Nuke Not Nuke Not News?

October 15, 2002 5:10 PM

Nuke Not Nuke Not News? *I do not endorse the source* However, one should consider the implications if this time it's not a fantasy. Are nuclear weapons now a poor-man's weapon? Is it time to call James Bond?
posted by kablam (42 comments total)

I'll take Occam's razor for $500, please, Alex.
posted by ook at 5:21 PM on October 15, 2002

More Walking Wounded (Doesn't that kid at left look like a young Bill Clinton?)

No, not really. Well, there goes all the credibility that link had.
posted by Stan Chin at 5:24 PM on October 15, 2002

Well put, and I love a good Occam usage, double word score.

Um, I think *any* big enough explosion can make a mushroom shaped cloud, that's just a function of the air currents. What characterizes nuclear explosions is the size and force, not the shape of the dust cloud.

But I'm not an expert.
posted by freebird at 5:24 PM on October 15, 2002

I doubt that is authentic. But it does bring to mind those suitcase nukes we've all heard about.
posted by Degaz at 5:27 PM on October 15, 2002

I'm not an expert either, but I've heard that conventional explosives will produce mushroom clouds.
posted by fletcher at 5:29 PM on October 15, 2002

So we're supposed to somehow overlook the rest of the lunatic ravings on the site, such as:

"the filthy, rat, jew kikes who run our US media"

"Ragheads versus the Dotheads."

"BRUTAL NEGRO ANIMAL DOUSES GIRLFRIEND WITH LIGHTER FLUID, IGNITES HER!!
OMAHA WOMAN IN CRITICAL CONDITION!
Ape man in jail -- caged -- where these sub-human beasts belong!"

I'd think a site should at least have to have a shred of legitimacy to rate a front-page link here.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:34 PM on October 15, 2002

I don't get it. Where is the mushroom cloud? There's a picture labeled "mushroom cloud caught on video tape": it appears to show the glow from a fire and a plume of smoke drifting off to one side.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:34 PM on October 15, 2002

Ten or fifteen years back, they used to run missile launcher tests (or something) in the Bay Area. On some occasions those exploded, and they did have a mushroom cloud.

See also this link: "The largest conventional bomb today is the BLU-82 15,000 bomb... During operation DESERT STORM, [they] were targeted at minefields, but since they create a mushroom cloud like a nuclear bomb, many nearby Iraqi soldiers fled for home."
posted by brool at 5:39 PM on October 15, 2002

It is a fantasy concocted by a loony. No nukes to see here. You can go about your business. Move along.
posted by moonbiter at 5:43 PM on October 15, 2002

The page is crap, but to back that up I found
this from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that puts the smallest nuke ever produced at 0.1 kilotons. For comparison, thats still over 50 times more powerful then the blast that destroyed the Oklahoma Federal building
posted by BenNewman at 5:47 PM on October 15, 2002

No nukes is good nukes.
posted by jonmc at 5:53 PM on October 15, 2002

Um, I think *any* big enough explosion can make a mushroom shaped cloud,

Doesn't even need to be an explosion. There was a forest fire off to the east of LA a month or so ago that made a near-perfect one.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:55 PM on October 15, 2002

Not to mention the radioactivity would have been picked up by now either through direct observation of people getting sick or through a geiger counter somewhere or the hospital x-ray room or the Australian docs who flew in.
posted by stbalbach at 6:03 PM on October 15, 2002

BenNewman...

Odd that you should mention that... I found some info about the "smallest nuke" the other day quite by accident. The smallest nuclear weapon was the "Davy Crockett". The weapon looks hillarious, very... comical. (though I'm sure very deadly).

It's rated at ".01 kilotons" and was devised to combat (potential) Soviet infantry formations in Eastern Europe. The author of this piece describes its explosive power as "two to four times the explosive power of the bomb used in the Oklahoma City Federal Building explosion."

Look at it! It's a little... baby, bomb!
posted by cadastral at 6:03 PM on October 15, 2002

Ummm the big link to the "World Church of the Creator" website on the front page of this guy's site made me ignore the rest of it.

For those of you unfamiliar with WCOTC, their mission statement is "Dedicated to the Survival, Expansion, and Advancement of the White Race"

I find it doubtful that there is anything on this website that is not a lie.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:05 PM on October 15, 2002

I think *any* big enough explosion can make a mushroom shaped cloud, that's just a function of the air currents.

You're correct, as good old Cecil Adams explained a while back.
posted by Johnny Assay at 6:05 PM on October 15, 2002

cadastral, I was basing my info on this that puts the explosive power of the Oak bombing at 2.5 tons of TNT, but there might be other factors/measuremnets that come into play.
posted by BenNewman at 6:21 PM on October 15, 2002

Oh, this is nice.



Thanks for the link. I no longer consider mancow the most depraved dreg of society.
posted by goethean at 6:24 PM on October 15, 2002

Well thanks to kablam, I just visited my first hate site, and it only took me 6 years of web serfing to do it.
posted by Beholder at 6:26 PM on October 15, 2002

You know, being linked to by MeFi is going to make this nazi's guy's day.
posted by goethean at 6:29 PM on October 15, 2002

But now we all know, that traces of a C4 explosive were found in the rubble, so we can go about our everyday lives. Or not.
posted by orelius at 6:29 PM on October 15, 2002

oh, I'm sure that there is a huge problem scaling between destructive capabilities of very small nukes and something as inestimable as a "moving van stuffed with fertilizer" ... Who knows which is right, and how they could compare...

The real purpose of my post was to show the comical little bomb.
posted by cadastral at 6:35 PM on October 15, 2002

To reiterate, I disavow the kook. To rephrase what I submitted for discussion, "Does the rest of the world see nuclear weapons as a way to strike back?" Anything from strapping a couple of sticks of dynamite onto a canister of nuclear waste to make a "radiation bomb", to wiring up a 155mm nuclear Howitzer round to make a nuclear explosion. It seems to be almost a logical, if insane, thing for them to do.
And if they do it, what do we do back? Kill them all?

It seems to me that this issue should be considered ahead of time... Is it inevitable?

Oh, and BTW, for all of you who were shocked and appalled at the *words* of a fanatic, isn't it just better to not know?
posted by kablam at 6:46 PM on October 15, 2002

Well thanks to kablam, I just visited my first hate site

Me too. It made me giggle. I like free speech: it lets me laugh at loonies and feel good about it.
posted by moonbiter at 6:48 PM on October 15, 2002

His comment about the explosion "burning in the air" was pretty funny too. I can stop the video at the point where the CCD has overloaded due to a rapid shift from near total darkness to blinding flash too buddy...in fact I have video of fireworks from the 4th of July and even about a half stick of dynamite can produce the results he claims as proof of a nuclear blast.

I would say that the conditions were generally no winds and a pretty high barometric pressure. That tends to keep the cloud from ANY blast rather contiguous. The cloud cover also will tend to create the sort of "glow" he refers to as "burning in the air." But, I guess he is just the radio equivalent to the National Enquirer and Weekly World News!
posted by RevGreg at 6:57 PM on October 15, 2002

"Does the rest of the world see nuclear weapons as a way to strike back?"

Yes, that is why "rogue" governments and their leaders want them really really bad....

If there is one way to strike fear the the hearts of Western populaces, it is to threaten them with a nuclear attack...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:58 PM on October 15, 2002

Well thanks to kablam, I just visited my first hate site
poooor baaaaaaby. give mama the nasty browser now, Beholder sweety, mama won't let it show you any more ugliness.
posted by quonsar at 7:15 PM on October 15, 2002

poooor baaaaaaby. give mama the nasty browser now, Beholder sweety, mama won't let it show you any more ugliness.

Oh give me a break. It's not out of line to expect some sort of warning, if the post has a link of questionable nature. It's a bit late in the day to be trolling, eh quonsar, but that's ok, what would Metafilter be, without ass holes like you spicing things up.
posted by Beholder at 7:32 PM on October 15, 2002

quonsar, gotta be such a snarky bully?
posted by botono9 at 7:36 PM on October 15, 2002

What worries me more, is if the asshats in the White House got it into their heads that the next one was a dirty bomb..,

o, shit...
posted by dash_slot- at 7:43 PM on October 15, 2002

WOW, the only thing I have to say is, "I don't feel so bad about my spells of beating random strangers, if there is even the slightist chance of me beating the hell out of one Hal Turner..."
posted by Elim at 7:53 PM on October 15, 2002

"shocked and appalled"

You know, I work with a guy who uses this as his catch phrase. Hmmm.

*eyebrow raise*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:05 PM on October 15, 2002

To reiterate, I disavow the kook. To rephrase what I submitted for discussion, "Does the rest of the world see nuclear weapons as a way to strike back?"

Crap link=Crap Post

Doesn't matter how important the issue you want to discuss is. THE LINK IS KING.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:14 PM on October 15, 2002

PinkStainlessTail: Golly, I sorta though NUCLEAR WAR trumped just about any little rule a little rulemaker like you could make. But that's okay, there's a rule for it:

DUCK AND COVER.

Works every time.
posted by kablam at 9:44 PM on October 15, 2002

On this show, you'll hear Hal and other regular, straight white people, telling it like it is . . .and making the sacred cows of the liberal-left, run for cover!

I... I... what else do you need to... say... about this... site?
posted by Hildago at 10:51 PM on October 15, 2002

Oh wait, there's this.. check out this page about its shortwave transmitter, with a map showing the signal distribution. Then look at the disclaimer at the bottom. Tee hee.
posted by Hildago at 10:57 PM on October 15, 2002

So they don't have an FCC license? How does that work?

That map looks like a scan that has been colored in with an orange and yellow highlighter marker...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:01 PM on October 15, 2002

Mushroom clouds mean it was a nuke? That's some dirty trick the boys in the CAF played on me last year, then! (not my picture but I'm too lazy to scan it)

I recommend the CAF airshow in lovely Midland/Odessa, mostly for seeing dozens of warbirds in the air at once, and to hear the announcer tell you again and again that they're NOT GLORIFYING WAR but if you look in this direction, you'll see a big kaboom...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:30 PM on October 15, 2002

One thing's for sure Hildago, your link certainly clears up any question as to his (and presumably also his audience's) scientific background and/or laymans interest in understanding it.

"log-periodic" 14 db gain

I love the "quote on quote" jargon of the experts. It brings the concept somewhere down to my level.

About those diminuitive nukes though. My understanding of nuclear and atmospheric and thermodynamic and fuck, what else would you call it, tells me nuclear blasts cause "mushroom clouds", Mount St. Helens made it's own "mushroom cloud", therefore "something nuclear" is going on in them volcanos as well. Don't ask me, scientific expertise is something I employ when it makes me look good. I'll also exploit my lack of scientific expertise when it makes me look good too. I just won't put it in jargony quotes.
posted by crasspastor at 12:03 AM on October 16, 2002

PinkStainlessTail: Golly, I sorta though NUCLEAR WAR trumped just about any little rule a little rulemaker like you could make.
This link is in no way a credable basis for worrying about nuclear war. You might as well have posted a link to the IMDB page for "The Day After" followed by "This wasn't very good, but it could happen couldn't it?"
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:24 AM on October 16, 2002

kablam: Oh, and BTW, for all of you who were shocked and appalled at the *words* of a fanatic, isn't it just better to not know?

But you could have quoted the words without linking to a repellent hate site which many of us would prefer not to have visited -- not because we fear hate speech but because we don't want to give these assholes hits. (I'm perfectly happy to look at similar crap in bookstores -- well, not happy, but you know what I mean.) Ah, but you couldn't have posted without the link, you say? Well, as it happens, there's already a thread on the subject that you could have contributed to rather than starting a new one!
posted by languagehat at 7:40 AM on October 16, 2002

And that previous thread mentions the possibility of nuclear material at the blast site where? My argument is *not* the credibility the kook website *or* the validity of his data. But the kook is the only one to point out what lots and lots of people are thinking, but not talking about.

You've (probably) seen lots of news articles about various individuals trying to buy and sell nuclear materials and weapons components. But have you seen anyone discussing what these individuals might do with them, and, just as importantly, what the US might do in response to a nuclear attack?

If, for example, someone blows up a simple radiation bomb in the US, trying to contaminate something they HATE, like Wall Street. First we clean up the mess, which might not even be that bad. But then what do we do, KILL every person in his country? Which country? Saudi Arabia?

At the very beginning, I mentioned James Bond. More than in jest, his major fuction was to KILL ANYONE who messed with the west's nuclear weapons. At what point does it stop being a neat and clean police matter of "arrest the terrorists", and become an assassination policy not unlike the one the Israelis are using right now?
posted by kablam at 8:45 AM on October 16, 2002