[Booger]

Actually the more I think about it, which is more likely? A Muslim terrorist nuking a US city in revenge for the slaughter of his brethren around the globe by America, or Peak Oil? Surely a nuking of NYC will ruin our economy, reduce our oil consumption significantly, and make us a second rate power for time eternal. Perfect solution to the consumption crisis, and perfect revenge for the pain and suffering we have caused and continue to cause. Revenge of the third world for all the puppet dictatorships who we propped up, whose sole purpose was to award us their nation's mineral resources.

[trespam]

You know what? I'm the first to admit the US is not blamefree. But a nuke on NYC? At least pick a Red state my good man. Man oh man.

Tell you what: Let's take a longer time frame. Over the next 20 years, the US economy--with unsustainable debt and increasing energy prices--is going to be hit with the equivalent of a nuclear warhead. So patience my good friend. We'll get our payback. And the rest of the world will go along for the ride.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Booger', 'A')ctually the more I think about it, which is more likely? A Muslim terrorist nuking a US city in revenge for the slaughter of his brethren around the globe by America, or Peak Oil? Surely a nuking of NYC will ruin our economy, reduce our oil consumption significantly, and make us a second rate power for time eternal. Perfect solution to the consumption crisis, and perfect revenge for the pain and suffering we have caused and continue to cause. Revenge of the third world for all the puppet dictatorships who we propped up, whose sole purpose was to award us their nation's mineral resources.

[nero]

The response to a terrorist nuclear bomb on the US would be terrifying. I think the draft and suspension of the constitution are not out of the question in that event.

One atomic bomb, however, would not wreck the American economy. It would have to be one of those monster hydrogen bombs to directly effect the overall economy. Yes a smaller fission bomb would indirectly damage the economy through knock on effects, costs of the cleanup, cost of increased security and change in consumer priorities but we already have a sense of those indirect costs because of the experience of 911.

[trespam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '
')Nonetheless, the results may not be as expected. The U.S. had plans in place to deal with a full nuclear exchange during the Soviet era - and survive intact as a first rate power. Perhaps such an attack would focus our national will and encourage us to deal more proactively with the existing threats.

[Concerned]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he U.S. had plans in place to deal with a full nuclear exchange during the Soviet era

[BastardSquad]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he U.S. had plans in place to deal with a full nuclear exchange during the Soviet era

[Marco]

Actually,

some of the crazies at the Pentagon think they can 'win' a limited nuclear war. Straightjacket time gentlemen. By placing American nukes in Europe in the eighties they thought they could launch from there and hit Russian targets. The Ruskies would then only retaliate by turning Europe into an ashtray and leave the US alone. Suuure.

The US planners still think they can fight a 'limited nuclear war', and 'win'.

9-11 was an inside job for sure- so the likely 'terrorists' would be American ones. I think NYC is a target- but lets not leave out the 'twin cities' scenario. Any strike like this would bring down the US economy.

regards Marco

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BastardSquad', '
')
I don't know how true this is,but I've heard several people say that if the bad guys had half a brain and really wanted to f**k the economy up they'd have hit the new york stock exchange. Anyone know if there's any truth to that?If it is true then a nuke in NYC would be very,very,very bad.

[Specop_007]

Lets not forget about that big ass Ruskie ship-bomb. They said it was so big it would have cracked the core of the Earth. Yay for big bombs!!

I htink it was more rumor then anything though. Who knows?

[0mar]

I don't think you could crack the crust unless it was at a very weak spot.

The largest bomb ever made was the Tsar bomb (ironic considering what the Blosheviks overthrew). I think it made for 50 megatons and a few 100 megaton bombs were made as well.

That would vape a good mile radius though.

[Booger]

The bomb would most likely be an atomic, not hydrogen bomb. Smaller in size, and less complex. The reason NYC would be chosen would be that it has high population density, it is an important financial center, and it is home to the largest Jewish population on earth. Prevailing winds would carry radioactive material into the lungs of millions of other souls living up and down the eastern seaboard.

DC would be another bet, and Moscow yet another. But none are as juicy as NYC, and the Muslims seem to keep attacking there, and only there.

It's only a matter of time with our current foreign policy. Thanks Bush!

[trespam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Booger', 'T')he bomb would most likely be an atomic, not hydrogen bomb. Smaller in size, and less complex. The reason NYC would be chosen would be that it has high population density, it is an important financial center, and it is home to the largest Jewish population on earth. Prevailing winds would carry radioactive material into the lungs of millions of other souls living up and down the eastern seaboard.

DC would be another bet, and Moscow yet another. But none are as juicy as NYC, and the Muslims seem to keep attacking there, and only there.

It's only a matter of time with our current foreign policy. Thanks Bush!

[rerere]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Booger', ' ')But none are as juicy as NYC, and the Muslims seem to keep attacking there, and only there.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
Rather than witnessing peak oil supply or oil scarcity, we are now seeing a flood of new oil supplies across the world. Rather than worrying about where all the oil we will need in the future is going to come from, we are now talking about when global oil demand will peak. The timing of this is impossible to predict but what is clear is that we are entering the era of abundant oil and that is a paradigm shift for the whole energy industry as well as global geopolitics. Peak oil used to be seen as the point in time when the production of oil would reach a maximum before starting to decline. This would happen because new oil supplies were impossible or too expensive to be extracted and the general view was that, once the point of .

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', 'e')ntering the era of abundant oil...

[onlooker]

haha
Era of Abundant Oil. Right. And Santa Claus delivers presents every Christmas.
When, we are trying to attain Oil from ever more inaccessible and remote locations and when the Shale Fracking is a money loser whereby talk is of certain "sweet spots" and of rapidly depleting wells and reserves. Just because technology is allowing more formerly inaccessible oil to come online is necessarily a plus when ever more energy is needed to access energy.
Because then the point is reached when it takes more energy to access a given amount of energy than is derived from it. Game over. But tell yourselves your nightly feel good stories all you want if that is to your liking.