|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
 Posted - 11/05/2001 : 11:05:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I feel we all must be highly vigilant for any possible attack by sea because the Japanese did not only use attacks by aircraft in their Kamikazi attacks during WW 2 they also used manned human torpedoes in the form of mini subs to attack Sydney Harbour. It will not take much for al-Qaeda to build a very crude submarine or aquire an old decomissioned one to launch such a surprise attack as the Japanese did during WW2 [BJones]
Simplify your thinking, BJ. All the terrorist attacks were made with materials at hand, from box cutters to Boeings. So, if you want to attack a bridge that allows ship traffic to pass underneath it, think CARGO CONTAINER. It has several advantages.
1. Pre-packed with exposives from any number of foreign ports WITHOUT inspection or port authority inspectors that are easily bribed.
2. A container can also be outfitted with living arrangments to house a commando group to overpower the ship's crew at the appropriate time.
3. A coast cuard cutter would be hard pressed to stop a container ship driving toward a bridge pylon. The cutters just don't have the heavy caliber weapons to sink a ship that size fast enough. Ramming would be the only quick alternative, with uncertain results.
4. By sticking to a marine attack instead of a land attack, you avoid all sorts of curious American eyes and other incidental American contacts; highway patrol, National Guard, spot checks, bad food at greasy diners, etc.
5. One truck with one trailer loaded with exposives is one bang. A cargo ship with several explosive containers is a much bigger bang.
quote:
Wouldn't take anything nearly that fancy. Fill a truck full of explosive material, drive it to the center of the span and there you go.
[@tomic]
6. I'm not an engineer, but I don't think the center of the bridge span is the best place for maximum effect. You can do a helluva lot of damage to a bridge pier which supports the whole bridge structure just by ramming it, even if you don't have exposives. What's going to work better; a 50 ton tractor-trailer or a 20,000 ton cargo ship?
(:raig
|
 |
|
|
bjones
Skeptic Friend
Australia
82 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2001 : 15:19:51 [Permalink]
|
Yes you are right, these people are highly unlikely to use a sophisticated missile defence shield, but they are more likely to use minninum possible technology to inflict the most destruction. Technology that is already widely available like the oil supertankers I mentioned earlier. There may well other more explosive cargo around if they could get their hands on it, but oil tankers are so numerous in that part of the world "OPEC" it would be so tempting for one of them to highjack one of them in or near the Persion Gulf, or be even just infiltrate the crew, so the crew itself may well be a team of covert terrorists employed courtesy of Texaco, but Texaco would of course be totally oblivious to the plan until it is too late. They will not need any more explosives because if the tanker hits a port it at full speed its momentum may damage roads up to ten kilometers inland and rupture gas lines like a magnitude 6 earth quake thus igniting its deadly cargo, creating a great conflagration around Mannhattan Island burning for weeks. I nightmare scenario I would prefer not to see on CBS news.
bjones
quote:
Simplify your thinking, BJ. All the terrorist attacks were made with materials at hand, from box cutters to Boeings. So, if you want to attack a bridge that allows ship traffic to pass underneath it, think CARGO CONTAINER. It has several advantages.
1. Pre-packed with exposives from any number of foreign ports WITHOUT inspection or port authority inspectors that are easily bribed.
2. A container can also be outfitted with living arrangments to house a commando group to overpower the ship's crew at the appropriate time.
3. A coast cuard cutter would be hard pressed to stop a container ship driving toward a bridge pylon. The cutters just don't have the heavy caliber weapons to sink a ship that size fast enough. Ramming would be the only quick alternative, with uncertain results.
4. By sticking to a marine attack instead of a land attack, you avoid all sorts of curious American eyes and other incidental American contacts; highway patrol, National Guard, spot checks, bad food at greasy diners, etc.
5. One truck with one trailer loaded with exposives is one bang. A cargo ship with several explosive containers is a much bigger bang.
Remember: When you die your philosophy dies with you.
|
|
|
|
lpetrich
Skeptic Friend
USA
74 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2001 : 06:27:06 [Permalink]
|
Foot-and-mouth-disease FAQ: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/qafmd301.html
Although that disease is seldom fatal, it weakens its victims and makes them economically useless.
Buffalo can almost certainly catch the disease, since the animals known to be susceptible span the whole range of even-toed hoofed animals.
And one nightmarish scenario is that an oil tanker could be used to smuggle in a nuclear bomb. Here's a possible transit route:
Russia
Central Asia
Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia or some Gulf State
A tanker full of oil
Someone's car
Some juicy target -- and then, BOOM!!! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
