Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (218481)	2/9/2005 11:34:44 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575341

"Its another version of the nuke-in-a-suitcase scenario." No it isn't. The problem with the suitcase nuke is that it takes a significant economic base to produce. The US can do it, the old USSR might have, but the present Russia or China cannot. It's not a matter of whether plans exist, it is a matter of being able to do precision and specialized manufacturing. However, a "Fatman"(not a "Littleboy") style bomb is doable by many countries, given the materials. The problem is delivery. Delivering a package that masses 10k+ kilos, covertly, is a problem unless there is a breakdown in reasonable police procedures. Hence my scenario.

To: tejek who wrote (218481)	2/10/2005 12:42:54 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1575341

"However, the dirty bomb he thought was very doable." A dirty bomb is very doable. They don't have to be big and they don't take much of an industrial base to create. However, to be effective, they consist of relatively short half life radionuclitides. Which means they are easy to detect if there is an effective police force that is looking for that sort of thing. The signature of an effective dirty bomb is a whole lot easier to detect than a "Fatman" class nuclear weapon if you can't scan every shipping container that comes into the US.