View Single Post
  #96  
Old 02-07-2008, 05:12 PM
cmac2012's Avatar
cmac2012 cmac2012 is online now
Me, Myself, and I
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 36,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Doe View Post
I misunderstood you--I thought you meant it was unlikely someone here could 'imagine if one of your sons, daughters, ect....was affected first hand by a terrorist' and make a decision from that vantage point.
OK, I'll put you back on my "favorable" list.

The whole "terrorist who knows where a nuclear device is that is set to go off in 24 hours stretches credulity.

Since they are going to have a hard time actually getting their hands on a nuke, seems like they wouldn't want to take any chance of it not being used as they wish. Best avenue for that would be to blow it up on a boat in a major harbor.

It just does not make sense that they would bring it into Canada or Mexico and then smuggle it across the border to be placed in some desired target location. Too much could go wrong, and they don't want to have to detonate the thing in some semi-isolated place.

Our harbors strike me as pretty porous. We know that very few containers actually get checked. I could imagine a couple of fools in a container with a nuke, a porta-potty, sufficient food and water, maybe a lead lining of the container to inhibit radiation detection. If they could get a GPS unit to work under those circumstances, they could rig a sensor outside and camoflage it, all they would have to do is u-ulate in New York harbor while they push the button.

I mean if 16 Chinese guys can hide in a container and get into the US, how hard would it be to smuggle a nuke on one? And the funds promised to upgrade container security have not been delivered.
__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K
Reply With Quote