Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsMax)   Saddam working on a 'Hiroshima' sized Nuke   (newsmax.com ) divider line 50
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

2699 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2002 at 9:39 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2002-02-23 09:43:26 PM  
Shouldn't this be the obvious tag?
 
2002-02-23 09:45:59 PM  
That "UNLIKELY" tag should go automatically attached to every NewsMax article. Reading that site is similiar to Chick or CAP - don't take it seriously.
 
2002-02-23 09:46:59 PM  
Now all we need is for Sa-god-dam to log in and add the comment: "I have a nuclear device."
 
2002-02-23 09:47:38 PM  
Since this is NewsMax, I'm suprised they didn't work in something on how Clinton helped him build it.
 
2002-02-23 09:49:49 PM  
Umm. Hiroshima was a tiny nuke. (By today's standards)
 
2002-02-23 09:50:04 PM  
Unlikely? OK.
 
2002-02-23 09:51:04 PM  
Thank God we have Iraq-sized nukes, then.
 
2002-02-23 09:51:36 PM  
That doesn't mean the damage wouldn't be horrendous if it were detonated in, say, Tel Aviv...
 
2002-02-23 09:52:45 PM  
Let's face it.. alot of this talk about Iraq and nukes feeds on paranoia by the American people. Saddam having a nuke is not likely.

RF
 
2002-02-23 09:53:58 PM  
Does this mean that the U.S wont nuke Iraq, now that they probably are a nuclear state by now
 
2002-02-23 09:54:48 PM  
Robbie,

I wouldn't call caution regarding a dictator who nerve-gassed his own subjects paranoia.
 
2002-02-23 09:55:09 PM  
What is Unlikely here? Of course he will, that is unless we are in Bagdad by Christmas, which we might be.......
 
2002-02-23 09:55:36 PM  
Well, the Pakistanis have nukes, after all, and I'd hardly shortlist them when thinking of the most technologically sophisticated countries in the world. Why not Iraq? There was prior evidence that Saddam was cooking up something along those lines in the past.
 
2002-02-23 09:57:03 PM  
Everyone is just lead to believe that it is unlikely that Saddam has nukes, when in all probability he already has that size of nuke in his control.
 
2002-02-23 09:57:45 PM  
After all, we built our first nukes back when technology was no more advanced than slide rules and propellor planes...
 
2002-02-23 09:58:01 PM  
Unda: Say Saddam has a nuke, what tells you that he would want to use it? He uses it and his time in power will be ending abruptly. It's suicidal to use Nuclear Weapons and not be a Superpower.

Paranoia. FUD FUD.

RF
 
2002-02-23 10:03:58 PM  
And we know that Saddam's actions have been entirely governed by logic and restraint in the pastr, right? Right???
 
2002-02-23 10:04:30 PM  
Robbie: Very true. He wouldn't dare use it. Unless he was already going to be killed/overthrown. Given the talk-talk in Washington about taking out Saddam as part of the anti-terror campaign, Saddam's life span may be pretty short anyways. He knows this. Having a nuke could lengthen his life -- so long as he doesn't use it. And if he's already going to die, why would he not use it?
 
2002-02-23 10:06:54 PM  
I agree with Prinzeugen.

If Iraq nukes us with their 1 kiloton bomb, we should nuke them with four-hundred 100,000 kiloton bombs.
 
2002-02-23 10:09:36 PM  
Scratch that last idea...

If iraq uses a nuke on us, we do the following:

1) Measure what tonage the bomb was.

2) Drop 10^ nukes on them.
 
2002-02-23 10:14:07 PM  
Actually, if we nuke anyone, World War III isn't going to be too far off.

But, well, it's been kind of boring around the office lately. The specter of nuclear annihilation would really give us something to shoot the shiat about at the water cooler.
 
2002-02-23 10:18:11 PM  
We don't have 100-megaton bombs...If I remember correctly the largest we ever tested was 15 megatons... and most of the current arsenal weighs in at 700 kilotons. Nukes suffer from the inverse cube law: A bomb that is twice as powerful as another destroys only a circle with a radius that is the cube-root of two times the original radius's (which comes out to 1.58 times the original area). So it's more practical to have many smaller bombs than a few larger bombs. It's most practical to not use any of them, however.
 
2002-02-23 10:18:36 PM  
1. his head nuclear programs officer, when he defected a while back predicted that saddam would have a nuke no later than the end of 2003.


2. he will have that thing in the u.s. as quick as he can fly someone to mexico and hustle them over the border.

These folks have proven that they will do everything in their power to hit the US, why do people have short attention spans even when it deals with not only our life and deaths, but our civilization's life and death?
 
2002-02-23 10:20:39 PM  
Saddam + Control of the oil = America being Saddam's biatch!
 
2002-02-23 10:21:44 PM  
Therefore, we might as well attack Canada.
 
2002-02-23 10:30:15 PM  
Yes, the bombs dropped on Japan were TINY by today's standards (~15 KT, where America has measured nukes in MT for 30 years), and the largest nuke EVER was made by the Soviets and measured ~60 MT.

However, a 15 KT nuke does do considerable damage to a city. Just ask Hiroshima. And using one when you're a pisspot despot like Saddam is suicide. It would be like being a freak with a Saturday Night Special telling the SWAT team sent to arrest you that they'd better not come in, you've got a gun and you're fixing to shoot a hostage. Take your shot, and you'd have an MP5 in your face in ten seconds.
 
2002-02-23 10:36:08 PM  
Wow, a nuke the size of Hiroshima. That's crazy. How big of a plane do you need to drop a nuke as big as a city?
 
2002-02-23 10:37:59 PM  
Yes, the bombs dropped on Japan were TINY by today's standards (~15 KT, where America has measured nukes in MT for 30 years), and the largest nuke EVER was made by the Soviets and measured ~60 MT.

The Soviet super-nuke was designed to be 100MT, but they were (understandably) a little skittish about testing a 100MT device, so they tested it at half it's yeild, 50MT. They thought they were far enough away when they lit it off, and the shockwave still managed to knock everyone on their ass, as did the second rush of air headed back towards the blast to fillt he vaccuum the fireball made.

I don't remember exact statistics, but I think they had some fallout issues from it as well.

Scariest of all, at least for the time, was that it was designed to be carried by an aircraft. The 15MT American test h-bomb was about the size of a house and was strictly a research device.
 
2002-02-23 10:39:15 PM  
Yeah, the area destroyed in Hiroshima is about 5 square miles (a circle radius about a mile and a quarter). 5 square miles is a lot of dead people, a lot of destroyed buildings, a lot of radiation poisoning and burns, a lot of fires that will rage uncontrollably at the edges...
 
2002-02-23 10:43:47 PM  
raghead radar

http://www.islamicfinder.org/
 
2002-02-23 10:45:08 PM  
Saddam can't even get a plane off the ground without us riding his ass.

What the fark would he do with a huge bomb like that?
He wants small bombs he can deliver by mules or Toyota
trucks... Or in the crotches of Palestinians.

Newsmax needs to get a major clue. Freaking idiots.
 
2002-02-23 10:46:49 PM  
I was mistaken, the 50MT Soviet test was actually the cleanest nuke ever in terms of fallout, though the 100MT version would have upped total global fission fallout at the time by 25% with just one bomb.

Here's a picture of it:

[image from fas.org too old to be available]
 
2002-02-23 10:56:34 PM  
The Communists are working with Iraq to make this weapon and to detonate it against the US. Of course, the Liberals want this to happen, since it would be cruel to punish Iraq.

I think the US is being too soft on Iraq, we should starve them out until they overthrow the Hussein family.

EZE
 
2002-02-23 11:24:02 PM  
Time to get an American nuke the size of Afghanistan and drop it on Saddam I think eh...
 
2002-02-23 11:33:00 PM  
Clinton Did It!


Anyone notice how NewsMax never bags on George Senior for not popping a cap in Saddam's ass when he had the chance, but damned if they don't go on and on about Clinton being a disgrace...
 
2002-02-23 11:46:47 PM  
Fark it!

Let's drop Gary Coleman on'em and end it now!
 
2002-02-24 12:02:37 AM  
Not a good time to be living in the Middle East and if you happen to live in a Jewish state.It's time to end good ol' Saddams reign of terror.
 
2002-02-24 12:18:27 AM  
Giving this story an unlikely tag is ASININE. It was unlikely that terroristswould crash jumbo jets into buildings in the States.

FINISH HIM!!! FINISH HIM!!! (then work on the Palestinians)
 
2002-02-24 12:42:58 AM  
Agent: I agree. I knew 10 years ago, Bush Sr. letting Saddam go was a stupid move. Sure enough, 10 years later Saddam is still in power, acting all big and bad again, and Junior has to clean up poppa's unfinished business.
 
2002-02-24 12:48:24 AM  
I say we simply release the 1995 New Jersey Devils' "Crash Line" on 'em. Mike Peluso, Bobby Holik, and Randy Mckay should have little trouble putting the Iraqi's in check.

Heh, heh, CHECK! Get it!?

I go Night night now.
 
2002-02-24 01:21:45 AM  
One might think using a 'dirty bomb,' the ones that explode over the ground and just rain fallout, would be GW's favorite idea. Deep behind his "axis of evil," personality (which I'm sure, somehow, differs from his "steel of resolve," personality), I think there's a menacing, brutal maniac who just wants to out-do Daddy, and that's why we're moving on a multinational "terrorist raid," that seems to be getting as many civilians and perfectly neutral Muslims killed as it is militiamen and soldiers. With our air superiority, I fail to see the point in sending ground troops anywhere, nowadays. Sure, hunting bin Laden wasn't a bad idea, but it didn't work any better than hunting Hussein apparently did.

If Hussein (w/wo collaboration from bin Laden) decides to coordinate some kind of nuclear attack, how is he going to launch it at America? Even India and Pakistan's nukes can hardly be launched outside the middle east. I'd like to see him transport a nuke here, just for the fact that it would be as cunning and devious as bin Laden's 9/11 setup. I'll bet these guys are really making Tom Clancy jealous right about now.
 
2002-02-24 01:28:53 AM  
The largest nuclear test explosion conducted bu the United States was BRAVO, a 15 megaton device used at Bikini Atoll, in the Marshall Islands, on 28 Feb 1954.

The first experimental nuclear device MIKE, a 10.4 megaton device - the fore runner of hydrogen bombs - was tested on Elugelab Island, part of Enetiwok Atoll, on 30 Oct 1952. It not only vaporized Elugelab island but it ripped a crater in the atoll over 6000 feet in diameter and deeper than the height of the Empire State building.

The first nuclear bomb tested at high altitudes, named TEAK, was detonated 1 Aug 1968 over Johnson Island in the Pacific. The 8752 pound device was carried aloft by a Redstone rocket and detonated at an altitude of 252,000 feet or nearly 48 miles. The second, called ORANGE, was detonated at 141,000 feet or nearly 27 miles, on 12 Aug 1958. Both devices were 3.8 megaton yields.

Fireball formation changes appreciably at high altitudes. The explosion energy penetrates a much larger region in the low density air. The TEAK explosion was accompanied by a bright flash of light that was visable from Hawaii almost 700 miles away. Surrounding the fireball was large red spherical ring arising from from the electrically excited oxygen atoms produced by the low density air shock wave, which was observed in Hawaii for several minutes as it expanded horizontally to a diameter of nearly 600 miles.
The Electro Magnetic Pulse - EMP - from the explosion caused hundreds of street lights in Hawaii to explode and a number of home owners reported their television picture tubes exploded.

The United States has conducted 1051 nuclear tests between 1945 and 1992. Of those tests 106 took place over the Pacific, 3 over the Souuth Atlantic, 925 at the Nevada test site, and 17 other in other states including Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi and New Mexico. Clinton imposed a test ban in 1993.

- Nuclear Weapons Data Center report, 1994.
 
2002-02-24 01:43:31 AM  
Ooops - The first sentence in the second paragraph should have read: The first experimental thermonuclear device MIKE...

I'm not very good at typing.
 
2002-02-24 02:37:52 AM  
bring it. ill just hop in my vault, wait it out, grab my GECK, and start anew.
 
2002-02-24 03:51:02 AM  
Fallout reference! Where's my cookie?
 
2002-02-24 12:50:51 PM  
As soon as Sadaam tries airlifting that bomb an inch off the groungd the mutha fugger will be shot down I'd imagine.
 
HP
2002-02-24 02:03:12 PM  
Making a nuke with what?
Sticks, Sands, and Stones?
 
2002-02-24 07:51:03 PM  
I hate to tell the doubters here, but the guy who ran Sadam's nuclear program defected to the US about 5 years ago and HE says Sadam can go atomic (probably not nuclear) in a decade. His book is call Sadam's Bomb Maker. The guy is pretty convincing.
 
zkm
2002-02-24 09:51:39 PM  
Ping-

What does atomic but not nuclear mean?
 
2002-02-24 09:59:05 PM  
How much does it cost to ship a nuclear weapon overnight through UPS?

My company receives heavy, crated and unopened containers from Asia and Europe on a regular basis. In fact, I almost wish they had a ballistic missile. Than we would know which Axis member to glass.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report