4 ms·
Generally the smaller the bomb the easier it is to sneak it past defenses. You couldn't do enough damage for it to matter on a country scale. You'd have to snea
by hunterb123 5y ago
Generally the smaller the bomb the easier it is to sneak it past defenses. You couldn't do enough damage for it to matter on a country scale. You'd have to sneak many small payloads by which would be easier to detect, at that point a larger single payload would be easier to sneak in.
Radioactive payloads are harder to sneak in as ports are scanned with geiger counters, easier to do pipe bombs or fertilizer bombs, etc, but less effective.
To do real collateral damage you have to deliver the payload via the air.
Off-topic nitpick, the pipe bombs were planted on Jan 5th near the DNC and RNC headquarters. There's no known relation to the Jan 6th capitol protest.
- lb1lf 5y ago> To do real collateral damage you have to deliver the payload via the air. -My pet scenario is you just use DHL and ship the thing in a container. Imagine a handful of nukes going off in, say, the Suez canal, in a lock in the Panama canal, Shanghai, Singapore, LA and Rotterdam. You don't need to kill billions to bring the world to a halt. We'd face shortages of pretty much everything for quite a long time, with all the difficulties, suffering and general havoc that would bring with it.
- laurent92 5y ago- Can a state drop enough radioactive contaminants from the air that it would be impossible to detect a Davy Crockett bomb (20kt) in a container?
- Arrath 5y agoThe weight delta between a man portable device like a Crockett and the expected load of a container is surely enough for a determined actor to shield and disguise the contents well enough to both appear as the normal stated cargo and shield the weapon's emissions from typical port of entry scanning.