USS Redskins Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Great. I got an idea - lets cut the defense budget! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Is anyone else concerned about the timing of this and the Super Bowl? It has always seemed like the type of event they'd want to hit. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but what a disaster that would be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassSkinsFan Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 That may be the case. There are only two place on earth where smallpox is kept after it was eradicated. One is the CDC in the US and the other is in Russia. Both facilities are biosafety level 4, which is the highest rating. If smallpox got out again, ANYWHERE, recently, it would be known very quickly and would have been reported. Dr. Ken Alibek, a former senior microbiologist in the Russian Offensive Biological Weapons Program has alleged that, in 1980, the Soviet Union started large-scale production of the smallpox virus and genetic recombination of more potent strains. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, concern exists that this knowledge may be used in other countries. The extent of smallpox stockpiles in other countries is unknown but may have become substantial since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Article here. You might want to take that with a grain of salt. I know scientists who worked with Alibek before they emigrated to the US and I've heard he's a bit of a character. So, this is speculation at best. But interesting. I've also heard speculation that the Soviet stockpiles of the virus were not all accounted for after the USSR fell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Article here.You might want to take that with a grain of salt. I know scientists who worked with Alibek before they emigrated to the US and I've heard he's a bit of a character. So, this is speculation at best. But interesting. I've also heard speculation that the Soviet stockpiles of the virus were not all accounted for after the USSR fell. An interesting read. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if Russia and the US both did some playing around with smallpox and other pathogens during the Cold War to see what the possibilities could potentially be as an attacking bio agent. My guess is that, if it did happen, it is long scrapped by now. As far as some Russian "stockpiles" missing...I tend to have a hard time believing that. Smallpox is very contagious and it would be almost a foregone conclusion that if it were taken out of high biosafety and given to people who didn't know enough about that stuff to take adequate precautions (or didn't have the technology to) we would have seen some outbreaks. Is it possible? I suppose. Likely? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da'uud Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 That really isn't completely true. The general design or understanding of the design can seem somewhat simple (for a gun type nuclear weapon you're talking about) but the actual details and making it work are very difficult and require a large amount of precision, engineering, and time to prepare correctly. You can't just throw a couple of pieces of uranium in a cannon barrel and expect it to work when you try to shoot them together. Not to mention that that type of nuclear weapon needs very large amounts of enriched uranium to work (can't use plutonium). That type of nuke is the easiest to make but a group of terrorists living in caves, etc wouldn't have much of a chance at making anything usable (unless they captured Tony Stark or something...). That sort of bomb would most likely have to be built by a country with resources, scientists, and engineering/testing facilities. Could some country make a gun type nuke and sell it to terrorists? Possibly. But those things, by their own nature, are very big and heavy. Not exactly something thats easy to move around in general, let alone smuggle into a country, drive into a city and detonate. "They" ALREADY have the parts/people/knowledge...all of which can be imported into the US piece by piece, then all they need is the uranium, and a small amount at that- an amount that is undetectable in customs. Then they need to assemble it somewhere in the US, if that is the target. Easy? no, I was downplaying originally... Doable? Hell yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MassSkinsFan Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 An interesting read. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if Russia and the US both did some playing around with smallpox and other pathogens during the Cold War to see what the possibilities could potentially be as an attacking bio agent. My guess is that, if it did happen, it is long scrapped by now. As far as some Russian "stockpiles" missing...I tend to have a hard time believing that. Smallpox is very contagious and it would be almost a foregone conclusion that if it were taken out of high biosafety and given to people who didn't know enough about that stuff to take adequate precautions (or didn't have the technology to) we would have seen some outbreaks. Is it possible? I suppose. Likely? I doubt it. Your logic is pretty sound, except that the people taking smallpox out of a BL4 would be scientists who know its dangers and also presumably have access to a BL2 or perhaps BL3 facility, PPE and other protective equipmient/systems. Even if the vials were to be kept in a fridge in someone's basement, there are containment systems that would prevent an outbreak. Researchers often become so attached to their work that they consider the samples, the equipment and all the documentation "theirs" and will sometimes take things with them when they leave that belong to the company or educational institution that was paying them to do the work. That said, it's a 50/50 chance in my book that there are missing samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 If a nuclear weapon were to be used by terrorists, the nuclear proliferation game would be taken to a new level. Iran and Pakistan should consider their positions very carefully, look far in to the future and anticipate what a nuclear explosion in the west might mean for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 "They" ALREADY have the parts/people/knowledge...all of which can be imported into the US piece by piece' date=' then all they need is the uranium, and a small amount at that- an amount that is undetectable in customs. Then they need to assemble it somewhere in the US, if that is the target. Easy? no, I was downplaying originally... Doable? Hell yes[/quote']For a gun type nuke that you were talking about you don't need a "small amount" of uranium; you need a lot of highly enriched uranium. There weren't many of those types built once they moved on towards the implosion type, but for example "Little Boy", the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, used close to 150 lbs of enriched uranium (that is the "bullet" and the "target" combined). Even nowadays, with that type of nuclear weapon you would still need a good amount of uranium to make it work; that is just the physics of the way that type of device operates. I'm sure some of the other parts could be brought in, or just made here. But I would hardly describe 50-100 lbs of weapons grade uranium as "undetectable in customs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Umm... I admit I just scanned the article, but to be honest, I didn't see anything in it that was new. Was there anyone here who DIDN'T think Al Qaeda was trying to get its hands on this kind of stuff, or that the US and others haven't been trying to stop them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I would trust the CDC on this issue more thatn Wikipedia, and the CDC says there hasn't been an outbreak since 1949: again that word natural. I trust the CDC as well, anyone that stockpiles that many smallpox vaccinations for a eradicated virus isn't stupid.....no worries;) The notion that smallpox stocks (aside from ours,and the 20 tons of weaponized and regular stocks for Russia) were voluntarily disposed of worldwide( without any verification in most cases) hardly bothers me at all. added cessation of American vaccination for smallpox in 1980 (the year after the disease was officially certified as eradicated by the World Health Organization) was viewed by the Russians as another strategic opportunity, and they began a program to “weaponize” the variola virus—to modify the virus so that particles of it can be efficiently disseminated in tiny aerosol droplets. They then set out to produce the weaponized smallpox virus on a very large scale. Ken Alibekov, former first deputy chief of research (that is, second in command) for the Soviet bioweapons program, who since defected to the United States, reports that by 1989 over 20 metric tons of weaponized smallpox had been produced, and tons of it loaded into missiles to be dispersed in bomblets. http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Bioterrorism/bioterror4.html Table 2 Bioweapon Production (metric tons) UNITED STATES staphylococcal enterotoxin B 1.9 tularemia (F. tularensis) 1.6 Q fever (C. burnetii) 1.1 anthrax (B. anthracis) 0.9 Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus 0.8 botulinum 0.2 SOVIET UNION tularemia (F. tularensis) 1,500 anthrax (B. anthracis) 4,500 bubonic plague (Y. pestis) 1,500 smallpox (variola virus) 20 glanders (P. mallei) 2,000 hemorragic fever (Marberg virus) 50 sleep tight :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koala Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 If you play with adult toys ya are responsible for securing them.I agree the sig from a dirty bomb is less important (if that is what you are speaking of),though not worthless Thats a little simplistic, dont you think. All the countries with adult toys can do some very adult things to us if we try to retaliate. For example, Russia. If they had a nuke stolen from them, I really dont know what we could do about it except whine really loudly -- maybe pressure them to agree to a reduction of nukes to a more manageable number -- but retaliation is out of the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Thats a little simplistic, dont you think. All the countries with adult toys can do some very adult things to us if we try to retaliate. For example, Russia. If they had a nuke stolen from them, I really dont know what we could do about it except whine really loudly -- maybe pressure them to agree to a reduction of nukes to a more manageable number -- but retaliation is out of the question. Those that think like that seriously scare me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Those that think like that seriously scare me Not nearly as scary as someone arguing that if a terrorist stole a nuke from Russia, then he'd start a nuclear war with the Russians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 TWA - if Russia had a nuke stolen you really vouch for sending one over there? That'd begin the end of humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 But we could easily take it out on Pakistan or Iran even if it were the fault of the Russians. Just like we took out 9/11 on the Iraqis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 But we could easily take it out on Pakistan or Iran even if it were the fault of the Russians. Just like we took out 9/11 on the Iraqis. See...now you I like Once again, wrath does not mean nuking them for those that did not read the other posts. added stickboi ....NOT if they think like ya'll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koala Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 See...now you I like Once again, wrath does not mean nuking them for those that did not read the other posts. O I meant retaliation as in nuclear retaliation. Sorry for not making that clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 See...now you I like Once again, wrath does not mean nuking them for those that did not read the other posts. Wouldn't that essentially be playing into their hand? Some terrorists get their hands on some radioactive material and attack with a dirty bomb or actually get their hands on a nuke and manage to set it off (less likely). Then we respond by going in guns blazing (nuclear or not) against Pakistan or Iran or whoever we feel like because we're pissed. Things go downhill very fast. They do a pretty minimal amount of damage (relative to what happens afterwards), sit back, and watch the whole world lose its collective **** while they reap the (real or perceived) benefits and high five each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Wouldn't that essentially be playing into their hand? Some terrorists get their hands on some radioactive material and attack with a dirty bomb or actually get their hands on a nuke and manage to set it off (less likely). Then we respond by going in guns blazing (nuclear or not) against Pakistan or Iran or whoever we feel like because we're pissed. Things go downhill very fast. They do a pretty minimal amount of damage (relative to what happens afterwards), sit back, and watch the whole world lose its collective **** while they reap the (real or perceived) benefits and high five each other. They had better find a deep hole to high five out of,I believe in multi-tasking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 They do a pretty minimal amount of damage (relative to what happens afterwards), sit back, and watch the whole world lose its collective **** while they reap the (real or perceived) benefits and high five each other. I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Another preemptive measure might be to play the 'crazy bush' card with Iran and Pakistan. "See what we did to Iraq after 9/11? Are we crazy? You betcha. Now go and make sure nobody detonates a bomb on US soil, otherwise we're taking it out on you even if it isn't your fault". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da'uud Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 For a gun type nuke that you were talking about you don't need a "small amount" of uranium; you need a lot of highly enriched uranium. There weren't many of those types built once they moved on towards the implosion type, but for example "Little Boy", the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, used close to 150 lbs of enriched uranium (that is the "bullet" and the "target" combined). Even nowadays, with that type of nuclear weapon you would still need a good amount of uranium to make it work; that is just the physics of the way that type of device operates. I'm sure some of the other parts could be brought in, or just made here. But I would hardly describe 50-100 lbs of weapons grade uranium as "undetectable in customs". When Uranium is enriched, it becomes more dense. 100 lbs enriched to 90% is about the size of a bowling ball. and that is for a bomb slightly smaller than little boy. using plutonium you only need about a grapefruit sized piece for the same destruction. what little radiation is produced can easily be shielded by lead, or even kitty litter. You should really check out that documentary i noted before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 When Uranium is enriched' date=' it becomes more dense. 100 lbs enriched to 90% is about the size of a bowling ball. and that is for a bomb slightly smaller than little boy. using plutonium you only need about a grapefruit sized piece for the same destruction. what little radiation is produced can easily be shielded by lead, or even kitty litter. You should really check out that documentary i noted before[/quote']Ok so they find a way to smuggle 100 lbs (even at the size of a bowling ball) into the country...without alerting anyone in any way? Customs would likely be quite interested in a box that weighed in at well over 100 lbs and held an object with lead packed around it. And you can't use plutonium in the type of nuke we're talking about. You'd likely end up with pre-detonation without much of a bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it. 5-Sjld5yy3Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da'uud Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Lol do you have any idea how many containers enter this country daily? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.