Al Qaeda threatens chemical attack on Tel Aviv

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, but cairo is a HUGE city, spread out, plus less wood construction than Japanese cities. I would bet that a 200 kiloton warhead right in the middle of the city at optimal times would not reach 400,000 dead in such a modern city- you would need a spread of nukes, perhaps up to 15 to come close to killing 20 million there.

You're forgetting about the death tolls that will rise from the after effect of such an explosion - the city (and likely Egypt's government) would be incapacitated for a very long time, and things like food and clean water as well as medical care would become major immediate problems

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


You're forgetting about the death tolls that will rise from the after effect of such an explosion - the city (and likely Egypt's government) would be incapacitated for a very long time, and things like food and clean water as well as medical care would become major immediate problems

Yes, but I am taking that into account- I would not expect 400,000 killed instantly, but over a few days form a single bomb.

People overestimate in their minds the numbers who would be killed outright by a nuclear exchange. It is a very sad and vengeful fantasy to think Israel's nuclear arsenal would "kill all the arabs", plus, if it is an arab v Jew issue as the ones who talk about attacking Egyptians if AQ attacks Israel seem to think, well, so you kill maybe a third of the arabs, but "the Holy land" ends up being utterly wiped "clean" of Jews, then sorry, but the Jews lost that one BIG.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Let me guess this straight,
You Isreali's and supporters advocate dropping nuclear weapons on (neutral) countries not involved in your problems. AQ does not have a capital or any territory. Apparently you have lived with idea of violating other countries territory so long that you don't care what weapons you use against people. Your position of hate is no better than the suicide bombers. People willing to kill large numbers of innocents.

Where did you get "you Isrealies and supporters" From what I read only one advocated it and now its "you isrealies and supporters"

[Az]

Yes, but cairo is a HUGE city, spread out, plus less wood construction than Japanese cities. I would bet that a 200 kiloton warhead right in the middle of the city at optimal times would not reach 400,000 dead in such a modern city- you would need a spread of nukes, perhaps up to 15 to come close to killing 20 million there.

This depends on the nuke. It may be a high-radiation one, etc. Besides, Cairo has enough ****holes that would be devasted on their own.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

Yes, but cairo is a HUGE city, spread out, plus less wood construction than Japanese cities. I would bet that a 200 kiloton warhead right in the middle of the city at optimal times would not reach 400,000 dead in such a modern city- you would need a spread of nukes, perhaps up to 15 to come close to killing 20 million there.

This depends on the nuke. It may be a high-radiation one, etc. Besides, Cairo has enough ****holes that would be devasted on their own.

While we know Israel has nukes, we don't know if they have had the ability to boost them past lets say 100 kilitons a warhead. Yes, I am sure there is plenty of crappy construction in Cairo-but it is decentralized, which is why you would need multiple warheads. A city as massive as Cairo might be taken out by a single 25 Mt blast, thougha ctually you would influct gretaer damage by spreading out a bunch of 1 Mt blasts.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, but I am taking that into account- I would not expect 400,000 killed instantly, but over a few days form a single bomb.

But it isn't just going to last days - Crippling (I would assume) every major city in the Middle East would take a long time to fix. Think years or decades just to triage the problem. Plus you'd most likely have mass panic and evacuation from the cities - the logistics of trying to get food to the people would be a nightmare. And then there's the oil prices skyrocketing through the roof...

[Az]

While we know Israel has nukes, we don't know if they have had the ability to boost them past lets say 100 kilitons a warhead. Yes, I am sure there is plenty of crappy construction in Cairo-but it is decentralized, which is why you would need multiple warheads. A city as massive as Cairo might be taken out by a single 25 Mt blast, thougha ctually you would influct gretaer damage by spreading out a bunch of 1 Mt blasts.

That's why ~1Mt nukes are the norm, while the 25megaton are specialized for taking out stuff like NORAD, etc.

And yes, Cairo would need much more than a single nuke. I presume 5-6.





This argument is deperessing.

[Sava]

This argument is deperessing.

entertaining you mean!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


But it isn't just going to last days - Crippling (I would assume) every major city in the Middle East would take a long time to fix. Think years or decades just to triage the problem. Plus you'd most likely have mass panic and evacuation from the cities - the logistics of trying to get food to the people would be a nightmare. And then there's the oil prices skyrocketing through the roof...

Which hurts everyone else..so Israel dies, out of vengence it kills several tens of millions of Arabs..Oh goody...but heck, the conflict is over....

[Edan]

Originally posted by Sava
entertaining you mean!

It can't be both?

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


Which hurts everyone else..

Well, primarily the middle east - which are going to need th emost help - there will still be major oil supplies in Russia, US, etc. so the price will drop eventually (though still remain high).

Anyway, oil prices are going to skyrocket at some point, anyway.

so Israel dies, out of vengence it kills several tens of millions of Arabs..Oh goody...but heck, the conflict is over....

I'd say the death toll would far exceed 100+ million, like I've argued but...

What do you think Mutually Assured Destruction was all about?

[Az]

Originally posted by GePap


Which hurts everyone else..so Israel dies, out of vengence it kills several tens of millions of Arabs..Oh goody...but heck, the conflict is over....

as Edan has said, It's a cultural MAD. The fact that people who'll be nuked are not ruled by the same government hardly matters, anyway. It's not that that would make them somehow deserving of a nuclear attack.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

That's why ~1Mt nukes are the norm, while the 25megaton are specialized for taking out stuff like NORAD, etc.

And yes, Cairo would need much more than a single nuke. I presume 5-6.

Actually 1 Mt is way above average. Most nukes are from 300-750Kt, closer to the 300 or 400 mark. It is unlikely Israel has Thermonuclear devices into the Megaton range-you need a whole set of infrastructures to make heavy hydrogen Isotopes that are NOT easy to hide. It is not even know if Israel can hit 500 Kt.

25 Mt was the largest weapons put into service, and only by the Soviets- I think the US max was 10 Mts.

Of course the 52Mt models were too impractical, and certainly the 100Mt design the Soviets made (the 52 Mt was a scaled down version) totally impractical. Though really anything close to 50Mt. is Overkill of a moronic scale.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan

I'd say the death toll would far exceed 100+ million, like I've argued but...

What do you think Mutually Assured Destruction was all about?

Israel has 200 nukes or so, sorry, but that is no way close to getting to MAD levels there, specially for an areas as massive as the Arab world.

[Az]

So, you think that getting 150 million US citizens killed was not MAD, also?