6 places to nuke when you're serious

[bobwrit]

Disclaimer: if this post bothers you, please do spend some time coming up with potential countermeasures. The point is to encourage people to think about these types of risk in more detail, so we can implement solutions before the unthinkable happens.

Assuming a 1-megaton nuclear weapon, what are the optimal delivery points to maximize global damage and chaos? We are assuming a 1 megaton bomb due to simplicity - this yield is about twice that of the most powerful fission bomb produced by the US, the Mk 18, which used 60 kg of enriched uranium. With nanofactories, building extremely high-quality centrifuges will become easy, making large quantities of enriched uranium accessible to any organization with uranium ore. We will be able to do with a few centrifuges what previously required hundreds or even thousands.

A few facts about uranium: uranium ore is more common than gold, mercury, silver, or tungsten, and is found in substantial quantities worldwide, including in southern Australia, Africa, and the Middle East. It is the 48th most abundant element in the earth’s crust. Pitchblende uranium (1% pure) is available on eBay for approximately $20/kg. The US Department of Energy has stockpiled 704,000 metric tons of uranium in the form of hexaflourine solids.

In this scenario, it does not really matter who is dropping the bomb. The point is to create as much mayhem as possible. This analysis leans towards detonation targets that do damage to the United States in particular, both because the US has many enemies, and because many countries are economically and politically dependent on a smoothly-functioning US. The attack might be a set-up for a larger operation, occur in the context of a war, or simply be an isolated event. Potential orchestrators of the attack include rogue states like North Korea or Iran, criminal organizations, jihadi organizations, or more sophisticated groups like circles of well-educated and wealthy Americans exploiting abrupt technological transitions to gain power.

In roughly ascending order of severity, the options are:

6. Destroy a large portion of Tehran, Iran.

The Israelis would immediately be blamed, and Iranian troops would likely be dispatched to Israel under half an hour after the event. Many other countries including the EU and the US would get involved, and the result would be a very long and very expensive war. Iran’s GDP is approximately 10x that of Iraq, and if other Muslim countries like Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey got involved, the West would be dealing with a fanatic multinational force with plenty of resources. Think of the earth as an egg, and the fault line between Muslim radicalists and Christian radicalists as the breakage formed when the egg is cracked.

5. Nuke Washington, D.C.



When Congress is in session, of course. Although Washington, D.C. is a city of great political significance, it is not a critical economic cog relative to other large global cities. At the very least, every member of Congress would be wiped out, along with thousands of important ambassadors, lobbyists, political thinkers, and of course the Administration. Eliminating Washington, D.C. is not the worst thing a terrorist or rogue country could do, as there have been extensive plans in place since the Cold War for establishing a shadow government in case of this eventuality. It would throw the American people into a frenzy significantly greater than 9-11, however.

4. Destabilize an oceanic shield volcano next to a methane clathrate deposit.

This one is subtle. A couple weeks ago Phil Bowermaster posted about the risks of methane clathrate. Essentially, when this stuff melts, it is 20 times worse than carbon dioxide when it comes to contributing to global warming, and can be found easily in half-kilometer-thick deposits on the ocean floor. There are undersea mountains with precarious peaks that have been slowly destabilizing over thousands of years, and with the right placement, a nuclear blast could start a catastrophic landslide. If the result is as massive as large historic landslides, it could displace more than 100 cubic kilometers of rock, creating a debris trail covering tens of square kilometers. The kinetic energy of the avalanche could melt 40+ cu km of methane clathrate, potentially kickstarting a global warming feedback effect, with all its nasty ramifications. Beneath the methane clathrate is even more methane in gas form.

Fictional expositions of the possible effects of severe global warming can be found in John Barnes’ Mother of Storms and Clive Cusser’s Fire Ice. For the first one, think of four storms like Giant Red Spots constantly raking the earth’s surface for years on end, and for the second, tsunamis followed by complete global climate change. This target is only rated 4th out of 6 because of a relatively low probability that global warming would actually be accelerated all that quickly. If it were successful, however, it might be better placed in 2nd place.

Here is an excerpt from a website on volcanic landslides:


Volcanoes appear to be permanent fixtures on the landscape, but in fact are inherently unstable structures composed of both strong (thick lava flows) and weak (fragmental and hydrothermally altered) materials. Large-scale collapse of volcanic edifices, first witnessed and documented at the start of the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption, is now known to be a common volcanic process. Large volcanic landslides can occur with volumes exceeding a cubic kilometer at continental volcanoes and several orders of magnitude larger at oceanic shield volcanoes. These collapses can produce extremely mobile debris avalanches that can travel at high velocities in some cases for tens of kilometers beyond the base of a volcano. This process, once thought to be extremely rare, has been documented at hundreds of volcanoes worldwide. Repeated episodes of growth and collapse have occurred at many volcanoes, and large-volume volcanic landslides have been found to be the most common catastrophic destructive process at volcanoes.

3. Nuke New York City, particularly Manhattan.



Here, people are packed so closely that a million casualties from a nuclear attack, even if “only

[Sit Heel Speak]

6. Destroy a large portion of Tehran, Iran.
5. Nuke Washington, D.C.
4. Destabilize an oceanic shield volcano next to a methane clathrate deposit.
3. Nuke New York City, particularly Manhattan.
2. Knock off a chunk of Cumbre Viejo at La Palma in the Canary Islands.
1. Nuke the Yellowstone Caldera.

Say, anyone need a gardener or truck driver in Oz or EnZed?

[Billwho?]

And I thought nuking DC might actually improve world security, by taking at least one nutters finger off the button.

Say, anyone need a gardener or truck driver in Oz or EnZed?

Sorry SHS but since "little johnny" and g.w.b" f*d around in Iraq Oz has become a target too. Along with Spain, Britain and anyone else who got dragged into that s*t fight.

Edit: 27 Dec. Hmm no one, not even myself noticed the typo where I had "Iran instead of Iraq."

[Sit Heel Speak]

...since "little johnny" and g.w.b" f*d around in Iran Oz has become a target too..."

Anyone need a schooner deckhand in Argentina?

[mjhartlebury]

you've forget one vital place... Seattle

[mbutts]

Interesting post. Gee that's only $10 per pound on Ebay or a little over 3 gallons of gas per pound. (US) Would that give you more bang for the buck than petrol?

[Flash]

Bobwrit, I figure the chance that a Bomb will be set off by persons unknown in my lifetime is around 50-50. I've tried to figure out where it is most likely to happen. If Pakistan falls apart (as seems likely if not imminent) and the Taliban come into possession of the atomic bombs Pakistan has built, it seems likely that those Bombs will be used somewhere, and sooner rather than later. Probably India will be attacked, and possibly a busy U.S. port. It seems to me that where it happens depends on how large and difficult to conceal are the Bombs Pakistan built. I could be wrong, but I'd guess they are so big and heavy that an attempt to smuggle one into the U.S. on an airplane would be considered too likely to be discovered. So my pick for the most likely place a Bomb will explode is a major port, probably New York City but could be Los Angeles or New Orleans. The reason I think a major port is where it will happen is that it is impossible to prevent and easy to do. Simply hide the bomb on any container ship heading for the port and set it off when the ship gets close. There's no way to inspect more than a few of the ships arriving at any major seaport, and any inspection of a ship before it ties up at a dock or drops anchor can hardly be very thorough. Only a little effort would be required to hide a Bomb well enough to guarantee it will remain undiscovered until the ship gets close enough to the port to destroy it.

The second reason I think a port is the most likely place for an attack is that the reaction of the U.S. would be to shut down all its major seaports for an indeterminate period. If you thought shutting down U.S. airports for a few months after 9/11 caused major inconvenience, think about how much more vital is the commerce that goes in and out of our seaports. Global trade, at least with the U.S., would essentially cease for an extended period. We wouldn't be the only ones to suffer. The Chinese now manufacture nearly everything sold in the U.S.. If they have to idle their plants for several years or even months, they would suffer enormously, as would all our trading partners. The U.S. is the largest single market in the world for almost anything you can name--except rice.

It may be that if a bunch of extremists get hold of a Bomb they won't analyze the situation the way I do. On the other hand, blowing up a major port is a no-brainer. It's easy, virtually guaranteed to succeed, and the effect would depress the U.S. and world economies for a long time.

[bobwrit]

Pakastan is falling apart now.... sort of.

[willhunt]

Hmmm I think current "garage construction" methods yield
is around 10 kilo tons simple 235/238 "golf bag"
type and easy to construct. but for years it's accepted
that you must own "the hearts and mind of the ppl"

So the object becomes how to decrease the number of ppl
who disagree with you while keeping there "wealth"

A biological agent would accomplish this task after all how
Do you search for a virus when loading planes?

15 infected martyrs with airplane tickets is much scarrier
than nukes.

after all you only need remove 2% of the population before
it's noticeable and 10% before you see irreversible changes

or you could just sell the children lead paint toys and wait at least that one has "plausible deny ability"

just a question would not the nuclear power plants in newyork increase the fallout kill ratio?

[Flash]

While vaporizing the core of a nuculer (bush's word, not mine ) power plant would add tons of nasty fallout to the mushroom cloud, I don't think it would make much difference to the big picture. When any atomic bomb goes critical, it emits a pulse of neutrons. (The so-called Neutron Bomb was designed to maximize this pulse, but it's still an atomic bomb. Can't get around that.) Neutrons do not stay free for long in the wild. They are eventually "captured" by the nuclei of whatever elements happen to be in the vicinity of the bomb, creating many tons of (variously radioactive) isotopes - which are included in the characteristic mushroom cloud. I believe the half-life of such isotopes trends as the atomic number of the original element. Isotopes of heavy elements tend to have longer half-lives than those of lighter elements. I doubt that the total effect of the radioactive fallout would differ noticeably whether you set off a bomb near a nuculer power plant or in a crowded port. It would be more important to set off the bomb upwind of a large city, if you wanted to maximize the damage from fallout. Fortunately for New York City, the prevailing winds would probably carry most of the fallout from a blast in port over the Atlantic.

[Bruce B]

What is excluded from all this are:

1) defensive measures

2) counter attacks

Let alone the speed with which the counter attacks would be implemented.

[willhunt]

well flash that means they built the power plants so that NY
was down wind!
Now you know I just don't doubt that I live downwind from
the chemical weapons depo but I live in wasp heaven the
only ethnic diversion here is those foreigners from
Tennessee

[Bruce B]

I've pictured Flash sitting on his porch enjoying the gorgeous Arizona sunsets. Hope someday, he takes a picture of one and posts it.

[Bruce B]

About prevailing winds.

In the early days of the Nevada test sites, they'd not test when the winds were heading toward Arizona or Las Vegas.

Wait 'til they were blowing toward St. George, Utah then that's the time.

[jonyo]

Assuming a 1-megaton nuclear weapon, what are the optimal delivery points to maximize global damage and chaos?

High up EMP theme is the way to go..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EMP_mechanism.GIF

The mechanism for a 400 km high altitude burst EMP: gamma rays hit the atmosphere between 20–40 km altitude, ejecting electrons which are then deflected sideways by the earth's magnetic field. This makes the electrons radiate EMP over a massive area. Because of the curvature of earth's magnetic field over the USA, the maximum EMP occurs south of the detonation and the minimum occurs to the north.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm[quote]The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device
detonated at 400–500 km over Kansas would affect all of CONUS. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point.[/quote]

The “acid test

[SirDuncan]

The EMP blast is probably the best way to maximize damage (if we are talking about using nukes and not bio weapons). The EMP from high atmosphere would have a larger affected area. The initial casualties would be low, but it would be worse in the long term. Nearly all electronics would be fried, including the computers in our trucks and trains. Food transport would virtually stop. That's where the real casualties come from. It's a good thing I live on a farm.

Your bomb is a little weak if you are talking about the weapons made by the US or USSR (although I don't think any of the former Soviet states still have the really big ones). The Soviets had the Tsar bomb which was designed to be a 100 megaton weapon. It was test fired with a 50 megaton load to decrease fallout. It was the largest weapon ever detonated. The US has/had (not sure which) a ~25 megaton weapon, the Mk-17/24. The US and the Soviets have/had over a dozen designs each with payloads in the multiple megatons.

Yes, more than a few of these (maybe all, I didn't have time to look up all of them) are hydrogen bombs (fusion, not fission), thus they are probably too complicated/expensive for a small nation or terrorist group to easily make. However, there is also the very real possibility of purchasing a Soviet weapon on the black-market.

I wonder what the real-estate market in New Zealand is like . . .

[Flash]

What is excluded from all this are:

• 1) defensive measures
  
  2) counter attacks

Let alone the speed with which the counter attacks would be implemented.

1) What defensive measures? I cannot imagine any way to prevent an atomic bomb being floated into a port, short of closing all ports for good.

2) Counterattack whom? If we've learned anything from recent events, it's that bombers (Timothy McVeigh included) want to remain anonymous. If New York Harbor is flattened by a bolt from the blue, it's unlikely we'll ever find out who did it. In that case, swift retaliation would be worse than doing nothing, if we don't get it right.

[Bruce B]

Flash,

Send me a 1024x768 picture of a great Arizona sunset. Pretty please.

I don't want to discuss the defensive measures, way too much violence, way too much.

Sincerely,


Bruce

[KF6SNJ]

If I didn't live so close to Seattle, I probably wouldn't care much if it got nuked. However, given the fact that I am a scant 45 minutes south of Seattle when traffic on I-5 is good, a nuke hitting Seattle would likely prove fatal, even with my home being metal. Let's face it, a nuke hits Seattle and I am dead, radioactive meat. I guess my odds of meeting YHWH before I'm 50 just went up exponentially (as if they weren't pretty high already).

Now then, if I were to nuke someplace, I have only one target in mind and only if there is another 9/11 style terrorist attack, regardless of where in the world it happens.....

[robin850]

Although i appreciate the mental exercise of the original post, i prefer to think we can somehow avoid any sort of nuclear exchange.

I believe the keys to this are education and media exposure. The big news conglomerates need to do more to expose the world to ALL the issues. The news we in the USA are exposed to is such a thin stream of what is really going on in the world. I try to read non-US sources of news as much as possible, as they have ALL the news, not just what the media seems to think is "okay" for USA viewers.

Cheers,

robin850