PDA

View Full Version : Where will the next nuke explode?


AtomKraft
12th Jun 2014, 12:53
We all hope that two will be the final total of nukes used in anger...well, most of us do.

But, there's quite a few out there in the hands of folk with itchy trigger fingers, and even more which, if they fell into the hands of the wrong folk- could be pressed into action for one cause or another.

So, let's run a sweep on where bang number three will be. Tests don't count.

I've got a few ideas, but it'd be interesting to see what fellow ppruners think first.
Also, where's the least likely place for bang number three. :ok:

localflighteast
12th Jun 2014, 13:02
Ok , I'm bored so I'll bite

Least likely - New Zealand ( geographically isolated and all that jazz, can't get the stuff in or out)

my guess as to the next one ..... I'm going to go with Northern Ireland.

Why? Wishful thinking ... bye bye in laws:E

Seriously I still think there's going to be a lot more terrorist crap coming out of NI in the near future

Wyler
12th Jun 2014, 13:04
Coventry - it's a sh!thole.

lomapaseo
12th Jun 2014, 13:06
It will go off after being improperly transported over a bumpy road in the far east

500N
12th Jun 2014, 13:07
As soon as I read it, I also thought of New Zealand.
Alternate would be Antarctica.

Brenoch
12th Jun 2014, 13:13
Hello Iran. Predestined for a nuke strike, either by the US or Israel.

Lonewolf_50
12th Jun 2014, 13:48
If one must, let it be in Pakistan.

They need a wake up call.

But I'd rather another one didn't.

Checkboard
12th Jun 2014, 13:55
Why should test not count?

Nuclear Testing 1945 - 1998 Complete Video HD - YouTube

Dee747
12th Jun 2014, 14:02
..... I'm going to go with Northern Ireland

I know in-laws can be a bit of a burden, but as someone who's lived here all my 54 years, I seriously hope not. I'm not intending to emigrate any time soon.

Seriously I still think there's going to be a lot more terrorist crap coming out of NI in the near future

Way back when, it was car bombs and gas cylinders - not in the same realm as nukes. Nor was there ever any sign "the troubles" were heading in that direction. Sure, arms and explosives were sourced from various eastern bloc nations, as well as some with later proven terrorist backgrounds, but that's a long long way from this topic.

As for who I think might be next, I'd also have to go with Pakistan or surrounding nations supporting similar views and practices. Least likely - probably NZ or Canada.

Sallyann1234
12th Jun 2014, 14:04
More likely to be a 'dirty bomb' than a full nuke, and set off in a Western city - probably NY or London.
Far easier to make, and just as effective in terms of panic and disruption.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 14:17
Top 5.
1. Tel Aviv
2. Tehran
3. Pakistan
4. India
5. Tokyo

Least likely

1. Tristan da Cunha - too remote
2. 'Anne of Green Gables' house, Prince Edward Island, Canada - too nice
3. Zurich - too expensive
4. Xiangfan or Yanshi, China - unlikely to be noticed, they are such wastelands already. http://www.ibtimes.com/pollution-china-worlds-worst-photos-709395
5. Pyongyang - too appropriate

teeteringhead
12th Jun 2014, 14:20
Far easier to make, and just as effective in terms of panic and disruption. Most chilling line I once heard during an (unclassified) talk on the possibility of "home made" fission devices:

"The probability of achieving a high yield is very very very small ........


...... but still higher than the probability of achieving no yield at all!"

:eek::eek:

Alloa Akbar
12th Jun 2014, 14:37
Least likely - Wales.. I mean really, whats the point??

Most likely - Probably old Kim Jong Nuts chucking one at South Korea, or the Iranians lobbing one at Israel.

Effluent Man
12th Jun 2014, 14:49
Must be the Middle East surely.A pre-emptive strike by the Israelis when they are backed into a corner maybe? I very much doubt that I will be criticising them if it happens.

charliegolf
12th Jun 2014, 15:15
Least likely - Wales.. I mean really, whats the point??

B'stard!:D

I was gonna say Port Talbot, 'co there's no point wasting the bang! But it's home...

CG

Dak Man
12th Jun 2014, 15:17
In my pants tomorrow morning, just like the last one - this morning.

OFSO
12th Jun 2014, 15:22
Similarly Dak, after the next home-made Thai curry.

ExXB
12th Jun 2014, 15:37
Most (if not all) aviation insurance coverage has a 'nuke' clause. The insurance is invalidated the moment a nuclear weapon is used in anger (tests don't count). Appropriate lawyerese phrases covering every possible scenario.

No insurance, no flights (The Montreal Convention 1999 requires all commercial flights to be covered by insurance). A lot of Ppruners out of work until they get it sorted.

angels
12th Jun 2014, 15:37
Seoul. New York. Tel Aviv.

Scenarios. Kim Jong-un is about to be toppled and has to do something about it. He'll take everyone else with him.

New York, a terrorist dirty bomb (you could substitute London here).

Tel Aviv. Hard line militia from (probably, but not necessarily) Iran.

AtomKraft
12th Jun 2014, 15:53
Tel Aviv

After that anybody's guess. New Delhi, Karachi, New York, maybe Tehran or Seoul?

Least likely...
Norway, Aus, Denmark, Africa, South America, Antarctica.....Scotland- waste of all that whisky! ;)

rgbrock1
12th Jun 2014, 16:26
Dak Man wrote:

In my pants tomorrow morning, just like the last one - this morning.

Does this give new meaning to the Big Bang Theory then? :}

vulcanised
12th Jun 2014, 16:34
Hopefully wherever Blair and Mugabe have a meeting.

air pig
12th Jun 2014, 16:35
Qom, Terhan Karachi and a few more places around that area if the Israeli's ever feel really threatened and use the Samson option, missed Baghdad as they will destroy that themselves.

Least likely, South Georgia.

AtomKraft
12th Jun 2014, 17:03
Anyone care to post a youtube of a really mighty test shot?

I remember a series called 'starfish prime' and there was a corker called 'sedan'.

It's a subject of its own really, these code words.

'Dominic Sunset' rings another...

'Castle Bravo'

Funny the stuff still stored in ones nut.:)

sitigeltfel
12th Jun 2014, 17:21
The next nuke event will probably be a dirty bomb. A conventional explosion in a city centre used to disseminate radioactive material from old medical equipment, etc.

BenThere
12th Jun 2014, 17:39
The best bet is Iran.

Israel's only trump card against Iran's determination to eliminate it is its nuclear arsenal. Israel cannot allow Iran the capability to destroy it because Iran wants to, and its fervor suggests Iran's current regime is almost indifferent to the survival of Iran in this mad pursuit.

Effluent Man
12th Jun 2014, 17:52
More or less in line with my thinking.

West Coast
12th Jun 2014, 17:55
US west coast port city most likely.

Switzerland - least.

Dak Man
12th Jun 2014, 18:02
Dak Man wrote:


Quote:
In my pants tomorrow morning, just like the last one - this morning.

Does this give new meaning to the Big Bang Theory then?

Well hello there old chap, where ya been?

...and yes, also new meaning to black hole........

27mm
12th Jun 2014, 18:45
Downham Market, Norfolk; the instant the Memsahib finds out that our new family car is going to be not a Skoda Labia, but a Golf R....

rgbrock1
12th Jun 2014, 18:49
Dak Man:

Thanks for the inquiry into my whereabouts. I've been away. (No, not in an insane asylum. That's what I have my job here for!!)

fitliker
12th Jun 2014, 18:57
My guess for the next big bang will be an accidental explosion in one of the Iranian underground facilities.
They had all kinds of computer issues at their secret bomb making underground factories, and if one virus can get through. I would think that it is feasible that a more destructive bug might get through.


Who knows, maybe it has already happened and nobody is talking :)

rgbrock1
12th Jun 2014, 19:00
The next nuke explosion? It already happened. In Japan. And not in '45. :ok:

BenThere
12th Jun 2014, 19:00
It would be sublime if Iran's nuclear bomb ambitions resulted in a self-detonation.

God's will?

con-pilot
12th Jun 2014, 19:05
If my wife plants anymore Brussels sprouts, it will be in my back yard.

A very, very tiny, it's a bitty, nuclear explosion mind you.

rgbrock1
12th Jun 2014, 19:33
The "glow" from Con's backyard after poor Mrs. Con planted just one two many rows of Brussels Sprouts:

http://www.jmlalonde.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Nuclear-Explosion-550x690.jpg

meadowrun
12th Jun 2014, 20:13
North Korea. Not really - they would have to attack someone with one first - but they are stupid enough to do it. Then there would be retaliation of major, major consequences.


So, second.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jun 2014, 20:21
NK second is quite possible. That's why Tokyo was in my top 5 and Pyongyang in the bottom 5 to be first.

7x7
12th Jun 2014, 21:50
After the events surrounding MH370, (whatever they were), I'll bet there are a lot of people losing sleep over the possibility of a civil airliner airframe flying under a real airliner's transponder code stacked to the gunnels with nuclear waste and conventional explosives getting into the airspace of a major Western city.

Stand by for the Hollywood blockbuster using this theme and Bruce Willis just saving the day.

Coming soon to a cinema near you.

It would be too sweet for the Iranians to suffer a contained underground 'accidental' explosion, preferably during an official visit to the site by 99.999% of the current Iranian government ministers and their religious advisors and staff. I suspect that this would be a sentiment shared by a rather large number of Iranians.

West Coast
12th Jun 2014, 21:53
One of the newsies showed a trailor of a movie about MH370 a few weeks back, so its started.

Cacophonix
12th Jun 2014, 21:54
Mein Gott Herr Atom...!

Doctor Strangelove - Doomsday Machine - YouTube

Mein Scheiße!

Caco!

Sallyann1234
12th Jun 2014, 22:12
I'll bet there are a lot of people losing sleep over the possibility of a civil airliner airframe flying under a real airliner's transponder code stacked to the gunnels with nuclear waste and conventional explosives getting into the airspace of a major Western city.

No need for anything so elaborate and no subterfuge.
Just pack your nasty stuff and explosives into a small ship and sail it up the Hudson or Thames. A decent bang and the wind will spread it sufficiently to make the city uninhabitable.

Cacophonix
12th Jun 2014, 22:23
pack your nasty stuff and explosives into a small ship and sail it up the Hudson or Thames. A decent bang and the wind will spread it sufficiently to make the city uninhabitable.

"You see Strangelove, here we have a slip of an English girl!"

"Jawhol mein Herr Komandant, but it is rumoured that this Sallyann with her silly girly numbers is not only a good engineer but one who has studied with the best of those English schwein!!

"Please Dieter, we know that women are only fit for breeding and looking kindly at cats"!

Al Stewart - Year Of The Cat - YouTube

Caco

7x7
12th Jun 2014, 23:09
Sallyann, the game changer in using an airliner is time. Loading up a ship involves months of lead time, where information could leak out and the ship (a la Bruce Willis) might be stopped. The airliner could involve just a day or two from loading to delivery.

The ship will also centre on a port area - devastating, to be sure, but nowhere near as much so, either actually or politically, as over a city centre's financial district.

As I said, I really think there are a few people losing sleep over this. Probably as many on the other side trying to see how they could make it happen as there are on our side trying to see that it doesn't.

Like just about everyone who follows this site, I don't know who was responsible for the disappearance of MH370. (But to borrow an old Australian phrase, I'll bare my bum in Bourke Street if it turns out to have been one of the pilots.) But I do know that, whoever they are, they have opened an almost bottomless Pandora's Box of new possibilities for all sorts of people with nasty intentions to come up with all sorts of mischief that they had probably never even considered possible before.

Whoever you are, nice work guys. Not.

air pig
13th Jun 2014, 00:33
Sallyann, all you need is a couple of ISO standard containers loaded onto a ship with either waste and high explosives or in the case of some states a small nuclear weapon, shielded by a water jacket and a timer or even better a satellite phone receiver and transmitter on the detonator. Look at the size of the WE177 the RAF used to have to get some idea of size. Load it on a ship and lose the paperwork and change owners a couple of times on route. Sail it up the East River or under the Golden Gate Bridge or into Tilbury or Rotterdam and bang or wait until it's offloaded onto a trailer and is driving through a major city.

Talking to the brother of an import export man from an Asian not so friendly country a while ago, losing and changing the identity of a container whilst en route is so easy it's child's play.

That's truly the nightmare scenario.

GrumpyOldFart
13th Jun 2014, 01:24
Slough. No, wait ... Basingstoke. Errr - Milton Keynes. Basildon - that's it - Basildon. Or Bracknell ...



Or Ottawa.




:ooh:

onetrack
13th Jun 2014, 01:49
ExXB:No insurance, no flights (The Montreal Convention 1999 requires all commercial flights to be covered by insurance). A lot of Ppruners out of work until they get it sorted.Good God, the chaos that would ensue in an event where every single commercial aircraft operation stopped until further notice would be unimaginable.
It wouldn't be just a lot of Pppruners out of work, it would be a very sizeable section of the worlds population that would grind to a fairly rapid halt. :(

My money is on an Islamic dictator that comes out of the rapidly-increasing hardline Sharia mobs that are scattered from Syria to Iran to Afghanistan and Pakistan, becoming a worshipped and uniting leader amongst that group, and he sets up a hardline Islamic Sharia state encompassing parts of Northern Iraq, Northern Iran, and parts of Syria - that then pulls in stolen nuclear ability from Pakistan.

With increasing confidence and with a supply of nukes from Pakistan, he will drop a nuke on Tel Aviv with a great belief that he will wipe out Israel in one go, and cripple it so that it can't fight back, so he and his mobs can walk in and take over the Holy Land.
He'll be wrong, and both Israel and the U.S. will strike back instantly with nukes that will render a vast area of the Middle East Sharia state a wasteland.
There is no one country more prepared for nuclear war than Israel - and prepared to use it with devastating effect.

rh200
13th Jun 2014, 01:54
Dirty bomb.

Perhaps the greatest realistic perceived threat, and the easiest to deal with. Start educating people to stop being paranoid about small doses of radiation.

If you are, ban bananas bricks, marble etc etc.

AtomKraft
13th Jun 2014, 02:48
A witness speaks

Wahoo and Umbrella - Filmmaker recounts nuclear test - YouTube (http://youtu.be/Y53vDnNPiA4)

AtomKraft
13th Jun 2014, 02:57
Worth a look

hydrogen bomb and nuclear tests in space - YouTube (http://youtu.be/iyPsIOxMmqY)

AtomKraft
13th Jun 2014, 04:02
There could be some positives aspects......

In ze bunker, Mein fuehrer. :ooh:

Cheers Cackers. ;)

Dr. Strangelove (8/8) Movie CLIP - Living Underground (1964) HD - YouTube (http://youtu.be/mzddAYYDZkk)

mikedreamer787
13th Jun 2014, 04:25
Nuke requests -

1. Calcutta.....please!

2. Wherever the ex is.

3. Canberra. In toto.

Thank you.

Sallyann1234
13th Jun 2014, 09:24
... shielded by a water jacket and a timer or even better a satellite phone ... Again, unnecessarily complex. In these days of suicide bombers it's far easier to deliver manually. Select where and when to set it off and go up to heaven.
The most effective terrorist attack ever was just a few guys with knives.

Loading up a ship involves months of lead time, where information could leak out and the ship (a la Bruce Willis) might be stopped. The airliner could involve just a day or two from loading to delivery.Why should it take any longer to load onto a ship than a plane? There are plenty of quiet secured ports (Somali pirates use them and even have suitable captured ships), and transport speed is irrelevant.

The ship will also centre on a port area - devastating, to be sure, but nowhere near as much so, either actually or politically, as over a city centre's financial district.Haven't you been to London? The Thames goes right through the financial and government districts. And wind will spread the plume for miles.

Start educating people to stop being paranoid about small doses of radiation. Good luck with that! The bomb will be loud enough to draw media attention, and the first rumour of radiation will cause total panic via social media. People will be killing each other to get out of town.

Edit to say:
Is it wrong to describe how to attack a city? If I can think up this stuff, there must be many others with far more evil minds.

rh200
13th Jun 2014, 11:03
and the first rumour of radiation will cause total panic via social media. People will be killing each other to get out of town.

Yep!, hence the education to try and filter out the lefty brain washing. Take some simple precautions and no probs.

Is it wrong to describe how to attack a city? If I can think up this stuff, there must be many others with far more evil minds.

Nope, you can bet its been thought of several dozen times before by our enemies. I have a particular scenario in my head that would be spectacular, and had a high probability of working involving aircraft. To envisage that, you would have to have a very specific in site into a industry I was involved in, hence thats where it stays, in my head.

The problem is, we have a few strategists spending 9 to 5 working on scenarios, with the odd distraction of the office chick walking past, lunch, knock off time etc. They have [email protected]#k knows how many siting there every day rocking back and forth trying to come up with scenarios.

Personally I think the next big attack will be against something we do all the time, and take for granted with out thinking about it. Thats why 911 worked, they understood the system and how the passengers would react.

Sallyann1234
13th Jun 2014, 11:28
hence the education to try and filter out the lefty brain washing. Take some simple precautions and no probs.

Like I said, good luck with that. It's buried too deeply in peoples' minds.

Is the government that warns people in Cornwall about radon from granite suddenly going to tell Londoners that radiation is not so bad after all?

Blacksheep
13th Jun 2014, 12:36
Look at the size of the WE177 the RAF used to have They still have them. So have the Royal Navy.

uffington sb
13th Jun 2014, 13:18
Blacksheep.
Regarding the WE-177.
I believe they were all retired in the late 90's

con-pilot
13th Jun 2014, 16:52
Is it wrong to describe how to attack a city? If I can think up this stuff, there must be many others with far more evil minds.

No, not in the least, as there are dozens of authors of action/adventure/conspiracy novels that have describe every possible way to attack cites and other targets using nuclear weapons, not to mention more than a few movies.

As for aircraft, there is still that missing 727 tanker than disappeared in Africa that no one, including the CIA, can find.

Which I find a bit strange, as the CIA found our stolen Kingair 200 sitting on a dirt airstrip in the middle of a jungle in South America.

Oh, they asked if we wanted it back and we said, "Not only no, but hell no."

Strangely enough, it accidentally blew up a few weeks later.

air pig
13th Jun 2014, 17:44
uffington sb, the traitor Blair ordered their retirement. and a downgrade in the number of warheads per submarine in the RN SSBN force. for these acts he needs to be in Court No 1 at the Old bailey for Treason.

Many scenarios have been written about but the best is by the late Tom Clancy in Sum of all Fears.

Dak Man
13th Jun 2014, 17:57
Least likely, surely Canada, I mean why waste a good nuke.

Super VC-10
13th Jun 2014, 19:25
It'll be Pyongyang. Kim Jong Div will send one off to South Korea, but it'll fail, crash and explode on launch. :ok:

Fat Magpie
13th Jun 2014, 19:29
If some group do get hold of a nuke I doubt their going to waste it on some backwater shithole, my money is on London. These guys will want to make a statement and it needs to be the mushroom cloud variety not just a dirty bomb but the full works with the big cloud.

Air Pigs earlier post on using a shipping container is spot on, that's how it would be done and it is scary.

NI is descending into a right cess pit, it's now a criminals paradise with the police struggling to keep a lid on some of it. I think you had a better quality of life there during the troubles, give it another 3 yrs and it will be like bits of london.

angels
13th Jun 2014, 20:13
The thing - bits of London? Which bits?

airship
14th Jun 2014, 00:50
In airship's entourage, it's pretty well-determined that the precursor and initial cause of the December 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and eventual devastating tsunamis spreading out from Sumatra in Indonesia were the result of the detonation of a relatively small-yield nuclear device at a critical location over a known fault-line between the major tectonic plates there. Even worse, it was even a RN vessel which actually "delivered the weapon", disguised as a ROV or similar. With a RN Swiftsure-class submarine attending during and afterwards to monitor events.

Admittedly, the severity and actual results of the exercise were mostly unexpected. But quite essential and instigated by the NSA whose reasons for doing so were based on the legitimate worries of the effects of a foreign power (or terrorist group) doing similar off the Pacific coast of the USA.

Luckily, (at least so far), there has been little fall-out over that event... :ok: :uhoh:

er340790
14th Jun 2014, 01:40
Redcar.

(Stands to reason. :})

Dushan
14th Jun 2014, 02:56
Least likely, surely Canada, I mean why waste a good nuke.


We got our nuke yesterday. The fallout will last 4-5 years.

vulcanised
14th Jun 2014, 11:48
bits of London? Which bits?


Given the number of new tunnels under tunnels and over tunnels that are being built it won't take anything like a nuke to shake it all to bits.

Fat Magpie
14th Jun 2014, 12:21
I lived and worked in London for many years, i have a load of friends there born and bread. I refer to parts of London being crime havens.
Where you dare not even pull out a expensive smart phone or approach a cash machine without a good chance of being robbed.
I remember a bad season in white city were we were all warned about muggings outside in broad daylight are place of work.

Why do Londoners accept being mugged or burglarised is ok and an acceptable part of life.