Surprise Nuclear Strike? Here's How We'll Figure Out Who Did It (sciencemag.org) 174
sciencehabit writes: Many experts believe that a nuclear attack on U.S. soil is more likely than ever; a bomb set off in a city street is seen as the most likely scenario. The conceivable need to unmask a perpetrator, and mount an effective response, is propelling the emerging area of post-detonation forensics. Scientists are devising new sensors, manufacturing artificial fallout to hone analytical techniques, and studying how the glass formed in the furnace of an atomic blast would vary depending on the nature of the bomb and the city where it detonated. Discreet Oculus, a sensor array that would collect data during a nuclear attack on a U.S. city, was tested in the first exercise of its kind last summer.
We've always been at war with... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's just the vendor speaking. Time to Google something called the "Cold War" I think...
Re:We've always been at war with... (Score:5, Insightful)
And now the "vendors" want to upgrade the arsenal to the tune of at least a trillion tax dollars. Not to "make us safer", but to make them richer. Your tax dollars, not at work.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We've always been at war with...ourselves (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how hypochlorite stops your thyroid from absorbing radioactive isotopes, except that if you drink enough of it you'll be dead before you need to worry about it.
Re:We've always been at war with... (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to Google something called the "Cold War" I think...
As someone who was alive when the cold war was going on, I can tell you that the Cold War did not include small independent states, it was a stand-off between the major nuclear powers and the use of missile and bomber delivered weapons. It involved two large countries who knew they had everything to lose by starting a nuclear war. A nuclear attack would garner a nuclear response.
The modern environment includes dirty weapons delivered in a suitcase, by groups that know a nuclear response is impossible. They have little to lose in such an attack, and much to gain. So yes, the chances of a nuclear attack on US soil are greater now.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would a nuke response be impossible?
If we traced it back to ISIS in Syria, I can pretty much guarantee most of Syria will be a big sheet of glass in a short time period.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> So the solution to a terrorist blowing up a bunch of innocents is to blow up more innocents?
this has been america's go-to strategy for 15 years...
Re: (Score:2)
Hiroshima had the Army headquarters directing the defense of Kyushu, the southernmost of the Japanese Home Islands. Nagasaki was a secondary target, and had a lot of war industry and was a major port. The cities were not chosen for the potential to nuke the most civilians, although obviously the nukes were large and indiscriminate weapons and were going to kill a lot of civilians.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan was not trying to surrender at the time. Many of the people running Japan wanted to, but it wasn't going to happen without War Minister Anami's say-so, and that didn't come until after the Imperial intervention after the Nagasaki bomb (actually, it never really came, more like he let it happen while committing suicide). Because of the need for consensus in the Liaison Council, one person could paralyze Japanese actions.
Do you have any evidence that says the US targeted cities for maximum civilian
Re:We've always been at war with... (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a catch in all that talk. Fire off enough nukes, no matter where on the planet and the radioactive dust will come back to haunt and mutate your DNA. Russia could nuke itself out of existence and still kill the rest of us over the following decades. First strike, second strike, neither alters the outcome. They stopped above ground nuclear testing for a reason, that they still pretend does not exist, they had managed to raise the background radiation of the entire planet with a corresponding increase in cancers, with just those tests and a couple of mass murdering strikes. So nuclear wars just a big old lie to generate more profits for the military industrial complex. Now the rich and greedy might be safe in the nuclear bunkers but who the fuck wants to live in a self made prison. So if the US nukes Syria and Russia is poisoned by nuclear fall out, is Russia not entitled to counter strike the US. Easiest completely unstoppable WMD guaranteed to take out humanity on the entire planet. Simply tip nuclear material into the nearest active volcano, for it to spew out into the atmosphere from there on in and poison the entire planet, once done, can not be undone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
not seeing the logistics of a bad guys making your scary "dirty bomb". They are going to get something nasty like say spent nuclear fuel or cesium-137 or strontium-90 ( very traceable as to origin, by the way), then somehow powder that stuff without dying from five or more times lethal dose exposure, then put it in suitcase sufficiently shielded so they don't die transporting it somewhere yet somehow still having enough room for bomb....and then even after detonation it's a very local problem for a very sm
Re: (Score:1)
not seeing the logistics of a bad guys making your scary "dirty bomb".
Explosives, radioactive material. Boom.
They are going to get something nasty like say spent nuclear fuel or cesium-137 or strontium-90 ( very traceable as to origin, by the way),
So someone can trace the origin after it is all over but the shouting. That somehow prevents it?
then somehow powder that stuff
Boom. Powder. Or particles. Doesn't have to be very fine. It just has to be radioactive enough to scare the wits out of the public.
without dying from five or more times lethal dose exposure,
Thank goodness that everyone who handles radioactive stuff dyes [SIC] when they do it. It's dangerous, but it seems that people can do it. We've got a nuclear reactor on the other side of campus. We're all dying right now.
...and then even after detonation it's a very local problem for a very small area.
And being a "local pr
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Habeeb the Disgruntled Raghead gets the material, starts to grind, and flops over from thousands of rem/hour exposure or more at about 20 minutes into the job and then soon dies. No harem of virgins for you Habeeb, just one refurbished virgin, kind of like a retreaded truck tire those refurbished virgins!
Are you seriously suggesting explosion using the solid chunk of radioactive heavy material with explosive next to it? sorry, you'll get mostly a deformed piece of metal, not powder. some really
Re: (Score:2)
i think you're making this too complicated. Consider the hyperbolic press. you could take some low level radioactive material, like leftovers from an xray machine, tape them to a bomb, drop it off in the middle of manhatten, and boom. people would flip a bitch. then, consider the EPA, and the task of doing a cleanup of any nuclear stuff in downtown manhattan. bitches flipping everywhere. doesn't take a big complicated setup.
Re: (Score:2)
> flip a bitch...bitches flipping
That's right, the Olympics are this year, aren't they?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know - or care - and until you mentioned it I'd never given it a moment's thought. And now that you have mentioned it, I'll try to not give it another moment's thought.
Re: (Score:2)
you should care, cuz this year the olimpics are in Brazil, and the worlds best athletes will be traveling to Rio De Janeiro, contracting Zika virus, and spreading it back to their home countries. That's how this kind of shizz gets started!
Re: (Score:2)
the point is independent of that little detail. how about another "radioactive boy" that grinds up the americium in smoke detectors and uses them with powder from a bucket of fireworks? The point is about the FEAR and headless chicken syndrome by our empty suits in government that would ensue that a single disgruntled moron could do. Before their kaboom they could tweet support for ISIL or Ql Qaeda and then become TERRORIST AFFILIATED WITH ISIL OMG! OMG! OMG!
Re: (Score:2)
Habeeb the Disgruntled Raghead
..uses his first rate university education to safely procure, manipulate and build an explosive device using highly radioactive isotopes and nukes your pathetic racist ignorance.
Really, are you this big a cunt off the internet too?
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I'd use Thermite to make the dirty material into liquid and oxide dusts, then detonate conventional explosives to spread it around. Exact timing doesn't matter much. But that's not the sort of argument the "rubycoderz" is looking for.
Re: (Score:3)
" somehow powder that stuff without dying from five or more times lethal dose exposure,"
The likely suspects don't care about sacrificing large numbers of their own to build something like this.
Re:We've always been at war with... (Score:5, Insightful)
A dirty bomb may lack widespread damage, but think of the terror side of it. It would be major news.
Even if the real toxic range was only a Manhattan city street, you just know that they would end up cordoning off 20+ square blocks, evacuating everyone and make it an exclusion zone for weeks. The economic clusterfuckery would be enormous. There would be lawsuits forever. Entire blocks would get razed due to fears of long term contamination.
Re: (Score:2)
The modern environment includes dirty weapons delivered in a suitcase, by groups that know a nuclear response is impossible.
You are seriously naive if you think a nuclear responses are impossible. A real nuclear attack on American soil would represent a clear a present danger to millions. The response would be to turn entire regions in the Middle East into glass parking lots. The panicked masses would be begging for it.
Two jets flown into buildings illicited two major military campaigns that are still ongoing to this day. A nuclear attack would be more than enough justification (at least for our people) to launch a nuclear respo
Re: (Score:2)
You know, if I were an intelligence operative for the Iranian government, I'd be working out how to get the materials for a dirty bomb into the USA and into the hands of some deranged home-grown attack vector who thinks he's a Jihadi working for ISIS, and leaving enough evidence to
Re: (Score:2)
So, what happens if a dirty bomb is created by someone from the US itself. There's lots of people from the US that are more than willing to go on a shooting rampage.
Or what happens if a group from the US goes after a target in the Middle East because the government isn't acting tough enough for them. Since you feel that the US would have the right to retaliate then any country attacked by this rebel group could retaliate against the US, or ask another country to do so on it's behalf, and you wouldn't have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will depend on who is President next year. If Donald Trump is President, he will blame Muslims, and nuke an Islamic State . . . like Michigan.
If Hilary Clinton is President, she will blame the Republicans who are complaining about her private mail server. This cannot be responded to with nukes, so she will use US Navy SEAL Team Six to do bin Laden jobs on selected Republican leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
...she will use US Navy SEAL Team Six to do bin Laden jobs on selected Republican leaders.
It's not fair for you to get my hopes up like that. Be still by beating heart.
Re: (Score:2)
You really fucking believe Michigan is an Islamic state?
What I believe is not important. It's what Donald Trump believes, that's important.
You are a complete fucking idiot. You are so deep in your own fucking delusions that somebody puts out a poor attempt at satire concerning Dearborn and *poof* we've got them mooslims all over the place and state-wide Sharia law!
That being said, since you are a complete fucking moron, let me try to keep this simple.
That's really sad for you, that you project all those traits on me. But I forgive you nonetheless.
I'm really hoping my sarcasm detector is just low on tea.
No, you need to visit your doctor for advice on an organ transplant. You have no sarcasm detector. While you're on the operating table, get a sense of humor detector installed, as well.
I mean, seriously, what the fuck? How can I take any of this shit seriously? Have conservatives gone this far off the fucking deep end?
Who says that I am a conservative?
Why don't you head over to Dearborn some time?
You, Sir, have given me every reason to avoid the place. Some very unpleasant people seem to live there.
Re: (Score:2)
Setting of a nuke is either a preemptive strike, or it is a statement.
If it is a preemptive strike more are on the way and it is very easy to figure out who is behind it.
If a bunch of yahoos set one off to make a statement, they will take credit for it or what's the point?
Re: (Score:3)
Right... because terrorists who are happy to fly planes into buildings and kill thousands wouldn't consider setting off a small nuke in a major US city and killing hundreds of thousands.
Re: (Score:2)
How many nukes in US cities do you think terrorist would have to set off before the USA would quietly start pulling back? 1? 2? 5? Where would the USA counterattack?
Are you starting to get it?
Re: (Score:3)
do you have any reason to think the statement is even "mostly" true? to my understanding they kept turning back the doomsday clock, and in a bid to stay relevant they made it the nuclear/climate change doomsday clock.
Re: (Score:2)
a nuke that's much smaller than anything from 40 years ago.
I completely disagree. No one's made nuclear bombs the size of a cigarette box yet.
Back in the 50s and 60s, they had one-man-portable nuclear devices, like this one [wikipedia.org] and this one [wikipedia.org].
Uh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing that anyone who surprises us with a nuclear detonation, or more probably a radiological attack like a dirty bomb, is going to *tell us that they did it*, because you don't just set off nuclear bombs or dirty bombs and run away and go "tee hee".
It's not like someone had to figure out who flew the planes into the WTC towers, right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Sou-dies flew the planes into the WTC. Right? They got away scott free!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. For example, given that ISIS and al-Qaeda hate each other almost as much as they hate the West. It would suit either if the other got the blame, and was promptly wiped off the map.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that anyone who surprises us with a nuclear detonation, or more probably a radiological attack like a dirty bomb, is going to *tell us that they did it*, because you don't just set off nuclear bombs or dirty bombs and run away and go "tee hee". Not necessarily. For example, given that ISIS and al-Qaeda hate each other almost as much as they hate the West. It would suit either if the other got the blame, and was promptly wiped off the map.
Or possibly Israel did it and blamed the other two.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, let's blame the Jews, it's worked for thousands of years, why not now?
Re: (Score:2)
erm, no. He said Israel.
There's a difference you racist fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right, *I'm* the racist.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing that anyone who surprises us with a nuclear detonation, or more probably a radiological attack like a dirty bomb, is going to *tell us that they did it*, because you don't just set off nuclear bombs or dirty bombs and run away and go "tee hee".
It's not like someone had to figure out who flew the planes into the WTC towers, right?
The public is prone to believing all sorts of implausible things, like for instance that the WTC towers were destroyed by the president, who is a space lizard...
So the government did have to come up with evidence, even though it was obvious from the start that the perpetrators were Saudi Arabian Islamic radicals.
Re: (Score:3)
Another problem is multiple groups claiming responsibility so they can be feared. Unless one of them is actually credible (if any of them can be), then it is a problem of figuring out which, if any, did it. It could still be a group whose goal is to cause harm to the US to create a result they desire, such as by throwing blame on another group/nation and having the US shift focus, or financially cripple the US by taking out a city like New York so they can become more competitive, but a group who would pr
Re: (Score:2)
Just to complicate matters, since they're both complex and decentralised organisations, it would be quite possible for them both to claim the attack and genuinely believe (or hope) that it's true.
That's before we get onto the false-flag operations.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing that anyone who surprises us with a nuclear detonation, or more probably a radiological attack like a dirty bomb, is going to *tell us that they did it*, because you don't just set off nuclear bombs or dirty bombs and run away and go "tee hee".
Indeed. If you're smart, you detonate a bomb, then wait a few days and put a video out on the internet praising [Name of Middle East Country You Would Like to See Destabilized] for the successful attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, in Tel Aviv: "Oy vey, the goyim have seen through our plan already!"
Re: (Score:2)
[...] you don't just set off nuclear bombs or dirty bombs and run away and go "tee hee".
Why not? Why invite reprisals?
When you dropped cherry bombs down the toilets in high school, did you let the principal know you did it? Hell no!
The problem is not who but where (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like someone had to figure out who flew the planes into the WTC towers, right?
Umm, yes, we did have to figure it out. Al Queda and Bin Laden not only didn't claim responsibility, they denied it for three years. The FBI was able to conclude within a few weeks after the incident who it was, though, by identifying the hijackers and then discovering links to Al Qaeda.
So if you use 9/11 as a guide, there's no reason to believe that the group responsible would claim it. And it would be a lot easier for people to plant a bomb and detonate it without leaving a paper trail.
Too serious a story for a Friday afternoon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they had to keep the state of fear going. Not like it's likely. But it's hard to get funding and push through draconian laws when the sheeple are feeling safe.
avenge my death! (Score:2)
I'm just sayin'
Re: (Score:1)
Zyprexa [wikipedia.org] can help.
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely (Score:2)
Re:Most likely (Score:4, Funny)
Well, it was successful. Nobody died from nuclear attack during that time.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not a bear in site. The bear patrol must be working like a charm."
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, I was convinced. I asked the teacher how much they wanted for one of the desks.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a rock that keeps away tigers.
New and improved! (Score:5, Informative)
Now the US government can retaliate against the wrong country with more precision than ever before!!!
Except now the bad guys will know what not to do. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Guess what we'll find out! (Score:2)
Should for some reason such a bomb go a-boom somewhere, I am pretty sure the lengthy and costly analysis will return that it was the nuisance country du jour that was a pest and annoying like all hell, but stubbornly refused to give us a good enough reason to bomb them.
Until that kaboom, of course.
Meanwhile.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Autonomous vehicles turned into car bombs...Guy with a home wet lab and a lot of savvy creates a serious disease and releases it, someone poisons an an entire metro areas water system....
These things are several orders of magnitude easier, more damaging, and likely than a nuke. I'm not worried about those things, so how am I going to find the time and motivation to be worried about rogue nukes? Anything can happen, but I can also stub my toe.
Re: (Score:1)
someone poisons an an entire metro areas water system
Flint, Michigan was just the proof of concept.
Comment removed (Score:3)
The probability of a surprise nuclear attack is... (Score:5, Interesting)
...zero. There is absolutely no possibility of such an attack, on US soil or anywhere else.
A dirty bomb? Those have bugger all effectiveness, except against the emotions of the weak. The amount of radioactive material required to build a dirty bomb that actually did something would exceed the amount needed to build a real bomb. It would be utterly stupid.
By far the most effective weapon is the human imagination. Tell enough people that a dirty bomb, or a biological weapon, has been released, in some location where there is strong mistrust of any kind of official source, and you wouldn't even need a bomb or to go there. The viral nature of the message, the paranoia of the citizens and the psychology of mass hysteria will guarantee that symptoms will be felt. If those people believe firmly enough that they will die, then - as is well known from studies in shamanism - those people will will themselves to die. There needn't be a single thing wrong with any of them, aside from their own credulity.
The US is reasonably well guarded. Certainly, it's enough to stop any serious physical weapon from getting through. A psychological bomb, where the "explosive" is the insanity demonstrated on a daily basis, that you can't stop, you can't trace and you can't respond. There is only one way to stop a psychological bomb and that's to have a rational, sane, well-educated nation. And nobody wants one of those.
I hope you're right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A dirty bomb? Those have bugger all effectiveness, except against the emotions of the weak. The amount of radioactive material required to build a dirty bomb that actually did something would exceed the amount needed to build a real bomb. It would be utterly stupid.
It depends on what your goals are. The goal of a dirty bomb denotation is not likely large-scale destruction -- it would be terror. Detonate even a small one in Times Square and watch how much disruption it will cause. Actual number of casualties are almost irrelevant. Look at how much the deaths of 3000 people on 9/11 did -- it's not the body count that terrorists are often after, but the repercussions that follow the feeling of insecurity.
The US is reasonably well guarded. Certainly, it's enough to stop any serious physical weapon from getting through.
I cannot fathom how a post with this in it got modded "+5 Insig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it got modded insightful because it is. your old fart wandering into storage facility couldn't leave with anything, even if armed with a handgun.
kiloton weapon in back pack.....nope, you're not going to beat the U.S. government's best efforts of a 51 lbs. device that only had 0.015 kiloton yield (about five times the explosion at Oklahoma City bombing...whoop de fucking doo someone get the mop)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
15 ton yield bomb isn't going to be made by amateurs, that's HARD feat. Initiator system, properly machined shaped charges, ditto for neutron reflector, synced detonation electronics. Resources of a government or large corporation to build or buy. Stealing one might be possible if a government destabilized, say in Pakistan. That's the one scenario I'll grant.
The nuns spray painted an extremely well fortified building that can't be shot open, or blasted open, by anything a team of no-goodniks could carr
Well done Ronnie Reagan (Score:2)
The resources of a government that subsequently collapses, can't pay its scientists and soldiers, has its country break up into uncountable fiefdoms which are pretty good scores in Scrabble, and by the time it even realises there's a problem has no idea where half of its boomy-bangy shit is?
Lucky that'll never happen, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
I mentioned that scenario with example as one I *would* believe possible
Re: (Score:2)
You mentioned Pakistan, which hasn't happened yet.
The one I'm talking about already has happened. Hint: it's quite a bit bigger.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you go back and re-read my original post in this thread. You seem to want to argue about things I didn't even talk about instead of what I actually said.
The original post in this thread (which I replied to) made two main arguments: (1) a dirty bomb would be stupid and a detonation of one would have no major effect, (2) the US is sufficiently secure against entrance of a nuclear device.
Neither of these is true. You do not dispute these. So it seems we are in agreement about my actual points
Re: (Score:2)
...zero. There is absolutely no possibility of such an attack, on US soil or anywhere else.
There's this little thing called "statistics" you're completely ignoring. The probability is extremely low, but calling it "zero" is simply wrong. When I buy a lottery ticket, do you also call the chances of me winning "zero"? My house burning down is also probably pretty low-probability, but any sane person has insurance just the same. When you simply dismiss any chance outright, you destroy your own credibility. And if you're wrong, it's not like you will be held responsible. It's pretty easy to be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One in a billion? Sure, sounds low odds.
There are 7 billion people on the planet. That one in a billion is rather more likely all of a sudden.
Low individual probabilities start to add up at a population scale. But do keep talking total shit if it helps your ego.
Differing goals, differing results (Score:2)
A nuclear attack isn't about destroying a city; it wouldn't take very much to, say, make it so a financial district or a couple of buildings would be unlivable for a few years. It would also wreak havoc on the local, and possibly global, economy.
Would it be hard? It depends. There are plenty of soft targets. I mean, just look what an e-coli outbreak can do.
Re: (Score:2)
recent news points out the truth that for terrorists there is far more bang for the buck and effort to be had with chemical weapons. No need for exotic materials or equipment, could get everything at local hardware stores including the reagents.... and hundreds at least (or thousands if enclosed stadium or convention center targeted) can be maimed or killed if for example truck used as delivery container. More fear and emotional impact than plain ol' ordinary bomb too. Seems ISIL agrees with their R
Re: (Score:2)
Chemical and biological agents are plausible, certainly, I could see such an attack being planned.
However, I stand by my claim that psychological attacks are cheaper, easier and almost impossible to cure. False news, conspiracy theories, destabilizing whispers, SWATting - there's nothing you can do to stop them from any of this and you know yourself that such rumours can last 50 years plus. No risks, no possibility of being identified, just the same old PsyOps the US has authorized against them turned back
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of radioactive material required to build a dirty bomb that actually did something would exceed the amount needed to build a real bomb
Acquiring a lot of radioactive material is easy.
Acquiring enough to initiate an uncontrolled fission reaction is hard. Initiating it on demand is properly difficult.
I could build a dirty bomb. Shit, I could self-fund one. I couldn't get remotely fucking close to a fission bomb, let alone a fusion one.
FUD (Score:2)
North Korea yapping about it's nuclear capabilities.
Iran is let off it's leash pending good behavior.
Putin's Russia making lots of noise.
So-called 'islamic state' assholes doing every violent thing they can think of -- why not a nuclear attack of some sort?
Then here comes these jackasses, spreading more fear, uncertainty, and doubt, by talking about the 'inevitability' of a nuclear attack on U.S. soil, and their alleged ability to detect who did it (as if that would fucking matter all that much at that point). If they were in front of me right now, I'd fucking punch them in the mouth.
That's easy! (Score:2)
Iran did it. Duh.
traceable (Score:2)
nuclear fuel is traceable to origin, even after used in fission bomb. we'd even know what location inside of which reactor the stuff came from. (fun fact, 70% or more of the nuclear fuel of a fission bomb just gets sprayed over an area without fissioning)
there would be hell to pay for the perp country
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
even the crazies like N. Korean leadship or more radical Pakistan leadership would want the thousands of bombs of the USA raining down on them like hail.
by the way, regularly go to place that is in the high 170s on the CIA list of 230 countries by GDP per capita. to them their own government is something that takes away, something to be avoided, and that needs a bribe to get things to go one's way. but they'd not welcome a war with wealthy well armed country, they've a belly full of the consequences of t
Re: (Score:2)
hmm, my wouldn't became would in first sentence
but I think most poor countries value life from what I've seen, and don't value war or death. that's a particular kind of crazy two major world religions push
Why be coy? (Score:2)
The US and Europe would go crazy. (Score:2)
Nuclear strike in america. First thought ... (Score:2)
Nuclear strike in america. First thought ... strike back!
Sounds like a good idea, let's start global thermonuclear war!
Won't happen that way. (Score:2)
When it happens it will be a device below a safe house that had been placed there for years and nobody will be able to figure out who it was.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
In your mom we thrust.
What? C'mon, he was begging for it! Screw it, I got karma to burn.
Re: (Score:3)
Just the way you support your scum bag government which bombs civilians at will round the world and destabilises legitimate governments. Which makes *you* a legitimate target.