Norfolk Nuked 1997

[Fyrwulf]

On the point of neutron bombs


1) They had relatively small explosive radii, I think the largest was something like 300m. Most of the effect from the physics package was lots and lots of nasty radiation.

2) They were built for tactical use, there wasn't ever a weapon big enough to depopulate a city.

3) Early fission and fusion bombs were not enhanced radiation weapons by design, they were exceedingly dirty because of their (relatively) crude design. Since the largest hydrogen bombs were tested, their warheads have only become smaller as the designs have become more efficient. IIRC, the present warhead on US nuclear missiles is 400kt a piece but its lethal radius and other such things are as effective as the far larger 2Mt freefall bombs tested during the 50s and 60s.

And yes, the US does has a nuclear-free EMP weapon. It's unknown how many are in the arsenal, but they're there.

 

[NHBL]

If Al-Qaeda had a nuke, why use it against Norfolk? If they could get it close enough to a major military base to destroy several carriers, it would easily be able to get it into a major American city, like NY or DC, where the bomb can cause much greater devestation to the USA in terms of casulties, economic and political impact.

Torqumada

If the bomb was being smuggled towards DC in a truck--or a frieghter--and discovered in Norfolk, I suspect the people with the bomb would detonate it rather than let it be captured. Even something as simple as a serious truck accident could cause them to explode it.

Alternatively, although this is very risky, someone could try to use Al-Quida as a catspaw in order to reduce the United States Navy.

 

[MerryPrankster]

If AQ detonated the bomb at Norfolk, they or their apologists could point out it was a military target.

 

[Jim Bob]

With all the talk of retaliation the USA would likely undertake, people are missing just how horrendous the fallout would likely be.

Five nuclear-powered, and nuclear-armed aircraft carriers are destroyed. The plutonium in the warheads and the uranium in the reactors doesn't simply cease to exist. It gets vapourised and blown about. Suposing that not ever carrier was vapourised, still the EMP is going to short out all the electronics on the things - so the coolant circulation systems on the reactors fail, and we get them melting down.

Lots and lots of radioisotopes are going out with this mushroom cloud. The fallout will be horrendous. Depending on the wind on the day... You're going to get a lot of casualties, a lot of devastation. Just think of the time they're taking to do the New Orleans clean-up. Now multiply that by some hundreds for the greater casualties, the greater radioactivity, etc.

Far from the US population wanting to nuke other countries, they may actually want to abolish nuclear weapons and power as a result of all this. There's a reason Japan has never sought nuclear weapons, and has overall the safest reactors in the world.

 

[Torqumada]

If the bomb was being smuggled towards DC in a truck--or a frieghter--and discovered in Norfolk, I suspect the people with the bomb would detonate it rather than let it be captured. Even something as simple as a serious truck accident could cause them to explode it.

Alternatively, although this is very risky, someone could try to use Al-Quida as a catspaw in order to reduce the United States Navy.

I don't see anyone bringing a nuke through the Hampton Roads/Norfolk area if they are trying to hit DC. Too much security in the area due to Norfolk. Heck, the easiest thing to do would be bring the container ship close to the East coast, Chesepeake bay area, drop it off on a smaller boat and let the boat sail up the Potomac and then *boom*.

Torqumada

 

[MerryPrankster]

JB,

It's likely the electronics on the carriers are EMP-proofed.

Your point about all the radioactive crap getting out still stands. Norfolk might have to be shut down for years while they clean it up.

However, I think any talk of abolishing nukes will come later on. Lots of people will be VERY ANGRY in the immediate aftermath.

 

[Jim Bob]

It's likely the electronics on the carriers are EMP-proofed.

There is no EMP-proof, only EMP-resistant. To survive the EMP from a detonation within a few kilometres takes a lot of resistance. Facilities and electronics are designed to deal with EMP from a few high-alititude (50km+) bursts, not from nearby detonations.

But there are, of course, things on a carrier other than the nuclear reactor itself. For example, the entire hull and all the plumbing are made of metal; all those will conduct current. The heat blast, combined with the current surge, are going to start multiple fires on the ships not directly destroyed by the blast. You have then danger from munitions, diesel fuel, etc.

Your point about all the radioactive crap getting out still stands. Norfolk might have to be shut down for years while they clean it up.

More than Norfolk, depending on the prevailing wind and sea currents at time of detonation.

However, I think any talk of abolishing nukes will come later on. Lots of people will be VERY ANGRY in the immediate aftermath.

Yes and no. Countries, like people, go through a grieving process: shock, denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance; not necessarily in that order. The decisions of prominent leaders, the words of prominent people, help determine where the country goes after the "shock" reaction passes.

Simply because, "use overwhelming force" is the current US government policy, does not mean it's the inevitable response of any US government, nor does it mean that the USA has always been this way.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

I doubt that the US would respond to a nuclear terrorist attack by getting rid of its own nuclear weapons; that would only encourage further attacks by removing the US's nuclear deterrent. Maybe if the US could be absolutely certain that all nukes everywhere were destroyed they might go along with it, but the odds of that happening are about as good as every other effort at disarmament has been, which is to say nil. Unilateral full disarmament is suicide, and nothing else is remotely achievable.

 

[Hendryk]

Five nuclear-powered, and nuclear-armed aircraft carriers are destroyed. The plutonium in the warheads and the uranium in the reactors doesn't simply cease to exist. It gets vapourised and blown about.

Is there a possibility of the blast causing the nuclear ordnance in the aircraft carriers to go off as well?

 

[Tucker Dwynn]

Is there a possibility of the blast causing the nuclear ordnance in the aircraft carriers to go off as well?

It takes a very complex series of explosions from the casing to compress the radioactives and get them to go critical. So the chance is almost nil.

Also unless the carriers are completely incinerated, the warhead would remain intact. They are designed to 'stay hardened' until detinated.

 

[Rasputin]

One thing that people are missing somewhat, exactly how is Al-Qaeda supposed to acquire this nuclear weapon in the first place? A Russian bomb going missing after the break-up of the Soviet Union has buttered the bread of Hollywood for the last decade and a half, but we've seen next to no indication that Al-Qaeda, or any terrorist group for that matter, has ever so much as attempted such a thing.

And did A-Q even exist in '97? I thought they only splintered off from Islamic Jihad in '98. Supposedly didn't even have a name until granted one by a supergrass in a US court case in January 2001, at least according to the one source I know of, The Power of Nightmares BBC documentary. Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri may have been involved in US-targeted bomb plots before-hand, but I don't think there was an Al-Qaeda organisation until '98.

So the question on the minds of the people in charge after the Norfolk bomb is probably going to be along the lines of 'who' and 'how'. Unless someone stands up and takes responsibility, there's going to be months of investigations searching for exactly how this bomb came to be in the hands of whoever these people were in the first place.

 

[Derek Jackson]

If AQ had a nuke they would target DC at the State of the Union or the Inaugaral

 

[Fyrwulf]

If AQ had a nuke they would target DC at the State of the Union or the Inaugaral

Actually, I don't think they would. Bin Laden isn't stupid, he'd know that was one way to guarantee a nuclear response to such an attack. Attacking a juicy nuclear target like Norfolk with five CBGs in port is a good way to trip up the US, unless Clinton goes absolutely apeshit and orders SAC to glass anybody that so much as looks cross-eyed at the US.

 

[Jim Bob]

The other point is that, initially at least, people may think it was an accidental detonation of one of the carrier groups' own weapons.

Within a few days, or a week at most, the US should be able to establish, by analysing the isotopes released, etc, if it was not a US weapon. I say "should" because thermonuclear forensics is not a well-established science, and the radioisotopes from the vapourised reactors and nuclear weapons other than the exploding one will complicate the picture. The USA will usually be able to say "that was a US weapon," and they'd have good intelligence on the weapons of the other four major nuclear powers (UK, France, Russia, China), but not such good intelligence on the weapons of Israel, India and Pakistan. Of course there are also the weapons of South Africa, which historically were dismantled by then, but if this is an ATL...

There are actually many possible scenarios. It may even be a US weapon. Remember you don't necessarily have to steal the thing - you could just sabotage the one already there. One enemy agent...

So, a nuke goes off and wipes out the five carrier groups and the port, deadly fallout... Was it an attack? Was it an accident? How can we be sure? Suppose they interrogate some guy and he tells them... Is the interrogation of one guy enough on which to base an attack - a nuclear attack - on another country?

 

[MerryPrankster]

Good point, JB.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Actually, I don't think they would. Bin Laden isn't stupid, he'd know that was one way to guarantee a nuclear response to such an attack. Attacking a juicy nuclear target like Norfolk with five CBGs in port is a good way to trip up the US, unless Clinton goes absolutely apeshit and orders SAC to glass anybody that so much as looks cross-eyed at the US.

The problem for the US, as now, is that AQ was not and is not a state. There is no real target.

Also a US attack on Moslems with nukes would help AQ in recruiting more crazies.

 

[Hendryk]

Also a US attack on Moslems with nukes would help AQ in recruiting more crazies.

IIRC, in 1997 there wasn't yet any nuclear-armed Muslim country. Pakistan would only complete its nuclear program (and start proliferating it all over the place, to North Korea and Iran among others) in 1998. I suppose one probable butterfly is US pressure to cancel the program, since, though this was before the takeover by Musharraf, Pakistan's links to both the Taliban and Islamist terrorist organizations were already well established at the time.

 

[BlackMage]

Jim Bob raises some very good points; you can just sabotage the US nukes already there, and then no one needs to know that it was an attack at all. In fact, that might make it even more dangerous; groups across the world could claim it as theirs, and there'd be no way of knowing who it was.

I don't think nuclear weapons would be used in response, simply because they're inefficient for this sort of warfare. Hearts and minds are much harder to win over when they're glowing. In fact, if Al Qaeda chose not to reveal they were behind it, what COULD the US do?

 

[Fyrwulf]

Actually, you can't "just sabotage the nukes already there". In fact, it's just about as impossible as anything can get because you'd need three things:

1) The authentication codes located in the CO's and XO's safes.
2) The relavent Permissive Action Link, which is encoded into the President's Football.
3) To assault at least one carrier that has several thousand armed people who really don't want you near any weapons and then get passed the dedicated guard of Marines that prevent any unauthorized access to the nukes.

 

[Rasputin]

Which leads back to my original point. Where the heck does this nuke come from?