Where would you Nuke?
 

Not to be morbid or anything here, and not to give anyone ideas, but...

I had an IM session with a Canadian friend of mine tonight. I asked, "If you were Osama or Saddam, and had a nuke, where would you nuke?"

I said Washington, DC, basically to take out the governmental center of the free world. She said the Hoover Dam, to take out power and water to Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and various other smaller cities.

I found this to be a very interesting approach, as it would very much so disrupt the economy, and "dis-hearten" America as well. Also, the fallout from the hit would make Las Vegas a "hot-spot" for several hundred years.

So think about it, where??? What are your thoughts?

Well the dam would be a suicide effort but with only one road leading to and across it, I'll wager they're sniffing for radiation night and day, and air and boat access would be detected damn quick.

(Recent news item under the radar: recently, people undergoing radiation therapy have been stopped and questioned by officials in the NYC subway. Sniffers have been installed on the streets as well.)

I wonder if a briefcase nuke would do enough damage to Hoover Dam. They say you could ram an airliner into it.

What if you sent something submerged at it? Set off a nuke _inside_ the dam, right on the turbines.

If I were ObL or Saddam, I'd nuke either a massive school (that would send a message damn quick) or just outside of Altanta GA. I say just outside, because you would want to just demolish the CDC building, not vaporizing it. Think of it--polio, ebola, yellow fever, and other virus samples would be released into the wild. Scary. :eek:

Hey 'Toad, got a cite/source on radiation sniffing in NYC?

Interesting. Very interesting. Sounds like someone knows something the rest of us don't.

Military targets. First stop, Whitman AFB near Kansas City...home of the B-2.

Can't go along with that one, Syc'.

"If we blew up Kansas the world might not hear about it for years" - Ernst Stavros Blofeld Diamonds are Forever

No, the question says one device, so it should be placed to elicit the most psychological terror.

To that end, attack a symbol (like on 9/11). If those guys had just wanted to kill as many people as possible, they could have pegged a few football stadiums on any weekend afternoon in the fall, or maybe even the Super Bowl (that can't happen now, of course).

Their modus operandi seems to be to finish the job they started. It would be exploded on Pennsylvania Avenue, halfway between the Capitol and the White House.

Source on the rads I can't remember; I'm reading so fast these days, trying to keep up. The sniffers I saw on a national news network. They were big units in cages, more oriented towards biological.

C'mon guys ... I really don't think that you can beat the PR value of a nuclear mushroom cloud dispersing over the already damaged Manhattan skyline.

NYC or nothin'.

I might pick Washington, DC as a secondary, with Chicago as a WAAAAY outside tertiary. The only true benefit of Chicago would be that it is representative of America's Heartland. (I continue to harbor a suspicion, totally unfounded, that the Sears Tower was the perfect target for Flight 93, although I understand that conventional wisdom had it heading for the White House or Capitol Building. Western PA is NOT on the way to DC. I looked at a map and everything.)

Although I do think Tom Clancy had something with nukin' the SuperBowl ...

For once, Philly folks should count their blessings at being the overlooked city.

According to the LA Times, the military is thinking about using tactical nukes, bunker busters, in Iraq. I've heard David Hackworth argue for it because the intense heat generated would incinerate any nasties. That would hopefully reduce the numbers of troops suffering from Gulf War 2 syndrome later on. From a purely military perspective he makes sense. The political fallout however...?

The problem is that Saddam's bunkers may be too hardened even for the regular bunker busters, which can delve like 10 feet into concrete before exploding. But the political fallout from this would be so immense, I doubt it's under any serious consideration.

Re: Where would you Nuke?
 

First, Saddam's history and strategic objectives have always been to avoid conflict with the US. The last thing Saddam wants is to attack the US. Such attack provides him nothing and is completely contradictory to his fundamental objectives in life. That is two strong reasons why the US is not a target of Saddam.

Second, I am posting this with a request that UT please delete the section encased in "***" after, say Monday evening. I have long asked this question and have a list I would prefer to keep silent about. Will only provide one example because there are many disasterous targets. I don't even want this example posted long.


***
(tw fantasy of one way to kill NYC deleted)
***


Please do not universally advertise this scenario. Instead maybe refer to it as a "tw's worst case NYC event". This and many other potential events have often bothered me long before 11 Sept.

Again, I request that UT remove the section between '***' on evening of 27 Jan 2003. This concept must be limited to discussion. No reason to advertise details.

That's right, tw, just tell everybody!
 

While you're at it, post excerpts from your al-Quada training manual on the internet (but just for a day).

How far away is the nearest FBI office from where you live, tw? They'll be there as quick as they can.

What is this, security through obscurity?