patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,356,134 comments by 15,730 users - Ceffer, ForcedTQ, The_Deplorable online now
Can A Nuclear Bomb Be Placed Silently In Some Place In The Potential Enemy State Instead Of Being Delivered By Rocket?
2025 Dec 29, 11:23am 104 views 3 comments
Comments 1 - 3 of 3 Search these comments
1
Ceffer
2025 Dec 29, 11:41am
Ceffer
2025 Dec 29, 11:41am
Been there, done that with all the suitcase nukes placed in world capitals by our best allies and friends.
Nukes and their triggers require constant maintenance because they are inherently unstable. They become non-functionala without this maintenance.
Apparently, the last non-functional suitcase nuke intended for ilnternational blackmail placed many years ago was found a few years ago in Australia.
Nukes and their triggers require constant maintenance because they are inherently unstable. They become non-functionala without this maintenance.
Apparently, the last non-functional suitcase nuke intended for ilnternational blackmail placed many years ago was found a few years ago in Australia.
2
stereotomy
2025 Dec 29, 11:45am
stereotomy
2025 Dec 29, 11:45am
The polonium contained in the initiator is highly radioactive and decays within several years to render the device a dud.
Anderson Moorer
·
Follow
AutodidactUpdated 10y
Can a nuclear bomb be placed silently in some place in the potential enemy state, instead of being delivered using rockets?
Oh, yes indeed, and the possibility keeps some very important people awake at night.
Here's the dilemma...
The ubiquitous shipping container. The metal box which is at the very heart of all trade, without which all economies of the world would collapse. What can they carry? Anything.
Anything. Including a nuclear bomb.
15 million of them enter the U.S. every year. 500 million of them are shuffled around the world continuously.
Anyone can contain a nuclear weapon. It doesn't have to be small. It doesn't have to be sophisticated. Not in one of these containers. And these containers go to really important places, buried amidst thousands of others, all looking exactly alike. Important places like the port of Los Angeles.
Recognising the danger, there have been efforts to try to identify containers that might be carrying something nasty and radioactive. Fixed and mobile scanners X-ray contents, or scan for radioactivity.
But there are some problems. First, there's the expense. Which is prohibitive - even with the US spending massive sums, less than 4% of the containers entering the US are scanned, and the expense alone has the Department of Homeland Security seriously considering abandoning the effort entirely.
Scanning also takes time, which slows busy queues to a degree that is impractical. Scanning for radioactivity yields a lot of false positives... Even a container of bananas is radioactive enough to set off a scanner sensitive enough to detect a shielded nuclear device, and plenty of perfectly normal trade items are even more radioactive.
Most ominously, these scanners usually attempt to identify the contents of containers after they are loaded onto trucks... But that is no protection from a device hidden in a container aboard a heavily laden ship sitting in a busy cargo port, right in the middle of an important place like New York City.
This is why there is so much emphasis placed on identifying and tracking all material which could be used to create a nuclear weapon. It's also why most nations object to countries like Iran and North Korea creating weapons grade nuclear material in secret, which might end up in a weapon in one of these containers... or placed aboard a yacht and parked under the Golden Gate Bridge.
But the problem is even worse than that. A "dirty bomb" can be made with nuclear material which can be obtained far more easily than weapons-grade material, and a cargo container full of conventional explosives and common radioactive waste detonated in a major port can itself render the nearby area uninhabitable.
Sleep well.