Read the complete story here. But the bottom line is:
A new book written by a former FBI consultant claims that al-Qaida not only has obtained nuclear devices, but also likely has them in the U.S. and will detonate them in the near future.
…
Williams claims that al-Qaida has been planning a spectacular nuclear attack using six or seven suitcase nuclear bombs that would be detonated simulantaneously in U.S. cities.
Ground zero would likely be Washington D.C. and the major population centers.
Sleep well.
My understanding is the smaller you make nuclear devices, the more maintaining they need due to tighter tolerances.
Early nuclear reactors had the problem of neutron poisoning, where the control rods swelled as they aquired neutrons. Clearly a bomb won’t have this issue, since they’re not emitting masses of neutrons before detonation; however, it illustrates the problems.
True. Small devices need more maintaince. The Russian “backpack” devices have an expected lifetime of something like five years or so without maintaince. I don’t think I have heard what the maintaince schedule is for the artillery shells. And considering that recreational drugs come into this country by the ton what is stopping 500 pound bombs from coming in?
I don’t think I’d be _too_ upset to hear that Congress, the White House, and the Supremes had been vaporized.
I realize a lot of non-politicians live in DC, and I’d be sorry for them. But, if it’s inevitable that al_Qaida will nuke something, I can’t think of a better place for it.
Keep in mind that the D.C. area includes the Pentagon and various intelligence agencies. If that area of the country were vaporized nearly all productive work in the area would come to a halt. Our military and intelligence agencies are a stabilizing factor on the entire world. The Koreas, the Chinas, former Yugoslavia, and the mid-east. We also have enemies that would love to take advantage of our country in a greatly weakened state. As many differences as you (and I) may have with certain Federal politicians, laws, and regulations I think we would be far worse off with a glow-in-the-dark crater where D.C. used to be.
Hmmm – good points, but we would still have the commanding generals and admirals of our bases here and overseas. Given a luminous DC crater, I have little doubt they’d take whatever initiative is needed to discourage foreign states from taking military action. Sure, there’s a few Wesely Clark types – but most of that type would have been in the Pentagon.
I can’t see anyone trying an invasion (other than the existing, Mexico-supported variety) – they’ve all seen “Red Dawn”, and recall Admiral Yamamoto’s “rifle behind each blade of grass” quote.
Iraq? I don’t see a problem.
Koreas? I spent a few days standing post with the ROK Marines back when – Kim Hairdo can’t be that stupid.
Taiwan? Maybe, but the way China has been changing (Hong Kong, increasing capitalism, etc.) I doubt they’d do more than rachet up the “scary talk”.
Intel? Langley is about 9 miles from the White House – probably far enough away to escape the most serious effects.
The worst I can conceive is a number of congress-critters being out of the area, and deciding they need to take over “for the duration.” Even there, I doubt the assorted generals would go too far over the line – or that enough of their troops would support them if they did. The survey a few years back at 29 Stumps on domestic confiscation of firearms supports that.
I still think the overall consequenses of losing Wall St would be worse. Given the alternatives of major, important urban centers as targets (no “demos” in the Florida Keys) I still think DC would be the lesser of many evils.