Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Government Power Security The Military United States News Science Technology

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Surprise Nuclear Strike? Here's How We'll Figure Out Who Did It

Comments Filter:
  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Friday March 11, 2016 @06:46PM (#51681519)
    >> Many experts believe that a nuclear attack on U.S. soil is more likely than ever

    No, that's just the vendor speaking. Time to Google something called the "Cold War" I think...
    • by The Real Dr John ( 716876 ) on Friday March 11, 2016 @07:32PM (#51681765) Homepage

      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)

      by I4ko ( 695382 )
      And the real story is... Where is the biannual training on reaching and living to your closes 3 fallout shelters? I happen to grew up in a country where this was a regular drill in school years - know your way to the shelter, know how to don a gasmask properly sealing around your face and how to attach your filter properly, try running with that gas mask on, so you are not that much confused, know how to do a primitive decontamination with iodine, water, and I don't remember what else. Get to know what is w
    • by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Friday March 11, 2016 @07:52PM (#51681863)

      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.

      • The modern environment includes dirty weapons delivered in a suitcase, by groups that know a nuclear response is impossible.

        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)

          by Time_Ngler ( 564671 )
          So the solution to a terrorist blowing up a bunch of innocents is to blow up more innocents? Why don't we respond that way to the terrorist attacks today, then? Should we have blown up the tower of Dubai in response to 9/11?
          • > 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...

        • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Friday March 11, 2016 @11:08PM (#51682831) Homepage

          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.

        • ISIS? You mean that bunch of lunatics inspired and funded by Saudi Arabians (with or against the wishes of their government isn't clear)?
      • 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

        • 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

          • 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

            • 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.

              • > flip a bitch...bitches flipping

                That's right, the Olympics are this year, aren't they?

                • > flip a bitch...bitches flipping

                  That's right, the Olympics are this year, aren't they?

                  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.

                  • 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!

            • by Cederic ( 9623 )

              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?

          • 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.

            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.

        • " 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.

        • by swb ( 14022 ) on Friday March 11, 2016 @11:08PM (#51682829)

          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.

      • by Xyrus ( 755017 )

        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

        • The US has more than enough warheads (and I'm sure we could spin production back up if we needed to) to turn any Middle Eastern country and country(s) that support them into irradiated wastelands. You don't cross the nuclear line.

          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

        • 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

      • I made the count of large countries in the Cold War to be three, not two, with the fourth large country leading the "non-aligned movement".
    • 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.

      • ...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.

    • 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?

  • Uh. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tnk1 ( 899206 ) on Friday March 11, 2016 @06:47PM (#51681529)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The Sou-dies flew the planes into the WTC. Right? They got away scott free!!!

    • by Catmeat ( 20653 )
      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.
      • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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

      • For example, if a nuke went off somewhere, I would expect ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh/Satan-encarnate to make such a claim, as probably would al-Qaeda, since it makes them seem bigger and more powerful, which they want.

        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.

    • by PCM2 ( 4486 )

      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.

    • [...] 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!

    • Yes, everybody knew after 9/11 (or maybe even before) who the perpetrators were. The question was where. During the Cold War, it was easy enough to locate the targets of retaliation. Just stick a pin in your red-colored globe. Now, what would we do? Bomb every country in the Middle East except Israel and Turkey? Bomb maybe even India because they have a large Muslim population there? North Korea is probably an exception to the confusion. At least we know where to send the postcard.
    • 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.

    • by BeauHD ( 4450103 ) Works for Slashdot
      Too interesting to save it for Monday. We posted it today.
    • 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.

  • this seems ripe for abuse given our shadow government's propensity for false flag operations and manufacturing smoking guns (ie, OMG, WMDs!) to implicate our enemy of the moment.

    I'm just sayin'
  • They will bring back the wildly successful and hearlded "duck and cover" campaign.
  • New and improved! (Score:5, Informative)

    by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Friday March 11, 2016 @07:15PM (#51681661) Homepage

    Now the US government can retaliate against the wrong country with more precision than ever before!!!

  • Announcing how you will detect something is a good way of educating your enemy as to the best ways to avoid detection.
    • by khallow ( 566160 )
      It will no doubt be a zero cost operation to do all that crap. The simpler solution is to not be there when the US figures out where you were.
  • 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)

    by sugarmatic ( 232216 ) on Friday March 11, 2016 @07:22PM (#51681705)

    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.

  • by Cornwallis ( 1188489 ) on Friday March 11, 2016 @07:26PM (#51681731)

    It is important because it has the word "Oculus" in it.

  • ...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.

    • But there are far too many people who would regard such a nuke as a wonderful achievement; Iran, North Korea, IS and Al Qaeda being the obvious candidates, whilst elements within China, Russia and the revolutionary left in Latin America aren't inconceivable. Remember that on 10th September 2001 noone conceived of 9/11 as a possibility. Put the bomb in a large container ship coming somewhere where the bomb definitely didn't start - Lagos springs to mind - and it would offer no routing information. I'd bet it
    • 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

      • Sorry -- small correction: of course, I meant weapons-grade uranium storage in facilities when talking about the nuns. And at least two of the people in the group were in their 80s, not just their 70s....
      • 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)

        • Nice job nitpicking without actually addressing my major points. My point about the nuns wasn't that they could have easily gotten away with something themselves, but a well-armed and trained team could get disturbingly close to weapons grade uranium without anyone really paying much attention... but that's all beside the point. You offered nothing to critique my primary point about GP, which is that we don't have adequate security to prevent entrance of a dirty bomb or even a small better nuclear device.
          • 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

            • Resources of a government or large corporation to build or buy.

              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?

              • I mentioned that scenario with example as one I *would* believe possible

                • You mentioned Pakistan, which hasn't happened yet.

                  The one I'm talking about already has happened. Hint: it's quite a bit bigger.

            • 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

    • ...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

      • Indeed. I think GP was just a troll here. I can't figure out how all of this wacko uninformed nonsense otherwise comes together in a single post. Just goes to show that low ID number still gets treated differently, though.
    • 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.

    • 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

      • by jd ( 1658 )

        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

    • by Cederic ( 9623 )

      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.

  • 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.

  • Iran did it. Duh.

  • 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

    • Yep. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. there are at least a couple of really messed up countries with nukes. I'm assuming you live in the US. Keep in mind that many countries are an order of magnitude or more screwed up than most western countries. Things that would never enter our minds as being possible are the norm in many other countries. If you ever have the chance, travel in the non-tourist areas of some third world countries and get to know some of the locals. You'll find that many of the
      • 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

        • 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

  • We leave huge dirty bombs next to our cities ready to be used. http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/... [fortune.com]
  • All terrorists would be hunted down and killed. Any nation that make the slightest attempt to protected them would be severely punished. This action would go on for decades. And you can forget about privacy.
  • Nuclear strike in america. First thought ... strike back!
    Sounds like a good idea, let's start global thermonuclear war!

  • 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.

"All the people are so happy now, their heads are caving in. I'm glad they are a snowman with protective rubber skin" -- They Might Be Giants

Working...