Explosion in London this morning

[draakh_kimera]

First of all, let me say that I'm at a loss for words concerning the bombs in London. The actual bombing itself isn't unrealistic when you think of it, given the world's current state, but at the same time, it's horrible whenever it happens. I dunno, I can't put my feelings into words.

 

 

Ok then.

But where's the invasion of Syria?  From my lacklustre (apathy?) following of world events, it sounds like they've been harbouring terrorist groups more than even Iraq has.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Um, invading a country that's harbouring terrorists isn't going to do anything. They'll just spring up again. Get ahold of their finances however, and it'll be harder for them. I highly doubt that the Americans are going to invade Saudi Arabia anytime soon though...

 

 

As for the whole dirty bomb discussion. If terrorists get their hands on some form of radioactive material and the means to blow it up, without fission, I'm not sure they would be that lethal. They might make a small area uninhabitable for a while, but I'm not even so sure of that. It all depends on what type of materials they get their hands on, and how big the spread of radioactive materials is. Remember, alpha radiation isn't dangerous unless the emitter is inside you, and beta radiation is dangerous if the emitter is right next to your skin. Gamma radiation will mess with you if you're exposed to it for a long period of time. If most of the bits and pieces of radioactive material can be gathered and taken care of, well, I don't know what would happen. There would probably be no lasting radiation, but that's just me speculating. Also, how much does a dirty bomb "radiate?" For example, lets say it increases the background radiation to twice that of normal. Does that sound bad? Well, I hope not, because that's what happens whenever you get in bed with someone...

[alanschu]

Um, invading a country that's harbouring terrorists isn't going to do anything. They'll just spring up again. Get ahold of their finances however, and it'll be harder for them. I highly doubt that the Americans are going to invade Saudi Arabia anytime soon though...

 

I wasn't the one that said invading other countries is the action to take.

[draakh_kimera]

And you didn't imply it either, did you?

[alanschu]

And you didn't imply it either, did you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Nope. Look at the post that I was responding to:

 

 

That's not what SP was talking about. You can't get every single one of them without commiting genocide. And that is obviously not acceptable. But you can minimize their operative capacities by shutting down the governments that support them. As long as there is violence there will be terrorism, and violence is a natural tendency of man.

 

My question was more a jab at why was Iraq invaded when I had heard so much bad news about Syria before Iraq was even invaded.

[E_Motion]

In most instances, the conventional explosive itself would have more immediate lethality than the radioactive material. At the levels created by most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present in a dirty bomb to kill people or cause severe illness. For example, most radioactive material employed in hospitals for diagnosis or treatment of cancer is sufficiently benign that about 100,000 patients a day are released with this material in their bodies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"In most instances"... Does that solve the problem for you? It doesn't for me.

[draakh_kimera]

And you didn't imply it either, did you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Nope. Look at the post that I was responding to:

 

 

That's not what SP was talking about. You can't get every single one of them without commiting genocide. And that is obviously not acceptable. But you can minimize their operative capacities by shutting down the governments that support them. As long as there is violence there will be terrorism, and violence is a natural tendency of man.

 

My question was more a jab at why was Iraq invaded when I had heard so much bad news about Syria before Iraq was even invaded.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In that case, my apologies. Maybe I should read more closely

[alanschu]

It could be an "in most instances" comment since there's always avenues that were not tested. However, that does not mean that those avenues would have more lethality either. Even if you checked 99.999999999% of the methods, you'd still use "in most instances."

 

 

In most instances, gravity will pull you down :D

[E_Motion]

It could be an "in most instances" comment since there's always avenues that were not tested.  However, that does not mean that those avenues would have more lethality either.  Even if you checked 99.999999999% of the methods, you'd still use "in most instances."

 

 

In most instances, gravity will pull you down :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Most" merely means 51 out of 100. Believe me, if they had meant "In an overwhelming majority of cases", or "In nearly every case" or "In virtually all cases", they would have said that. But they only said "most". Not comforting at all.

[alanschu]

Most is anything from 50%+1 to 100%-1

[E_Motion]

Most is anything from 50%+1 to 100%-1

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mathematically correct, but misleading from the standpoint of precision in writing. In terms of a conclusion in a technical report, "most" isn't strong. Would you fly on an airlines that tells you, "Most of the time, we don't crash."?

[Walsingham]

Back now.

 

The issue with a dirty bomb is not the radioactivity. It is the word 'radioactive'. How many people would visit New York if they thought it was radioactive? How many people would buy French wine if they thought it was radioactive? It's a political weapon. It's a terror weapon. Radiation, and its effects are scarier in the public consciousness than any sized explosion.

 

The answer IMO is that terrorism is not Al Qaeda, terrorism is not the IRA, it is not Nepalese Maoists. It is a strategy. You can't kill terrorism any more than you can kill socialism. It is here to stay, and the reason we are seeing more of it is that it is seen as an effective means of getting things done.

 

Accepting that terrorism is here to stay, we have to ask if we are willing to listen patiently and negotiate over the demands of every nitwit who can build a bomb. Because if we do we are going to be negotiating with a lot of people. And the numbers will increase.

 

The alternative is to accept that a complex high energy system like modern democratic society is inherently vulnerable. But it is also remarkably tough, and capable, when its members are focussed on a goal. We can aim to stay one step ahead, for the most part. Investigating, trapping, trying, and incarcerating those who are guilty of pursuing terrorism as they arise. We refuse to be terrorised, and we refuse to quit.

 

I'm with most everyone here in supporting the notion of justice and mutual respect for human rights. If we could establish free just societies around the world we would have less militancy in general. But it won't make everyone shiny happy people, even if we ever do get round to it.

[Darth Flatus]

[alanschu]

Most is anything from 50%+1 to 100%-1

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mathematically correct, but misleading from the standpoint of precision in writing. In terms of a conclusion in a technical report, "most" isn't strong. Would you fly on an airlines that tells you, "Most of the time, we don't crash."?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not any less than if the airline report said "We can say with that we don't crash an overwhelmingly majority of the time."

 

 

Since you're analyzing it so deeply though, when is most no longer "most," but more "overwhelmingly majority" or something else so to speak? Furthermore, what if someone disagrees with your interpretation, or your interpretation isn't as known so someone uses it under a different standing? Is 80% most? 90%? 95%?

[E_Motion]

Most is anything from 50%+1 to 100%-1

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mathematically correct, but misleading from the standpoint of precision in writing. In terms of a conclusion in a technical report, "most" isn't strong. Would you fly on an airlines that tells you, "Most of the time, we don't crash."?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not any less than if the airline report said "We can say with that we don't crash an overwhelmingly majority of the time."

 

 

Since you're analyzing it so deeply though, when is most no longer "most," but more "overwhelmingly majority" or something else so to speak? Furthermore, what if someone disagrees with your interpretation, or your interpretation isn't as known so someone uses it under a different standing? Is 80% most? 90%? 95%?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you really want to know, and not just argue, just get a copy of that report and read the whole thing. I can assure you from the language of the conclusion that the entire report will include discussions with real percentages. The summary, on the other hand, is an attempt to put the report into layman's language. Believe what you want, but in the world of technical writing, "most instances" means a majority and nothing more. It isn't a comforting thing.

[Atreides]

They were dirty in the sense that in those early days, building an efficient nuclear weapon wasn't possible. Those bombs were huge. And they were detonated above ground (i.e., in the air above the targets).  Chernobyl is a city in a portion of the former Soviet Union that suffered a terrible and tragic disaster from a "breeder" nuclear reactor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually detonating above ground causes more damage than if it was on ground level - that's what they showed on Discovery when they were covering the Nagasaki bombings.

 

Basically, if it's on the ground the force of the explosion spreads horizontally and upwards. The downward force is mostly confined to creating a crator directly below the bomb. If the bomb explodes while suspended, the downward force is more spread out across the target. I'm sure there's a height that maximises the damage tradeoff. And yes, they were aware of this effect during that time.

[alanschu]

Most is anything from 50%+1 to 100%-1

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mathematically correct, but misleading from the standpoint of precision in writing. In terms of a conclusion in a technical report, "most" isn't strong. Would you fly on an airlines that tells you, "Most of the time, we don't crash."?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not any less than if the airline report said "We can say with that we don't crash an overwhelmingly majority of the time."

 

 

Since you're analyzing it so deeply though, when is most no longer "most," but more "overwhelmingly majority" or something else so to speak? Furthermore, what if someone disagrees with your interpretation, or your interpretation isn't as known so someone uses it under a different standing? Is 80% most? 90%? 95%?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you really want to know, and not just argue, just get a copy of that report and read the whole thing. I can assure you from the language of the conclusion that the entire report will include discussions with real percentages. The summary, on the other hand, is an attempt to put the report into layman's language. Believe what you want, but in the world of technical writing, "most instances" means a majority and nothing more. It isn't a comforting thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Where can I get it?

[Child of Flame]

Have the bus bombs been confirmed yet? Because I've got an internet friend, whose brother's sister's friend's pastor says he totally saw a double decker bus go all essplodey.

[Atreides]

There definitely was a bombed bus - saw footage of a double decker with the top ripped off.

[Child of Flame]

Damn, wish I wasn't o'er at that Bible study earlier, that joke would have worked so much better before the bus bombs were actually confirmed. "

 

I do have something to contribute on the discussion of relative 'safety' of low yield nuclear materials though.

 

 

(Click the smilies, you know you wanna!)

[Child of Flame]

Also.

 

Monkeysphere!

[EnderAndrew]

Um, invading a country that's harbouring terrorists isn't going to do anything.  They'll just spring up again.  Get ahold of their finances however, and it'll be harder for them.  I highly doubt that the Americans are going to invade Saudi Arabia anytime soon though...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most of the Middle East doesn't care for the US, not I doubt most people in the Middle East actually truly support terrorism.

 

The UAE, pushed forward by Saudi's crown Prince, tried to get Saddam to step down so the US wouldn't invade Iraq in the first place. The United States actually has a pretty good rapport with Saudi, including a military base in Saudi that doesn't gets targetted by terrorists the way our troops do in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

I imagine some of the fundamentalists understand that if they attacked from Saudi, we'd go into Saudi and I don't think they want to risk losing Mecca to an American occupation.

[Darth Flatus]

What? Saudi Arabia isnt a "failed" state, any invasion would correctly be seen as an act of war.

 

 

As for draakh's comments ummm if iyesterday's attacks does turn out to have an islamsit connection then the only place we would invade is where we live.

[SteveThaiBinh]

What? Saudi Arabia isnt a "failed" state, any invasion would correctly be seen as an act of war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the terrorists put the effort into destabilising Saudi Arabia that they're currently putting into Iraq, it might become a failed state. It's hard to be sure, though - with as repressive a regime as exists in Saudi Arabia, accurately gauging public support for the regime or the system is difficult.

[EnderAndrew]

Given that Syria openly backs terrorists, I think the UN should seriously look at taking action in Syria.

[EnderAndrew]

If we are imperialists, and we secretly control all these countries (like we secretly controlled Iraq when he helped put Saddam in power to fight Iran) then why do the countries we control take anti-PC policies?

 

We don't secrelty control the world. We're not imperialists.