Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.
RJ: Why would it [a nuclear weapon] be harder to get in than a planeload of drugs?warisproduct: First, a nuke is much harder to get.I agree, but that doesn't answer the question. Rick supposes that obtaining a nuke is comparatively feasible, and the hard step is getting it into the country. I don't see why.warisproduct: Second, most drug smugglers have insider connections which allow them to bypass satellites. A nuclear smuggler may pose as a drug dealer to make the necessary connections, but no one in the NSA is going to give out info to someone carrying a nuclear device.That makes no sense. If most drug smugglers are privy to when satellites are passing over (which I don't necessarily believe) then the terrorist just has to find some drug smuggler and pay them for that information.Anyway, I think you're giving too much credit to satellites.warisproduct: Third, isn't radioactive material a lot easier to find than cocaine?Apples and oranges. You need different tools to find cocaine and radioactive material. I suspect our customs service has more drug-sniffing dogs and chemical-explosive-sniffing dogs and relatively few plutonium-sniffing dogs (or electronic equivalents) but I'm guessing about that.warisproduct: Can't we see this from space?No. Plutonium-239, for example, is primarily an alpha emitter, and because alpha particles are charged and massive, they're very easily blocked. So it's far from trivial to detect from outside whether a cardboard box has plutonium in it. You'd have to open the box, or probe it with X-rays or some other radiation of your own. Can't do that from three hundred miles up.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |