Author Topic: Obama: I'm Concerned About a Loose Nuke Being Detonated in Manhattan: Romney still wrong about Russia, says Obama. Daniel Halper  (Read 472 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 246,322
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/obama-im-concerned-about-loose-nuke-being-detonated-manhattan_786009.html

Obama: I'm Concerned About a Loose Nuke Being Detonated in Manhattan
Romney still wrong about Russia, says Obama.
Daniel Halper
March 25, 2014 11:56 AM

Speaking at a brief news conference in the Hague, President Obama said he's more worried about a loose nuke being detonated in Manhattan than he is about Russia:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5DV228cj80" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5DV228cj80</a>


ABC's Jon Karl to Obama: Did Romney Have a Point About Russia?
March 25, 2014


"Russia's actions are a problem. They don't pose the number one national security threat to the United States. I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan," said Obama.

Support the USO

Offline Gazoo

  • Inactive Members
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,968
He is such an ass. No President should talk specifics like this. Why couldn't he just say he is more worried about domestic terrorism? He has no class or couth. He is diverting attention from his foreign policy blunders by enacting domestic fear.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 12:13:55 PM by Gazoo »
"The Tea Party has a right to feel cheated.

When does the Republican Party, put in the majority by the Tea Party, plan to honor its commitment to halt the growth of the Federal monolith and bring the budget back into balance"?

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,540
BS he wouldn't care a bit if a nuke went of in Manhattan.


Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 246,322
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=822822D7-F5E9-428C-B68C-D084D885DA64

 Obama: Romney still wrong on Russia
By: Carrie Budoff Brown and Jennifer Epstein
March 25, 2014 11:58 AM EDT

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — President Barack Obama dismissed the notion here Tuesday that his one-time rival Mitt Romney was correct in characterizing Russia as the United States’s “number one geopolitical foe,” as he also weighed in on his administration’s plans to modify its surveillance programs.

“The truth of the matter is that America has got a whole lot of challenges,” Obama said during a joint press conference with Prime Minister Mark Rutte of The Netherlands. “I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security about the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan,” he later added.

Russia is just yet another issue about which the United States is concerned, but is not the dominant one, Obama said in a slight at Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin. “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness. Ukraine has been a country in which Russia had enormous influence for decades, since the breakup of the Soviet Union,” he said. By contrast, the United States has “considerable influence on neighbors” but “we generally don’t need to invade them in order to have a strong cooperative relationship with them.”



Obama’s comments come amid efforts by the United States and others in the international community to isolate Russia and pressure Putin into backing down from his aggressive approach to Ukraine. If Putin doesn’t, “there will be additional costs, and those will have some disruptive effect to the global economy, but they’ll have the greatest impact on Russia, so I think that will be a bad choice for President Putin to make,” Obama said. “But ultimately he is the president of Russia and he’s the one who’s going to be making that decision. He just has to understand there’s a choice to be made here.”

Asked if he’s misread Putin’s motivations, Obama sidestepped the question. “I’m less interested in motivation and more interested in the facts,” he said.

Obama also used the press conference to offer his first public comments on his administration’s proposal to end the National Security Agency’s collection of bulk data on U.S. phone calls.



“Overall, I’m confident that it allows us to do what is necessary in order to deal with the dangers of a nefarious attack and addresses the dangers that people have raised,” he said. The proposal is “workable,” Obama added, and he believes it addresses the “core concerns” that Americans have about the program.

His comments came after administration officials confirmed details of the administration’s proposal to address Americans’ concerns about the NSA’s surveillance program. Any changes would have to be approved by Congress, and Obama said he is “looking forward to working with Congress to make sure we go ahead and pass the enabling legislation quickly so that we can get on with the business of effective law enforcement.”

Obama started his remarks by making his first comments on the mudslide that took dozens of lives in Washington State over the weekend. “We hope for the best, but we recognize this is a tough situation,” he said, noting that he’s signed an emergency declaration and spoken to Gov. Jay Inslee.

Support the USO

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,021
    • Auktion Online
I'm sure the citizens of Manhattan will be sleeping more soundly tonight knowing that the only thing standing between them and oblivion is Dear Leader OPapaDoc.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 01:45:40 PM by massadvj »
"She only coughs when she lies."

Offline Olivia

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
Obama is doing the only thing he knows how to do, standing over a podium and running his mouth.  Even then, he looks like a weakling. 
Truthfully, the most important thing in life is knowing what the most important things in life are, and prioritizing them accordingly.   Melchor Lim

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,540
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=822822D7-F5E9-428C-B68C-D084D885DA64

 Obama: Romney still wrong on Russia
By: Carrie Budoff Brown and Jennifer Epstein
March 25, 2014 11:58 AM EDT

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — President Barack Obama dismissed the notion here Tuesday that his one-time rival Mitt Romney was correct in characterizing Russia as the United States’s “number one geopolitical foe,” as he also weighed in on his administration’s plans to modify its surveillance programs.

“The truth of the matter is that America has got a whole lot of challenges,” Obama said during a joint press conference with Prime Minister Mark Rutte of The Netherlands. “I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security about the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan,” he later added.

Russia is just yet another issue about which the United States is concerned, but is not the dominant one, Obama said in a slight at Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin. “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness. Ukraine has been a country in which Russia had enormous influence for decades, since the breakup of the Soviet Union,” he said. By contrast, the United States has “considerable influence on neighbors” but “we generally don’t need to invade them in order to have a strong cooperative relationship with them.”



Obama’s comments come amid efforts by the United States and others in the international community to isolate Russia and pressure Putin into backing down from his aggressive approach to Ukraine. If Putin doesn’t, “there will be additional costs, and those will have some disruptive effect to the global economy, but they’ll have the greatest impact on Russia, so I think that will be a bad choice for President Putin to make,” Obama said. “But ultimately he is the president of Russia and he’s the one who’s going to be making that decision. He just has to understand there’s a choice to be made here.”

Asked if he’s misread Putin’s motivations, Obama sidestepped the question. “I’m less interested in motivation and more interested in the facts,” he said.

Obama also used the press conference to offer his first public comments on his administration’s proposal to end the National Security Agency’s collection of bulk data on U.S. phone calls.



“Overall, I’m confident that it allows us to do what is necessary in order to deal with the dangers of a nefarious attack and addresses the dangers that people have raised,” he said. The proposal is “workable,” Obama added, and he believes it addresses the “core concerns” that Americans have about the program.

His comments came after administration officials confirmed details of the administration’s proposal to address Americans’ concerns about the NSA’s surveillance program. Any changes would have to be approved by Congress, and Obama said he is “looking forward to working with Congress to make sure we go ahead and pass the enabling legislation quickly so that we can get on with the business of effective law enforcement.”

Obama started his remarks by making his first comments on the mudslide that took dozens of lives in Washington State over the weekend. “We hope for the best, but we recognize this is a tough situation,” he said, noting that he’s signed an emergency declaration and spoken to Gov. Jay Inslee.


It is amazing what he responds to. Extremely thin skinned.


Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,773
  • Conspiracy engineer. Low rates.
Quote
Obama started his remarks by making his first comments on the mudslide that took dozens of lives in Washington State over the weekend. “We hope for the best, but we recognize this is a tough situation,” he said, noting that he’s signed an emergency declaration and spoken to Gov. Jay Inslee.

Congratulations. You did your bleep job for once. Want a medal or something?
The fastest way to a man's heart? Inch to the right of the breastbone, between the fourth and fifth rib.

Every time I start to feel boring, I remember there is a monthly magazine devoted to elevators.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,739
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Does this sh*t for brains even know what it takes to detonate a nuclear weapon?  Does he know what it takes to build one?  Does he know what it takes to build one that could be easily transported into Manhattan?  Without detection?

Devices from Russia - most of which are old Soviet weapons - cannot be detonated without a complex set of triggers being activated - just as with US weapons - and those triggers cannot be activated in the correct order with the correct timing by a group of terrorists working under cover and trying to hide from the cops.  The same goes for weapons from most of the other countries that possess them; I am quite sure that even Pakistan has sophisticated arming mechanisms on its nukes because should one of them go off improperly, India would almost certainly nuke Pakistan to a burned out shell.  That leaves two possibilities:  (a) a North Korean nuke, (b) an Iranian nuke, or (c) a nuke built by a non-governmental terrorist organization.  Option (c) can be readily dismissed because the necessary infrastructure and materials - most notably the fissionable material - can only be acquired by a governmental actor; certainly a terrorist organization couldn't mine sufficient uranium and then either purify it to obtain weapons grade U235 or run a breeder reactor in order to create sufficient plutonium - both activities would be readily spotted by even the Malaysian intelligence forces.  Option (b) is unlikely, for the time being, because the Iranians don't as yet have a deployable nuclear weapon; they might in the near future, but if Obama is really worried about a nuke from Iran being detonated in Manhattan he sure has a weird way of showing it, given that he's basically green-lighted the Iranian nuclear program.  That leaves option (a).  That option cannot be wholly discounted since NK does actually have nuclear weapons, even if they're basically just squibs without much destructive power relative to even the Hiroshima bomb.  However, to-date NK doesn't seem to have exported any of its weapons - certainly the amount of hard currency they would have received would be noticeable.  Even if someone did obtain a NK nuke with the intent of setting it off in Manhattan, getting it there undetected would be a real chore.

In the 60s and 70s the USSR and the US developed some very light-weight nukes, which, technically speaking, could be carried by a single individual.  The smallest known US version was the MK-54 SADM, pictured here:




That device apparently weighed in at 50lb - could conceivably be brought into Manhattan - but was of a very sophisticated design that the NK is almost certainly not capable of replicating at this point.  Assuming that NK really has developed a weapon capable of being put onto a missile, their devices are probably at least 500lb or more.  Transporting a 500lb cargo containing a live nuclear device into the US and into Manhattan would be quite a chore.  Not impossible, but I'm pretty sure that even the CIA and the FBI would figure it out before it got to US soil.

In other words, worrying about a nuke going off in Manhattan is, or ought to be, low down on the priority list, at least for a competent president.

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,773
  • Conspiracy engineer. Low rates.
Quote
Transporting a 500lb cargo containing a live nuclear device into the US and into Manhattan would be quite a chore.  Not impossible, but I'm pretty sure that even the CIA and the FBI would figure it out before it got to US soil.

You don't need to. Land it in upstate New York, a small fishing boat will do, and set it off in Water Tunnel 2, which provides most of the water and is pretty much unguarded. Manhattan would be uninhabitable within 2 hours, not to mention the poor sods who happened to be on the loo when several billion gallons of water get vaporized.
The fastest way to a man's heart? Inch to the right of the breastbone, between the fourth and fifth rib.

Every time I start to feel boring, I remember there is a monthly magazine devoted to elevators.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Howie66

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • MOLON LABE & SEMPER FI!
The simple fact of the matter is that IF a nuke does go off in Manhattan (or anyplace else in the US) The blame should rest solely on Obama's shoulders. He will not be able to blame Bush, the GOP or even his dog.
I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery.  But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes:  If you bleep with me, I'll kill you all.

Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders (Note: Mattis did NOT say "BLEEP". He threw the F Bomb)

I didn't enlist in the Corps just to watch my country become a Third World Communist Shit-hole. Don't know anyone who did.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,739
  • #NeverTrumpForever
You don't need to. Land it in upstate New York, a small fishing boat will do, and set it off in Water Tunnel 2, which provides most of the water and is pretty much unguarded. Manhattan would be uninhabitable within 2 hours, not to mention the poor sods who happened to be on the loo when several billion gallons of water get vaporized.

Landing in upstate NY, with a 500lb nuclear cargo, is not an easy feat.

If one were to pursue your suggestion, dynamite would be sufficient.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 02:11:47 PM by Oceander »

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 246,322
The simple fact of the matter is that IF a nuke does go off in Manhattan (or anyplace else in the US) The blame should rest solely on Obama's shoulders. He will not be able to blame Bush, the GOP or even his dog.

Oh, but they would indeed try!

Support the USO

Offline Howie66

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • MOLON LABE & SEMPER FI!
I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery.  But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes:  If you bleep with me, I'll kill you all.

Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders (Note: Mattis did NOT say "BLEEP". He threw the F Bomb)

I didn't enlist in the Corps just to watch my country become a Third World Communist Shit-hole. Don't know anyone who did.

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,773
  • Conspiracy engineer. Low rates.
Landing in upstate NY, with a 500lb nuclear cargo, is not an easy feat.

If one were to pursue your suggestion, dynamite would be sufficient.

Nope. You don't want to stop the water. The essence of a terror attack - as you know from experience - is the fear. Can you imagine the entire island suddenly finding out it's water is very radioactive? People already get wound up about radiation - in the water that they shower in and drink would kick it to a whole new level.

As for getting it up state - boats go up and down the Hudson all the time, and there are more private landings than public ones. It's possibly the second most used river in the world. Can't check all of them. Want to shift a bomb without being detected? Drogue it under your boat. 20 feet down, even a sensitive detector won't find it.

It's not an original idea. Been posited several times before (Spider Robinson probably does it best - read "The Lady Slings the Blues.") Doesn't mean it's unworkable. Set off a nuke in New York Harbor, and that would work, but it would be less effective. You don't want to kill people. You want to overload them.
The fastest way to a man's heart? Inch to the right of the breastbone, between the fourth and fifth rib.

Every time I start to feel boring, I remember there is a monthly magazine devoted to elevators.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,739
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Nope. You don't want to stop the water. The essence of a terror attack - as you know from experience - is the fear. Can you imagine the entire island suddenly finding out it's water is very radioactive? People already get wound up about radiation - in the water that they shower in and drink would kick it to a whole new level.

As for getting it up state - boats go up and down the Hudson all the time, and there are more private landings than public ones. It's possibly the second most used river in the world. Can't check all of them. Want to shift a bomb without being detected? Drogue it under your boat. 20 feet down, even a sensitive detector won't find it.

It's not an original idea. Been posited several times before (Spider Robinson probably does it best - read "The Lady Slings the Blues.") Doesn't mean it's unworkable. Set off a nuke in New York Harbor, and that would work, but it would be less effective. You don't want to kill people. You want to overload them.

That it hasn't happened to-date is the best evidence to-date that doing it is simply too difficult logistically, and will remain that way until/unless something substantial changes.  The biggest stumbling block being the acquisition of a working device.

In terms of getting something up the Hudson river:  assuming that one managed to get a device onto a ship undetected and managed to get that ship into NY harbor with the weapon undetected, getting it up the Hudson from there is going to be problematic.  If the ship is a normal international freighter, it's going to have to unload some of its cargo before it can go up the Hudson; right now there are some restrictions due to the level of water flow.  Second, you're not going to be able to just stop the ship at some point on the trip up to drop off a 500lb plus package.  That would certainly draw attention.  That means you have to go up to Albany, unload there, and then move your cargo.

Can it be done?  Technically, yes, but then again, as per quantum physics there's a small but not zero chance that all of the atoms in my body could suddenly "jump" to an orbit around Jupiter while still retaining their positions relative to each other.  The practical odds of getting a working nuke up the Hudson river are rather small.

Online Millee

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,426
BS he wouldn't care a bit if a nuke went of in Manhattan.

He'd only care if a golf course was destroyed.   :chairbang:

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,739
  • #NeverTrumpForever
He'd only care if a golf course was destroyed.   :chairbang:

well, there is the driving range at Chelsea Piers.  It's kind of neat if you go up to the higher levels; you feel like you're hitting balls into the Hudson river (or at NJ).

Offline EC

  • Shanghaied Editor
  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,773
  • Conspiracy engineer. Low rates.
That it hasn't happened to-date is the best evidence to-date that doing it is simply too difficult logistically, and will remain that way until/unless something substantial changes.  The biggest stumbling block being the acquisition of a working device.

In terms of getting something up the Hudson river:  assuming that one managed to get a device onto a ship undetected and managed to get that ship into NY harbor with the weapon undetected, getting it up the Hudson from there is going to be problematic.  If the ship is a normal international freighter, it's going to have to unload some of its cargo before it can go up the Hudson; right now there are some restrictions due to the level of water flow.  Second, you're not going to be able to just stop the ship at some point on the trip up to drop off a 500lb plus package.  That would certainly draw attention.  That means you have to go up to Albany, unload there, and then move your cargo.

Can it be done?  Technically, yes, but then again, as per quantum physics there's a small but not zero chance that all of the atoms in my body could suddenly "jump" to an orbit around Jupiter while still retaining their positions relative to each other.  The practical odds of getting a working nuke up the Hudson river are rather small.

Don't use the freighter. What is the one invariable for every single ship entering New York Harbor? They are met 3 miles out by a pilot boat or a tug to be brought in. Those are light, small, so ubiquitous that you'd not notice one, and perfectly capable of taking a nuke up river, especially since they get shifted around all the time.

Sorry - I like to play with scenarios. Personally, I'd go dirty bomb. Conventional explosive with a nice coating of long half life isotopes.
The fastest way to a man's heart? Inch to the right of the breastbone, between the fourth and fifth rib.

Every time I start to feel boring, I remember there is a monthly magazine devoted to elevators.

Avatar courtesy of Oceander

I've got a website now: Smoke and Ink

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,998
massadvj wrote above:
[[ I'm sure the citizens of Manhattan will be sleeping more soundly tonight knowing that the only thing standing between them and oblivion is Dear Leader OPapaDoc. ]]

Nope.

Now they have Wilhelm deBlasio to protect them, too !!!

Everything that they deserve !!

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,998
Howie wrote above:
[[ The simple fact of the matter is that IF a nuke does go off in Manhattan (or anyplace else in the US) The blame should rest solely on Obama's shoulders. He will not be able to blame Bush, the GOP or even his dog. ]]

I get the feeling that if a nuke went off in Manhattan (or anyplace else in the US), Obama would vanish and it would a LONG time before we'd see or hear from him again...  :)

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,739
  • #NeverTrumpForever
Don't use the freighter. What is the one invariable for every single ship entering New York Harbor? They are met 3 miles out by a pilot boat or a tug to be brought in. Those are light, small, so ubiquitous that you'd not notice one, and perfectly capable of taking a nuke up river, especially since they get shifted around all the time.

Sorry - I like to play with scenarios. Personally, I'd go dirty bomb. Conventional explosive with a nice coating of long half life isotopes.

I'd go with the dirty bomb as well; it's much more likely to cause terror - everyone gets the creeps wondering if that invisible radiation is seeping into their very souls - will cause plenty of disease and illness, some of the graphically gross, all by itself, and is much easier to assemble, place, and detonate than a real nuke.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf