. as long as we're theoretical, I mean. Doesn't have to
be the US that receives a bomb unexpectedly.


> > Consider this... it's very similar to a hijacked plane situation. Not
> > many of those go off successfully. There is a big advantage, though,
> > on behalf of the special forces, an advantage often overlooked.
> >
> > Who is in that ship?
> >
> > They are, basically, morons. They volunteered to press the button on
> > a nuke at ground zero. You don't get educated, skilled personell to
> > do that. Now they would probably be the best of the morons, but still
> > morons. (They would probably prefer to be called patriots, freedom
> > fighters, or whatever.).
>
> I don't 100% agree with that... You'd be amazed at the number of
> highly-educated people willing to die for The Cause (listen to the NOFX
> song of that title someday, BTW :) and although they would want to be
> known as patriots or whatever, IMHO they'd certainly not be "morons" as
> you seem to refer to them.
> (Although that leads to the discussion of whether willingly dying for
> something is moronic or not, but that's like discussion religions or
> operating systems...)

I used the term Moronic without too much (any?) thought. The
situation I had in the back of my mind when I wrote it was
Iraq/Saddam Hussein, which would have used such a plot to get USA to
back out of the Gulf. With the US gone the coalition forces would
also dissolve. But 'The Cause' to die for in this case would be
annexation of another country, with little justification that a
rational mind would be willing to sacrifice his or her life for.
Despite Saddam's threats, there was very few, even no, Iraqi suicide
bombers or similar during or after the war. They aren't that easy to
come by, and their numbers are inversely proportional to the level of
education in a country. Other factors also play their part, though.
Emnity, social network, outcasts, good ol' insanity, religion, to
mention a few.




I can in honesty say that I am both educated, and able to think up a
few causes i would be perfectly willing to die for; that makes me, by
my own words; moronic. So be it. But no way does any of those causes
involve me wrapping myself in dynamite, walking over to a cafe' and
blowing up the place. I do not see civilians as
a valid target.


> Up until here it's still an advantage for the assaulting team. However:
>
> > But whoever rigged the ship's defenses didn't have to be morons.. they
> > could stay behind. Motion trackers, sensors, infrared, watchers,
> > whatever.
> >
> > My money would likely be on the morons, as long as the ship was well
> > prepared. Too much can go wrong.
>
> With no real defenses, the SF team has a field day since they can walk
> (okay, sneak) right in and take out the terrorists. With well-prepared
> defenses it will be much harder, but it can always be done. It just gets
> much harder to not mess up the mission, because once you're spotted they
> may detonate the weapon.

Given a 55% chance of a successful mission.. would you order the team
to go? 65%? 35%?



> > For this foreknowledge you need the CIA or its equivalent.. or a
> > stupid dictator. You can't count on stupid dictators.
>
> You should never think a dictator is stupid in the first place -- mad,
> maybe, but not stupid -- stupid dictators don't stay in power.

I was a bit sleepy when I wrote this bit. (Am now, too). By stupid I
meant simply warning your opponent you're going to nuke him. Nothing
more, nothing less. It doesn't even have to be stupid to do so in the
given situation; but it gives your opponent a valid target to strike
back on, as well as an attempt at disarming the threat. Wether this
is outweighed by the political value of a show of strength is
arguable.


> > > With that over, they may only bomb a few of your cities into oblivion to
> > > teach you not to do it again :)
> >
> > Despite the smiley, I'll bite. The threat of nukes isn't enough to
> > use nukes yourself; the political environment will not tolerate
> > nuclear first strike. (It might, but it depends a lot on the
> > situation... enough so that I'd say it would most likely not be
> > acceptable.).
>
> Maybe I should have made clear that I meant a conventional bombing
> campaign -- suppress their AA defenses, load up a couple dozen B-52s with
> iron bombs, and open the bomb-bay doors over whatever target may look
> useful to the enemy.

The probelm when discussing nukes and at the same time saying 'Bomb
to oblivion'.

> > Doesn't stop you from using FAB's, though; almost as powerful without
> > the radiation. Why go for the 'Big Bad Weapon' when all you need is
> > to kill everything and everyone in the city? There's no money in
> > making it Cancer City for a hundred or so years. (FAB's.. Paul
> > Addams can tell you all about'em, I bet.).
>
> You mean fuel-air explosives? It's the only weapon name I can make of the
> acronym (by replacing "explosive" with"bomb"). From what I've
read, they
> can be highly effective but the fuel cloud has to be able to form.

(I meant in retaliation, so forming the fuel clouds shouldn't be a
problem. FAB is the 'official' short form of the fuel air burst
explosive bomb thingy.).

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 3
From: Mike Sapp <cynner29@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 23:13:55 -0400
At 10:30 PM 8/20/97 +0100, you wrote:
>Fade said on 15:04/20 Aug 97...
>
>> > and send in some anti-terrorism unit to take
>> > over the ship
<snip>
>> Other countries also has
>> options.. Spetsnaz, SAS, and so on. All very skilled units.
>
>I picked Delta Force because you placed this in the USA. I highly doubt
>they Americans would turn to Spetsnaz (if only because this unit is much
>too large to be of the same quality as western special forces) or the SAS,
>since they're all foreigners...
>

I know this sounds 'boring' but what would more than likely happen is a
sub would cruise up, sit waiting on the ship and then torpedo it. Nuclear
weapons aren't generally rigged to detonate at a button push, so the fact
that a sonar tech might acquire and identify the torpedo wouldn't likely
give enough time for the terrorists to react. Also today, torpedos aren't
generally designed to hit ships, instead they detonate underneath and form
a large bubble, it either breaks the keel and the ship sinks quickly, or it
swamps the ship as soon as the bubble hits the surface. This shortens the
already small period of time for reactions.

A sub sitting still on or near the ocean floor is just another reef
formation to sonar. The situation you described though doesn't allow for
planes, ships and other subs leading the way perform anti-submarine id and
warfare missions, so it would be easier and more reliable just to use the sub.

Another factor is the news leakage, a sub crew wouldn't have to know that
the target and the torpedo are real, only the captian and certain key
figures in the chain of command. Not many submariners are going to report
an odd drill during a cruise, they have them all the time. The elite units
however might talk since they would be fully in the know. Though most
members are proffessional and take thier clearances seriously there are
those that might talk.

Yet another factor, sinking the ship also nuetralizes the nuclear material
until it can be recovered. Nuetralizes in a lesser of two evils sort of
way, I should clarify.

Alot of you might not remember why Ted Koppel started Nightline, but the
fiasco that resulted from Carter trying to rescue the hostages in Iran
before the election still irks me and alot of other people in the military.
The fallout from that one still has politicians shaking in their boots
about public knowledge of rescue attempts, before or after the fact, if
they fail.

<snip, it was getting long>

Cynner
Message no. 4
From: Jonas Bolander <Jonas.Bolander@****.SE>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 10:16:46 +0200
On Aug 20, 10:30pm, EXT AVS; Gurth wrote:
> Subject: Nuking a major city
> Fade said on 15:04/20 Aug 97...

I seems to have missed the initial mail about this subject but I won't
let that deter me. ;)

> > Consider this... it's very similar to a hijacked plane situation. Not
> > many of those go off successfully. There is a big advantage, though,
> > on behalf of the special forces, an advantage often overlooked.

I remember having my Cyberpunk-players assaulting a hijacked plane
standing in the middle of the airport's runway. They melted holes
through the roof of the plane and jumped down, efficiently blowing
away most of the hijackers. MOST of the hijackers. It ended in a
mexican standoff with one player pointing a smartlinked SMG at the
head of the lone surviving hijacker who was holding a detonator with a
dead-mans-grip. They could see the explosives placed along the wingroots
so when the hijacker demanded to be flown into the nearby (guerilla-
controlled) jungle they arranged it.

> > But whoever rigged the ship's defenses didn't have to be morons.. they
> > could stay behind. Motion trackers, sensors, infrared, watchers,
> > whatever.
> >
> > My money would likely be on the morons, as long as the ship was well
> > prepared. Too much can go wrong.

In a world like ShadowRun it would also be quite easy to rig a cybernetic
heart-monitor to one or more of the terrorists. When the heartbeat stops
... Booom!

>
> With no real defenses, the SF team has a field day since they can walk
> (okay, sneak) right in and take out the terrorists. With well-prepared
> defenses it will be much harder, but it can always be done. It just gets
> much harder to not mess up the mission, because once you're spotted they
> may detonate the weapon.

"It can always be done" is maybe a bit too optimistic. There is a mountain
in Libya called Tarhunah (if I remember it right) that Khadaffi says is
some sort of legitime construction plant and which the US says is a
R&D-center for NBC-weapons. The US would _very_ much like to blow it apart!
The problem is that no conventional weapon can reach into the complex and
nuclear weapons isn't quite an option. They asked the special forces to plan
an assault but after a while the S.F. said something along the lines of
"It would be cheaper to just shoot us now and here." and refused.

> --
> Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
> Looking over the edge...
> -> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
> -> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

/Jonas Bolander


--
Jonas Bolander
Message no. 5
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:41:09 +0100
Mike Sapp said on 23:13/20 Aug 97...

> I know this sounds 'boring' but what would more than likely happen is a
> sub would cruise up, sit waiting on the ship and then torpedo it. Nuclear
> weapons aren't generally rigged to detonate at a button push, so the fact
> that a sonar tech might acquire and identify the torpedo wouldn't likely
> give enough time for the terrorists to react. Also today, torpedos aren't
> generally designed to hit ships, instead they detonate underneath and form
> a large bubble, it either breaks the keel and the ship sinks quickly, or it
> swamps the ship as soon as the bubble hits the surface. This shortens the
> already small period of time for reactions.

This would work if you know the ship-with-nuclear-weapon is sailing toward
your city, and you can intercept it on the way in. Once it's in port
somewhere, I don't think it's appreciated if you shoot torpedoes at it.

Another reason I can think of for using a SF team is because you want to
capture and investigate the bomb -- where it came from, who built it,
where they got the knowledge and raw materials, etc.

> Alot of you might not remember why Ted Koppel started Nightline

I have no idea who or what Ted Koppel and Nightline are.

> but the fiasco that resulted from Carter trying to rescue the hostages
> in Iran before the election still irks me and alot of other people in
> the military. The fallout from that one still has politicians shaking in
> their boots about public knowledge of rescue attempts, before or after
> the fact, if they fail.

Eagle Claw was flawed from the start, mainly because it was much too
complex to pull off easily, unlike most other hostage rescue attempts in
the 1970s and '80s. Also, this is a situation where we're not talking
about hostages -- everyone on the ship can be considered a hostile, and
will very likely be shot at when a SF team boards the ship.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Looking over the edge...
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 6
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 13:32:13 +0000
> At 10:30 PM 8/20/97 +0100, you wrote:
> >Fade said on 15:04/20 Aug 97...
> >
> >> > and send in some anti-terrorism unit to take
> >> > over the ship
> <snip>
> >> Other countries also has
> >> options.. Spetsnaz, SAS, and so on. All very skilled units.
> >
> >I picked Delta Force because you placed this in the USA. I highly doubt
> >they Americans would turn to Spetsnaz (if only because this unit is much
> >too large to be of the same quality as western special forces) or the SAS,
> >since they're all foreigners...
> >
>
> I know this sounds 'boring' but what would more than likely happen is a
> sub would cruise up, sit waiting on the ship and then torpedo it.
*snip*

I had thought of that, actually. The problem is that the ship is in
port; it will not sink completely. Also, it would probably
(possibly) be near a cruise liner or other similar ship. But that is
minor complications that can be rectified by A: Lots of torpedoes. B:
A little pragmatism.

But a sub takes a while to get there. While they move fast, they
might have to go far too. An airstrike would do the job too, but with
more collateral damage. (Not neccessarily much, though, only the
difference between a surface and a subsurface explosion at best.).

As the discussion progresses it is more and more obvious that the
best ploy would be to blow the nuke without warning and without
announcing your presence and intention - it cannot be used for
blackmail, unless you wish to risk its loss without use. Or, you
could announce it for blackmail purposes but without saying which
city, or how it is to be delivered.... possibly making sure somehow
whoever knows that you have the capability to use such weapons.
Of course, doing a run based on finding out just what ship the bomb
is on could be interesting. And on site investigation would be
needed; there's only so much satellites can do when they know they're
being watched.



--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 7
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 09:20:46 -0400
> This would work if you know the ship-with-nuclear-weapon is sailing toward
> your city, and you can intercept it on the way in. Once it's in port
> somewhere, I don't think it's appreciated if you shoot torpedoes at it.
>
> Another reason I can think of for using a SF team is because you want to
> capture and investigate the bomb -- where it came from, who built it,
> where they got the knowledge and raw materials, etc.
>

I think everyone is forgetting one thing.. the only people who would have access
to a nuclear device would be those who are a)well funded and b)_very_ intelligent.
You don't surivive long in the terrorist world by being dumb, and you don't get that
much financial support either! What's this mean? It means that the ship you're
planning to attack with SF will be prepared. The bomb will be in the center
compartment.. probably in the middle of the ship so that you simply can't "cut a
hole" in the side and get to it. All the air locks (or door or what ever they have
inside a ship to prevent once section taking water from flooding other sections)
would probably be locked (at least) or welded. This would make the incoming SF team
have to blast their way through bulkhead doors.. which would give more than enough
time to give warning and blow everyone up. Assuming that the team could get to the
ship! There are types of sonar out comercially that allow you to detect the size and
distance of freaken FISH nearby.. put one of those (or multiple ones if you're truely
paranoid) on and you'll see the team swimming to the ships side. Video cameras can
be made to the size of pencils... the SF team will never be able to tell what's a
camera on the deck of a decent sized ship (I am assuming that this is a cross-oceanic
ship so it's fairly big). The camera can be equiped with a whole slew of options and
that would make it nearly impossible for the SF team to make it there unnoticed.
At this point you're thinking, My gods, what could be worse? The terrorists
could booby trap the ship.. a few grenades hooked upto motion sensors (hey, if they
can turn your porch lights on, why not a detonator to some c6 or something right?
I'm not a weapons kind of guy (actually an accounting guy :) but it seems feasable)
and KABOOOM! no more SF team.. and the bulk heads should easily withstand the
explosion if done properly.
This is assuming that whomever is intelligent and this is TODAY! In SR with
riggers hooked into the ship, deckers keeping track of the air from an airport air
traffic control, astral mages keeping watch for things around... SF teams might as
well just detonate the bomb themselves.
The only way I see would be to drop something *really* big and *really* explosive
on the ship to make it go away right damn quick.


> > Alot of you might not remember why Ted Koppel started Nightline
>
> I have no idea who or what Ted Koppel and Nightline are.
>

Don't worry... he's a really boring American news anchor.--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>- O+++
!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++ G e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 8
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 15:19:28 GMT
Sir Philos Nex writes

> There are types of sonar out comercially that allow you to detect the size and
> distance of freaken FISH nearby.. put one of those (or multiple ones if you're truely
> paranoid) on and you'll see the team swimming to the ships side.
And get a nice sonar image of them while you are at it :)

> Video cameras can
> be made to the size of pencils...
About two matchboxes stuck together, can see out of a fake 'black
dor' on a clock face and fits in the clock, and the picture is good!

> The only way I see would be to drop something *really* big and *really* explosive
> on the ship to make it go away right damn quick.
>
Yes you can do all this. Its not reasonable for corporate complexes
mostly because the problems looking at the data and storing it, not
acquiring it :) also privacy becomes an issue. Sure in SR use use
image analysis software, Question how many computers can you afford?
followed by what happens when a decker gets at them :)

As to your ship, well if you are going to get that awkward i need,
one guy with a infra red laser designator and an A-10 loaded with
2000lb laser guided bombs, ship, what ship? Sure it'll make a mess
and colateral damage is high but ports are large places and mostly
you should get broken windows for colateral, maybe millions in
damage, well the ships worth that. [this is given a stationary target
in port as if you find it before then well, i got a submarine :) ],
remember laser guided bombs have a range from drop of 4+ km (they
won't know anything about the launch plane) assuming suitable
'lobbing'. Ok this is extreame but if you are sure they have a nuke
nearly anything is better than the thing going off.
Message no. 9
From: "Steven A. Tinner" <bluewizard@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 12:56:57 -0400
>I remember having my Cyberpunk-players assaulting a hijacked plane
>standing in the middle of the airport's runway. They melted holes
>through the roof of the plane and jumped down, efficiently blowing
>away most of the hijackers. MOST of the hijackers. It ended in a
>mexican standoff with one player pointing a smartlinked SMG at the
>head of the lone surviving hijacker who was holding a detonator with a
>dead-mans-grip. They could see the explosives placed along the wingroots
>so when the hijacker demanded to be flown into the nearby (guerilla-
>controlled) jungle they arranged it.

One really good way to stop deadman switches that a lot of folks are unaware
of is a good old fashioned Taser.
A powerful electrical shock will force muscle contraction, keeping the goons
hand closed on the trigger, until you can properly disarm it.

Or so I've been told ... never had to do so myself! ;-)

Steven A. Tinner
bluewizard@*****.com
http://www.ncweb.com/users/bluewizard
"One Angry Dwarf and 200 Solemn Faces"
Message no. 10
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 16:56:09 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-21 10:21:10 EDT, you write:

> As to your ship, well if you are going to get that awkward i need,
> one guy with a infra red laser designator and an A-10 loaded with
> 2000lb laser guided bombs, ship, what ship? Sure it'll make a mess
> and colateral damage is high but ports are large places and mostly
> you should get broken windows for colateral, maybe millions in
> damage, well the ships worth that.

Oh, sure. That'd work. If, of course, you don't mind New York Harbour
becoming a quiet neighborhood for the next 10,000 years. Keep in mind, the
bomb may not detonate, but that doesn't mean that there won't be all sorts of
radiation leaking from it when a 2000 pound laser guided bomb hits it.

Wolfstar
Message no. 11
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 23:01:24 +0100
In message <970821165557_922199577@*******.mail.aol.com>, George Metz
<W0lfstar@***.COM> writes
> Oh, sure. That'd work. If, of course, you don't mind New York Harbour
>becoming a quiet neighborhood for the next 10,000 years. Keep in mind, the
>bomb may not detonate, but that doesn't mean that there won't be all sorts of
>radiation leaking from it when a 2000 pound laser guided bomb hits it.

Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki are abandoned wastelands today, and those
had nuclear weapons _detonate_ over their centres. Ditto Palomares in
Spain (which had four unarmed nuclear weapons dropped on it after a mid-
air collision involving a B-52 and a tanker). Nor Greenham Common (where
a US bomber carrying nuclear weapons crashed and burned on takeoff in
the 1950s).

A typical nuclear weapon contains less than thirty kilograms of Pu-239,
inside a very solidly constructed casing. So we have to cast a hasty
concrete coffin around the ship's wreckage, big deal: much better than a
few hundred kilotons doing an Independence Day on New York City.

It's _always_ better to destroy it inert than have it detonated.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 12
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 18:57:30 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-21 18:51:03 EDT, you write:

> A typical nuclear weapon contains less than thirty kilograms of Pu-239,
> inside a very solidly constructed casing. So we have to cast a hasty
> concrete coffin around the ship's wreckage, big deal: much better than a
> few hundred kilotons doing an Independence Day on New York City.
>
> It's _always_ better to destroy it inert than have it detonated.

While you do have a point here, let me take this opportunity to say that
wiping New York off the map and starting over may not necessarily be a bad
thing.... =)

Wolfstar
Message no. 13
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 09:50:12 -0400
Mark Steedman wrote:
As to your ship, well if you are going to get that awkward i need,

> one guy with a infra red laser designator and an A-10 loaded with
> 2000lb laser guided bombs, ship, what ship? Sure it'll make a mess
> and colateral damage is high but ports are large places and mostly
> you should get broken windows for colateral, maybe millions in
> damage, well the ships worth that. [this is given a stationary target
> in port as if you find it before then well, i got a submarine :) ],
> remember laser guided bombs have a range from drop of 4+ km (they
> won't know anything about the launch plane) assuming suitable
> 'lobbing'. Ok this is extreame but if you are sure they have a nuke
> nearly anything is better than the thing going off.

You actually confused me with your reply.. It seemed that you were in a way,
disagreeing with me, yet agreeing... <sigh> Blowing up the ship would be a better
idea
than storming it with SF troops... and you could easily cover it up in the media
"there was
an unusual explosion today from a ship with Iranian registry which was carrying
grain" etc.

--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>- O+++
!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++ G e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 14
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:07:22 -0400
George Metz wrote:

> In a message dated 97-08-21 10:21:10 EDT, you write:
>
> > As to your ship, well if you are going to get that awkward i need,
> > one guy with a infra red laser designator and an A-10 loaded with
> > 2000lb laser guided bombs, ship, what ship? Sure it'll make a mess
> > and colateral damage is high but ports are large places and mostly
> > you should get broken windows for colateral, maybe millions in
> > damage, well the ships worth that.
>
> Oh, sure. That'd work. If, of course, you don't mind New York Harbour
> becoming a quiet neighborhood for the next 10,000 years. Keep in mind, the
> bomb may not detonate, but that doesn't mean that there won't be all sorts of
> radiation leaking from it when a 2000 pound laser guided bomb hits it.
>

Bombs are built to withstand crashes of the warplanes that they're carried
on. And if you plan things properly anyways you should be able to get to the
wreckage and grab any radioactive shit right damn quickly. I would think that
blowing up the ship and possibly making an already over polluted harbour (that no
fish could probably already not live in) a little more polluted is better than
killing 20 million people, collapse of the world economy, and complete panic in
every major western nation. Or maybe it's just my opinion :)


--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>-
O+++
!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++ G
e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 15
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 15:11:26 -0400
Paul J. Adam wrote:

> In message <970821165557_922199577@*******.mail.aol.com>, George Metz
> <W0lfstar@***.COM> writes
> > Oh, sure. That'd work. If, of course, you don't mind New York Harbour
> >becoming a quiet neighborhood for the next 10,000 years. Keep in mind, the
> >bomb may not detonate, but that doesn't mean that there won't be all sorts of
> >radiation leaking from it when a 2000 pound laser guided bomb hits it.
>
> Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki are abandoned wastelands today, and those
> had nuclear weapons _detonate_ over their centres.

But the power of the *average* nuclear weapon today is 50 to 100 times more
powerful than either of those bombs.. and those are small fry when compared to
some of the bombs that they've tested and that we *know* are available, the ones
that are thousands of times more powerful... those would leave people glowing for
10000 years...

> Ditto Palomares in
> Spain (which had four unarmed nuclear weapons dropped on it after a mid-
> air collision involving a B-52 and a tanker). Nor Greenham Common (where
> a US bomber carrying nuclear weapons crashed and burned on takeoff in
> the 1950s).

I never heard of this before.... I would guess that accidents would tend to
happen... good thing that the americans take extra precautions over those babies
:)

--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>- O+++

!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++ G
e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 16
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@************.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 18:43:48 -0400
On Friday, August 22, 1997 15:07, Sir Philos Nex[SMTP:philos@****.NET]
wrote:
> George Metz wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 97-08-21 10:21:10 EDT, you write:
> >
> > > As to your ship, well if you are going to get that awkward i need,
> > > one guy with a infra red laser designator and an A-10 loaded with
> > > 2000lb laser guided bombs, ship, what ship? Sure it'll make a mess
> > > and colateral damage is high but ports are large places and mostly
> > > you should get broken windows for colateral, maybe millions in
> > > damage, well the ships worth that.
> >
> > Oh, sure. That'd work. If, of course, you don't mind New York Harbour
> > becoming a quiet neighborhood for the next 10,000 years. Keep in mind,
the
> > bomb may not detonate, but that doesn't mean that there won't be all
sorts of
> > radiation leaking from it when a 2000 pound laser guided bomb hits it.
> >
>
> Bombs are built to withstand crashes of the warplanes that they're
carried
> on. And if you plan things properly anyways you should be able to get to
the
> wreckage and grab any radioactive shit right damn quickly. I would think
that
> blowing up the ship and possibly making an already over polluted harbour
(that no
> fish could probably already not live in) a little more polluted is better
than
> killing 20 million people, collapse of the world economy, and complete
panic in
> every major western nation. Or maybe it's just my opinion :)
>

Actually, according to a recent article in the NYTimes, they are planning
some parks in Manhattan which might have *swimming areas* on the Hudson as
a feature. Opposition is on environmental grounds, not that the river would
kill anyone who stepped in it. I've seen people Jet-skiing on the Hudson,
and even a Kayaker or two.

The Hudson's not that bad anymore.

--
Quicksilver rides again
--------------
Those who would give up a little freedom for security
deserve neither freedom nor security
-Benjamin Franklin
Yeah, I have Attention Deficit Dis - Hey, look at that butterfly!
Jonathan Hurley (mailto:jhurley1@************.edu)
Message no. 17
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 22:34:09 +0100
In message <33FDE45E.1123BF24@****.net>, Sir Philos Nex
<philos@****.NET> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki are abandoned wastelands today, and those
>> had nuclear weapons _detonate_ over their centres.
>
> But the power of the *average* nuclear weapon today is 50 to 100 times more
>powerful than either of those bombs.. and those are small fry when compared to
>some of the bombs that they've tested and that we *know* are available, the ones
>that are thousands of times more powerful... those would leave people glowing
>for
>10000 years...

Actually, most warheads hover around the 10-50kT mark for yield. More is
just inefficient. Yes, the Russians had a regiment of SS-18s with single
25MT warheads, designed for a serial bombardment of Cheyenne Mountain if
Kahn's "spasm" ever came to pass, but that was the exception.

And even megaton weapons have less plutonium in them than the Fat Man
that exploded over Nagasaki. The core is explosively compressed to
reduce the material requirements, the yield is boosted by tritium
injection during collapse, and the main force of the explosion is
sustained by fusion in the lithium deuteride jacket (a relatively
harmless substance: it'll give you chemical burns if you handle it, but
it's not radioactive).

Again: unless you deliberately blow the weapon apart with a direct hit
from a large bomb, you'll be able to clean up the mess.

>> Ditto Palomares in
>> Spain (which had four unarmed nuclear weapons dropped on it after a mid-
>> air collision involving a B-52 and a tanker). Nor Greenham Common (where
>> a US bomber carrying nuclear weapons crashed and burned on takeoff in
>> the 1950s).
>
> I never heard of this before.... I would guess that accidents would tend to
>happen... good thing that the americans take extra precautions over those babies
>:)

There are also seven warheads gently decaying off Norway aboard the
fUSSR submarine "Komsomolets", at least forty-eight on the K-219 sunken
off Bermuda, possibly a couple aboard the wreck of the USS Scorpion, and
one that the USN lost off a carrier flight deck when the A-4 Skyhawk
carrying it (standard 1960s SIOP alert) was accidentally pushed over the
side by a deck crewman. There are a frightening number of mislaid
weapons, though they stay lost because they're genuinely inaccessible in
deep water.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 18
From: Mike Sapp <cynner29@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 17:51:24 -0400
At 03:07 PM 8/22/97 -0400, you wrote:
>George Metz wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 97-08-21 10:21:10 EDT, you write:
>>
>> > As to your ship, well if you are going to get that awkward i need,
>> > one guy with a infra red laser designator and an A-10 loaded with
>> > 2000lb laser guided bombs, ship, what ship? Sure it'll make a mess
>> > and colateral damage is high but ports are large places and mostly
>> > you should get broken windows for colateral, maybe millions in
>> > damage, well the ships worth that.
>>
>> Oh, sure. That'd work. If, of course, you don't mind New York Harbour
>> becoming a quiet neighborhood for the next 10,000 years. Keep in mind, the
>> bomb may not detonate, but that doesn't mean that there won't be all
sorts of
>> radiation leaking from it when a 2000 pound laser guided bomb hits it.
>>
>
> Bombs are built to withstand crashes of the warplanes that they're
carried
>on. And if you plan things properly anyways you should be able to get to the
>wreckage and grab any radioactive shit right damn quickly. I would think
that
>blowing up the ship and possibly making an already over polluted harbour
(that no
>fish could probably already not live in) a little more polluted is better
than
>killing 20 million people, collapse of the world economy, and complete
panic in
>every major western nation. Or maybe it's just my opinion :)
>

Just a question, what would the minimum force of an earth or water
elemental that could swamp/cover the ship need to be? How many goverment
agancies would have mages capable of pulling this off?
Message no. 19
From: "MARTIN E. GOTTHARD" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 12:27:17 +1000
> > > Oh, sure. That'd work. If, of course, you don't mind New York Harbour
> > >becoming a quiet neighborhood for the next 10,000 years. Keep in mind, the
> > >bomb may not detonate, but that doesn't mean that there won't be all sorts
of
> > >radiation leaking from it when a 2000 pound laser guided bomb hits it.
> >
> > Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki are abandoned wastelands today, and those
> > had nuclear weapons _detonate_ over their centres.
>
> But the power of the *average* nuclear weapon today is 50 to 100 times more
> powerful than either of those bombs.. and those are small fry when compared to
> some of the bombs that they've tested and that we *know* are available, the ones
> that are thousands of times more powerful... those would leave people glowing for
> 10000 years...
>

And the leukemia rate in both of those cities is triple the world
average. Just because there are people able to live there doesn't mean
that they're not affected.

> > Ditto Palomares in
> > Spain (which had four unarmed nuclear weapons dropped on it after a mid-
> > air collision involving a B-52 and a tanker). Nor Greenham Common (where
> > a US bomber carrying nuclear weapons crashed and burned on takeoff in
> > the 1950s).
>
> I never heard of this before.... I would guess that accidents would tend to
> happen... good thing that the americans take extra precautions over those babies
> :)
>

Neither had I, but I can understand why; Who wants to know that bombers
are carrying nuclear material and crashing into each other?

(Nuclear weapons are _safe_, right?)

Marty
Message no. 20
From: "Steven A. Collins" <scollins@**.UML.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:25:44 -0400
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Sir Philos Nex wrote:

->Paul J. Adam wrote:
->
->> In message <970821165557_922199577@*******.mail.aol.com>, George Metz
->> <W0lfstar@***.COM> writes
->> > Oh, sure. That'd work. If, of course, you don't mind New York Harbour
->> >becoming a quiet neighborhood for the next 10,000 years. Keep in mind, the
->> >bomb may not detonate, but that doesn't mean that there won't be all sorts
of
->> >radiation leaking from it when a 2000 pound laser guided bomb hits it.
->>
->> Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki are abandoned wastelands today, and those
->> had nuclear weapons _detonate_ over their centres.
->
-> But the power of the *average* nuclear weapon today is 50 to 100 times more
->powerful than either of those bombs.. and those are small fry when compared to
->some of the bombs that they've tested and that we *know* are available, the ones
->that are thousands of times more powerful... those would leave people glowing for
->10000 years...

Ummmmm. the half life of Plutonium is indeed long the only problem is
that there is very little of it left after the blast. It is turned
into americanium and francium and similar exotic materiels whose half
lifes are measured in years not decades or centuries. I'm not exactly
sure where I heard this but after a thermo-nuclear blast something
like 80% of the radiation is gone after 10 years, and 95% is gone
after 20 years. Within 50 years the most sensitave gieger counter
would barely be able to detect that there had been a nuke exploded
there.
Message no. 21
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 05:18:14 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-23 05:00:57 EDT, you write:

> ->> > Oh, sure. That'd work. If, of course, you don't mind New York
Harbour
> ->> >becoming a quiet neighborhood for the next 10,000 years.
>
> Ummmmm. the half life of Plutonium is indeed long the only problem is
> that there is very little of it left after the blast. It is turned
> into americanium and francium and similar exotic materiels whose half
> lifes are measured in years not decades or centuries. I'm not exactly
> sure where I heard this but after a thermo-nuclear blast something
> like 80% of the radiation is gone after 10 years, and 95% is gone
> after 20 years. Within 50 years the most sensitave gieger counter
> would barely be able to detect that there had been a nuke exploded
> there.

MY reference was a paraphrasing of a comment made by John Travolta in the
movie _Broken_Arrow_. And the nuke wouldn't necessarily detonate, but you
WOULD have a cracked or shattered bomb casing, with radiation leaking out
into the harbor and eventually out to sea. And the radiation from THAT is
going to last a long time. Also, they just opened Alamagordo, New Mexico up
as a park type place(the Gods only know why) and they have to keep a strict
check on the background count at the site at all times. If it goes beyond I
think a third of the total safe levels, people have to leave.

Wolfstar
Message no. 22
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 17:58:53 -0400
> Actually, most warheads hover around the 10-50kT mark for yield. More is
> just inefficient. Yes, the Russians had a regiment of SS-18s with single
> 25MT warheads, designed for a serial bombardment of Cheyenne Mountain if
> Kahn's "spasm" ever came to pass, but that was the exception.
>

But it's the *fact* that they exist! The Chinese tested a 150MT weapon a few
years ago.. it was all over the news because "it was the biggest nuclear weapon ever
tested.. blah blah blah".. what kind of damage would that size of weapon do? And I
would think that if the chinese have it, so do the americans and the russians and
everyone else... they may not be the _norm_ but they exist... in numbers big enough
to remove the planet from existence.

> There are also seven warheads gently decaying off Norway aboard the
> fUSSR submarine "Komsomolets", at least forty-eight on the K-219 sunken
> off Bermuda, possibly a couple aboard the wreck of the USS Scorpion, and
> one that the USN lost off a carrier flight deck when the A-4 Skyhawk
> carrying it (standard 1960s SIOP alert) was accidentally pushed over the
> side by a deck crewman. There are a frightening number of mislaid
> weapons, though they stay lost because they're genuinely inaccessible in
> deep water.
>

There was a movie on our movie network called... err.. I forget.. it was about
the accidental collision between a soviet boomer and a Los Angeles class sub.. at the
end it had a little "on the floor of the atlantic there are 58 (I thikn that's the
number) nuclear warheads"... see that's just scary... not for the radioactivity, I'm
sure the ocean can handle it, just that there were that many accidents involving
nuclear weapons :)
--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>- O+++
!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++ G e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 23
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:11:37 -0400
> going to last a long time. Also, they just opened Alamagordo, New Mexico up
> as a park type place(the Gods only know why) and they have to keep a strict
> check on the background count at the site at all times. If it goes beyond I
> think a third of the total safe levels, people have to leave.
>
> Wolfstar

What kind of advertising would they use for that? "Come see the TEST site
of our early nuclear weapons: (then in small print) Pregnant
women/children/those suseptable to radiation/those notwanting to be sterile
forever/those not wanting lukemia/those who have brains/ are advised not to
enter. Those who do come, it is not suggested that you come morethan once or
else you will suffer horribly" ahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha Only in the
US. :)

--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>-
O+++
!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++ G
e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 24
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:05:07 -0400
> > I never heard of this before.... I would guess that accidents would tend to
> > happen... good thing that the americans take extra precautions over those babies
> > :)
> >
>
> Neither had I, but I can understand why; Who wants to know that bombers
> are carrying nuclear material and crashing into each other?
>
> (Nuclear weapons are _safe_, right?)
>

They would have to be.... At the peak of the cold war there were thousands of
nuclear warheads in central europe... most of them were probably battle field nukes for
delivery with a howitzer... but if even one of those had an accident... whoops :)
Think about the US (and ultimatelty Canada).. they transport those babies around all
over the place and we're still here to post these messages.. :)

--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>- O+++
!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++ G e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 25
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:00:36 -0400
>
>
> Just a question, what would the minimum force of an earth or water
> elemental that could swamp/cover the ship need to be? How many goverment
> agancies would have mages capable of pulling this off?


I don't think that'll matter. If you swamp the ship the people will just blow
up the thing, your elemental goes bye-bye, along with the city beside it. :)

--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>- O+++

!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++ G
e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 26
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:07:09 -0400
> Ummmmm. the half life of Plutonium is indeed long the only problem is
> that there is very little of it left after the blast. It is turned
> into americanium and francium and similar exotic materiels whose half
> lifes are measured in years not decades or centuries. I'm not exactly
> sure where I heard this but after a thermo-nuclear blast something
> like 80% of the radiation is gone after 10 years, and 95% is gone
> after 20 years. Within 50 years the most sensitave gieger counter
> would barely be able to detect that there had been a nuke exploded
> there.


This would be interesting to actually hear about from someone within the US DOD.. I
believe that's how it is with Japan.. but I think that our bigger weapons would be
slightly different.

--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>- O+++
!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++ G e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 27
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:21:26 +0100
In article <3403519C.6404DCB8@****.net>, Sir Philos Nex
<philos@****.NET> writes
<I wrote...>
>> Actually, most warheads hover around the 10-50kT mark for yield. More is
>> just inefficient. Yes, the Russians had a regiment of SS-18s with single
>> 25MT warheads, designed for a serial bombardment of Cheyenne Mountain if
>> Kahn's "spasm" ever came to pass, but that was the exception.
>
> But it's the *fact* that they exist! The Chinese tested a 150MT weapon a
>few
>years ago.. it was all over the news because "it was the biggest nuclear weapon
>ever
>tested.. blah blah blah".. what kind of damage would that size of weapon do?

A lot less than a hundred and fifty seperate one-megaton weapons. That's
why you don't see supernukes any more.

It's a lot more effective to either place one warhead very accurately
(if you're shooting for hardened targets like missile silos) or else
place multiple smaller warheads in a pattern, than it is to deliver one
huge bomb. Size is only necessary to compensate for inaccurate
placement.

The Chinese claim to have developed a 150Mt weapon says more about their
inability to develop accurate delivery systems, than it does their
prowess in making big bangs.

>And I
>would think that if the chinese have it, so do the americans and the russians
>and
>everyone else... they may not be the _norm_ but they exist... in numbers big
>enough
>to remove the planet from existence.

Why?

Warheads this size are pointless. Large, heavy and expensive, and able
to do nothing that a smaller weapon with greater accuracy could not.

Remember, the fireball from a 150Kt weapon, exploding at ground level,
will vapourise a crater about 200 metres deep and 800 metres in
diameter.

A 150Mt weapon - with a thousand times the nominal yield - will produce
a crater about three times this size. Yet it will weigh ten or more
times as much, demanding much more weapon-grade material in its
construction, and be much harder to transport to its target. You can put
ten or twenty smaller weapons in the nose of a missile intended to carry
a single 150Mt warhead.

What's more effective? A single nuke over Washington DC, or a single
missile dropping a MIRV pattern of 150-kiloton warheads over Boston,
Hartford, Buffalo, New York, New Jersey, Philedelphia, Newark, Detroit,
Baltimore, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Newport News, and Norfolk?

The cost for either is the same. One missile, one warhead design,
similar quantities of fissile/fusile material. Which is the greater
threat?


It's much more cost-effective for most countries to make their missiles
more accurate than to make the warheads larger. China has failed
dismally in doing so and has fallen back on large warheads, and is
trying to make this sound like something other than desperation.

>> There are also seven warheads gently decaying off Norway aboard the
>> fUSSR submarine "Komsomolets", at least forty-eight on the K-219 sunken
>> off Bermuda, possibly a couple aboard the wreck of the USS Scorpion, and
>> one that the USN lost off a carrier flight deck when the A-4 Skyhawk
>> carrying it (standard 1960s SIOP alert) was accidentally pushed over the
>> side by a deck crewman. There are a frightening number of mislaid
>> weapons, though they stay lost because they're genuinely inaccessible in
>> deep water.
>>
>
> There was a movie on our movie network called... err.. I forget.. it was
>about
>the accidental collision between a soviet boomer and a Los Angeles class sub..
>at the
>end it had a little "on the floor of the atlantic there are 58 (I thikn that's
>the
>number) nuclear warheads"...

"Hostile Waters". Directed by Troy Kennedy Martin, starred Rutger Hauer
and Martin Sheen.

In reality the US SSN did not collide with the K-219, but was close
astern throughout the incident and heard the whole thing.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 28
From: Mike Sapp <cynner29@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 21:54:28 -0400
At 06:00 PM 8/26/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just a question, what would the minimum force of an earth or water
>> elemental that could swamp/cover the ship need to be? How many goverment
>> agancies would have mages capable of pulling this off?
>
>
> I don't think that'll matter. If you swamp the ship the people will
just blow
>up the thing, your elemental goes bye-bye, along with the city beside it. :)
>
Maybe swamp was a bad choice of words, I meant manifested as to engulf the
entire ship, inside and out. This would kill any within the ship within
moments if not instantly not allowing for the bomb to be activated. If the
goverment then was also worried that someone might remote detonate the bomb
then a RF jamming unit could be wheeled in near by. Although the way
radiation affects complex electronic gear makes me think no one would want
to rely on remote detonation.
Message no. 29
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Nuking a major city
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 13:35:36 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-30 08:13:29 EDT, you write:

> Maybe swamp was a bad choice of words, I meant manifested as to
engulf
> the entire ship, inside and out. This would kill any within the ship
within
> moments if not instantly not allowing for the bomb to be activated. If the
> goverment then was also worried that someone might remote detonate the
bomb
> then a RF jamming unit could be wheeled in near by. Although the way
> radiation affects complex electronic gear makes me think no one would want
> to rely on remote detonation.

Actually, the device would be completely sealed and not leaking more than
minute levels of radiation on the level of maybe a low powered microwave
oven. it's the EMP that really screws up electronics.
And flooding the ship as you recommend could be even worse. It's entirely
possible that there's someone hooked up with a dead-man's switch, which means
if you DO flood the ship, ka-boom.

Wolfstar

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Nuking a major city, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!