There have been several articles in the Daily Mail about potential targets in the United States with regard to nuclear weapons.
All have them have been based on very large scale attacks by a near-peer Nation-state. None of them analyzed the targeting based on a onesie-twosie, terrorists' scale.
Key differences:
An attack by a near-peer Nation-state will not be anonymous. An attack by terrorists will be cloaked in anonymity and ambiguity and deniability.
A Nation-state has high-tech means to deliver the weapons. There are very few geographic limitations to their targeting. Terrorists will most likely hide the device in a shipment of legitimate goods and ship it via commercial channels. The longer the device is in-country the more risk of detection, so there is a very strong possibility the port-of-entry will be the target rather than missile silos in B.F. Montana.
The number of nuclear weapons available to a peer Nation-state could measure in the hundreds or thousands. The number of nuclear weapons available to terrorists is likely to be one-or-two and almost certainly less than ten.
An example of how that might play out
Suppose a terrorist group with strong interests in the Pacific Ocean (Norks) or in the Indian Ocean but with strong support from rogue actors in the Pacific Ocean (Iranian proxies) wished to strike at the United States.
If they only had one device, which port would they strike:
From North-to-South
- Tacoma (Seatle/Bremerton)
- Portland
- Oakland (San Francisco)
- LA/Longbeach
- San Diego
Tacoma: While Bremerton and San Diego have military targets, the payload will be in the commercial shipping area and the targets are much "harder" than civilian targets.
Portland: Portland is small.
Oakland: Oakland is a high-volume port but the super-juicy targets, San Francisco/Silicon Valley are up-wind and fairly immune to the fallout plume and in the case of Silicon Valley, shielded by geography from direct radiation and blast.
San Diego: San Diego has almost no commercial shipping. It is a Navy Port. Even if they could slip one in, military bases are better set-up to deal with NBC challenges than civilian targets.
LA/Long Beach:That leaves LA/Long Beach. It checks the most boxes.
The second target, if they had two devices, would be Tacoma. It wouldn't physically destroy Bremerton but it would make logistical supply and civilian support almost impossible and the base would (likely) be grossly downsized. If Tacoma were the second target, the device would already have to be on-site when the first was detonated because all shipping would be locked-down while the investigation was conducted.
A similar analysis could be performed on the East and Gulf Coasts (and Chicago) but given the current state of the world, you would have to bet there is 10X risk for the West Coast than for the other two.
Disclaimer
I am just a dumb-azz living in flyover country. I have never had a security clearance. I have no information available to me than any other human on the planet with a fast internet connection cannot get. Like every other human being, I am vulnerable to rationalizing my decisions. Under this analysis, the only "real" threat to Eaton Rapids is the fall-out plume from terrorists targeting Chicago. Depending on the wind direction, even that might not be an immediate issue.
Terrorists aren't exactly rational. They rely on networks of trusted minions, so they might deliver the device to the Kalamath River for trans-shipment. So take this post as ENTERTAINMENT, please.
And if you are a terrorist, F-U.
I doubt very much any terrorist group could produce a nuke without backing from a nation-state. And I don't see any nation-state in the world today showing signs of wanting to nuke anyone, fear-mongering from western leaders and msm notwithstanding.
ReplyDeleteMay I respectfully point out that every nation is not a monolith? Looking at the US, there are factions within the government (much less outside the government) that is not on the same page as the administration...in fact, they aren't even in the same library.
DeleteIt's true there are factions in every government, but I suspect operating the nuke-building apparatus without the official administration's blessing just might get noticed. Personally I'm far more concerned about what feminists are doing to the US and the world.
ReplyDeleteERJ, an interesting exercise. I am not clever enough to assume that a terrorist group could not get a nuclear weapons, although my understanding is it would have to be a newer one, as older ones require maintenance and can finicky if not cared for.
ReplyDeleteOne point about the graphic which is somewhat misleading: California "can" have tons of water, depending on where you live. Southern California is less useful in that regard, at least.
Born in the early '40's and due to being raised in Rock Island, and that being home of the Rock Island Arsenal. I grew up under a bomb threat and in school we would have to practice diving under our desk for protection. In 3rd grade I asked the nun how was a desk going to protect me from radiation? Nun answer was isn't your problem. I worry that it's far more likely my kids will affected by an EMP than a nuke.
ReplyDeletePay attention to the wIraninds - that's what will clear out a lot of the radiation after the blast. Along most of the Great Lakes, that would be the Prevailing Westerlies. That moves air from the West Coast, over the Rockies, across the Plains, and then through the MIssissippi/Great Lakes/Appalachian area.
ReplyDeleteIn the South, the wind/precipitation patterns are from the Gulf, and off the Atlantic Ocean.
Iran would have to be completely INSANE to remove the richest part of the agriculture land in the WORLD from use. A direct hit on a western Great Lake would destroy an area that provides about 1/5 the world's fresh water.
So, likely the West Coast.
Now, which part? I agree about LA as a likely target. It's not just the rich military target, but also the reputation as a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.
However, it still seems rather unlikely. Iran's fighters would have to travel a great distance across the Pacific, and I wasn't aware of any special training the pilots had on long distance flying. As far as I know, Iran has no serious Navy.
The reptilian mind doesn't think things through beyond "HURT". "HURT" the other guy. The reptilian mind is not thinking beyond that step and hasn't considered occupying the land they devastate.
DeletePay attention to the WINDS. Bad typo I hadn't seen before posting.
ReplyDeleteIf it would be the West Coast that was attacked, from what I understand, the Rockies/Continental Divide would drop out most of the radioactive fallout.
ReplyDeleteBremerton is the nuclear sub base. Has war heads stored there and the base would have to be moved.
ReplyDeleteNo harm in brain storming and thinking ahead. A lot of people are aware when a nation with strong beliefs is attacked, the risk of sympathetic persons deciding to 'participate in retaliation' can become real.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing we can do to change their minds - the onlly recourse is to watch out for our own in local circumstances and PAY ATTENTION. If something looks out of the ordinary, best to turn around if unable to go around.
National borders are particularly vulnerable. Supplies can be staged just short of the U.S. border. Mexican drug cartels have been known to aid people with deep pockets - they don't worry about the source or consequences.
Smart thing is to get a device to locate and detect fallout.
ReplyDeleteYou can get them for less that seventy bucks.:
https://www.amazon.com/GQ-GMC-300S-Radiation-Detector-Dosimeter/dp/B0B541D433?ref_=ast_sto_dp
Plan ahead or get stepped on, my grandfather always said.
Air burst over LA gets a lot more damage (fallout pattern) than Tacoma or Bremerton.
ReplyDeleteSleeper cells are a big concern to me. ~20 million invaders let in by treasonous Dems ... let your mind wander.
ReplyDeleteNot concerned with Nuke blast, me.
Semi concerned with dirty radiation bomb.
The electric grid is fairly fragile and damnear impossible to secure.
islam declared US as the enemy many years ago. The moslems have been attacking civilization for 1400 years.
IT'S A DEATH CULT, NOT A RELIGION.
Until congress defines it as such, it is protected by the first amendment.
If it were up to me, , I'd repatriate every single moslem back to mecca.
Dropping a few transmission towers at certain places would have a devastating effect, and can be accomplished with conventional or even improvised boom-boom.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone opens up the canned sunshine it will be the see-eye-ayy.
Unless you live in a major city or close to a military base you risk from an exploding warhead is minimal. The risk is fallout. And where fallout goes, how much there is and how widespread it is depends on the vagaries of wind and weather. A simple home is piss poor protection from fallout. You need a true shelter that has the equivalent of 3+ feet of dirt to protect you and a filtered air supply. You must be prepared to spend a MINIMUM of two weeks in this shelter, realistically a month or more. And even then the risks of radioactive contamination will be significant, especially for the young and for pregnant women.
ReplyDelete