My father has mentioned the Texas City incident a few times while growing up (he grew up in Galveston). He remembers that it basically dissappeared in a giant fireball, and there was never an explanation.
So of course I'l send him these links.
-TD
From: Thomas Shaddack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: cypherpunks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:55:17 +0100 (CET)
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Tim May wrote:
> Having seen Vietnam (the war, not the country), and having seen today's > media frenzies and rampant consumerism, I think American resolve will > fold if 5000 deaths of Americans occur in Iraq.
There is no solid American resolve. Most of the "yes" voices are backed by the thinking that what the current Authority says has to be Good Thing. It shouldn't take much to make them doubt; once then, the already-weak resolve will crumble to shards.
> The 100 or so deaths of Americans in 1991 was tolerable, but anything > approaching the multiple thousands will trigger a paroxysm of "Why are > we there?" and "Congress never authorized this!" and "Bring our boys > home" sentiments.
The sooner, the better. Hope it won't be TOO late.
> (And yet South Korean students and others are spitting on U.S. > soldiers, yammering about "U.S. out of Korea!," etc. I say we give them > their wish. Ditto for Germany, Italy, and the rest of Europe.
...and my government is pondering to offer them a whole base with an airport... *sigh* Russians out, Americans in, change the flag, continue bowing.
> > It's hardly implausible to believe I might survive a 1 kiloton nuclear > > blast, about what the "Davy Crockett" U.S. nuke, at around 50 lbs, > > provided. It makes sense to think that Soviet suitcase nukes have a > > similar yield.
Quite easily. The blast wave, if the explosion would be on the ground, will be greatly attenuated by the surrounding structures. Lots of nonfatal but medially attractive bloody injuries by flying glass, though.
> > The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were closer to 12-23 kilotons, > > according to one source (http://www.danford.net/hiroshim.htm), and > > there supposedly was a 50 percent survival rate at 1/8 of a mile from > > ground zero -- while the bomb went off above ground as opposed to on > > the ground.
We shouldn't forget the targets were selected for their softness. Lots of mostly wooden buildings, easy to incinerate, easy to crush with the blast wave. The buildings that were built from solid concrete mostly survived, though damaged; that one with the well-known dome (I think it's a museum now) was, by the way, designed by a Czech architect. (We have a dome with the same construction in Prague, though the building itself is different.)
We also shouldn't forget that there were countless nameless similar Japanese towns firebombed into oblivion, but Hiroshima took all the fame, despite of no bigger degree of destruction.
> A novel I read a few years ago is quite prescient: Osama Bin Laden > sends a freighter into San Francisco harbor with a Russian suitcase > nuke. Here's the blurb for "Joshua's Hammer," David Hagberg, August > 2000 (first mass market June 2001...I must have read it soon after the > paperback came out, as I remembered the novel when 911 happened):
If you want to sacrifice a cargo ship, you can use plain old ammonium nitrate, which is cheaper than a nuke (including the ship) and doesn't expose you to radiation detectors and gamma cameras. There are precedents to study.
Check April 16 1947, Texas City, TX: http://www.rmstitanichistory.com/grandcamp/grandcamp.html http://www.firefightersrealstories.com/monsanto.html http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?isbn=0060185414 (surprising piece of info was that the US Government was shipping NH4NO3 from Europe, then became moving it through Texas City port, without telling the locals about the danger of the substance, hence keeping them unprepared (and unprotesting - neighbouring ports who knew the material properties reportedly banned the ships carrying them).
For more general link, check http://web1.caryacademy.org/chemistry/rushin/StudentProjects/CompoundWebSites/2001/AmmoniumNitrate/history.htm (especially juicy is the bit about how the explosive properties of ammonium nitrate were discovered by accident, in the first paragraph).
Or this: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1138.htm Mentions an accidental explosion in the city of Roseburg, OR, 1959.
Many more accidents mentioned here: http://www.uneptie.org/pc/apell/disasters/toulouse/other_accidents.htm
Who needs nukes? Who *wants* nukes?
The cheapest way for a terrorist group will be to wait until a snafu happens, then take the blame. The news will widely report it was a terrorist attack on front pages. Couple days/weeks/months later, when it will turn out that it was just a technological failure, the report appears on fifth pages of the news. Most of the headlines-scanning public will still believe it was an attack. You don't need to KILL in order to make the public quiver in fear.
> (Having seen horrendous traffic on the Beltway a couple of years ago, > this may be worse!)
A few strategically placed and timed traffic accidents can cripple the city traffic to quite large extent. Can be an attack on its own, or can serve as an amplification of another attack.
> > The U.S. would soon become accustomed to living in the same state of > > seige and constant surveillance that Israel enjoys. And watch what > > Congress will do to preserve our freedoms by giving more power to the > > FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.
Whatever happens - PLEASE don't export it to Europe!!!
>> No more Rose Garden press conferences after the first wave of the >> attack occurs, I'd wager.
...and no more model airplanes.
> A readily-available RC-controlled plane could disperse biological > agents easily. (Some research would be needed on aerosolizing, > patterns, wind, etc. Much of this information has leaked out of Fort > Dedrick over the past several decades.)
Quite nontrivial. Either you hit too small area, or you get the agent too diluted, or you have to use too big plane.
> An open society like the U.S., with free travel and without an > ever-present police force, should not be trying to be the world's cop, > thus guaranteeing that we piss off at least _some_ people.
Are you sure The Wise Government wants the U.S. to be an open society with free travel and without an ever-present police force?
> I'm convinced that if the U.S. were libertarian, even libertine, that > many Muslims would think of us as corrupt... but I don't think much > organized effort would be directed against us.
This could improve the global situation quite a lot. There will be an occassional nutcase, Unabomber being an example, but they will find it hard to find more people to support their pet cause. Of course, it apparently isn't the right approach, at least according to the actions of our Wise Governments.
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
