Text 12158, 114 rader
Skriven 2007-02-13 06:07:49 av Vorlonagent (15599.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Military tactics in sci-fi?
=======================================

"Michael Harper" <michaelharper05@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:kO-dnRYk3c946U3YnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@comcast.com...

>> Common, yes, but how easy to get ahold of?  Even then, the problem with
> any
>> nuke is that fissionables have to be taken out every 5 years or so and 
>> get
>> re-enriched or they may fizzle.  The Russian Federation hasn't been able
> to
>> afford to do that for most of its warheads.  The easiest thing to get
> ahold
>> of is the most likely to be a dud.  But it'd still be a dirty bomb, which
>> might be fun too.
>
> It's a roll of the dice. Which is also part of the fun. Even if it's a 
> dud,
> a small bomb will wreck New York. Lots of rads. The whole city would have 
> to
> be evacuated.

All in what you have a taste for.


>> Also as important, would the Chevy van's suspension handle the weight?
> Just
>> because you can fit it in doesn't mean you can haul it.
>
> I have an acquaintance who goes racing on weekends. When he bought his
> Continental Ford racer, which isn't as big as a Champ Car but still weighs 
> a
> bit, he also got an old Chevy Beauville panel van with a severe case of 
> road
> rot, which he kept for reasons that defy description; the body was 
> plastered
> with stickers from racetracks that don't exist anymore, but it was also
> rusted out all the way around the body, and it didn't have quite enough
> power to pull the trailer and lug all the spare parts and tool he needed. 
> I
> think there was a 327 under the hood.
>
> Anyway, Pete went out and bought a Ford van with the biggest, torqueiest 
> 428
> they make just for this one thing. He says he can pull his house off the
> foundation, but I think he's exaggerating; Barbara sure as hell won't let
> him test it.
>
> So, to answer the question, yes, I think an SS-N-15 weighs quite a bit 
> less
> than a race car and vanload of tools.

You might be surprised.  Dig up some figures before you assume.  Then 
there's the possibility of the suspension giving way.


>> If you're willing to settle for a crater in New York instead of
>> spectacularly wiping the city off the map (That's pretty much a given 
>> with
>> just one nuke.  We're just haggling over the size of the crater anyway),
> you
>> might be able to use a soviet suitcase nuke.  With fancy stuff like
> neutron
>> reflectors and the like, you can get a sub-critical mass to go off.
>
> My terrorists aren't too smart. They're like the guys who blew up San 
> Diego;
> they have just enough brains to get hold of the thing and blow it up, and
> not enough to tweak it for maximum whoopass.

I'm merely suggesting a change in what they get ahold of.  A suitcase nuke 
would probably be easier to rig to detonate than a missile warhead.


>> IIRC, the suitcase nukes used uranium, which Iran is convienetly enough 
>> in
>> the process or enriching.  Your terrorist could aquire an empty casing
> from
>> one source and stock it with fissionables courtesy of Iran.  The Iranians
>> would have to put a huge effort into enriching uranium sufficiently for
> use
>> in a suitcase nuke, insuring there would only be one.
>
> I was planning on just one for a start, nasty enough to get us into a real
> war, not this idiocy we're in now. The way I'm looking at things now, I 
> may
> just go back and redo things so that it's present day, 9/11 is in the 
> past,
> but we still have a jihadist wacko who starts WW3. I have to do something 
> to
> blow shit up; the United Earth government and the launch of the UESS John
> Chapman have to be born of some hellish tragedy that nearly wipes out
> mankind. We're not gonna get our ducks in a row unless most of them get
> blown away first.

I have a different political view than you (and most on this board).  The 
way I see it, we're trying to do exactly that BEFORE too many ducks get shot 
off.  Usually they're dropping like flies by the time we notice.  How 
efficiently we're managing the effort is another question.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent

"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."

"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)