Video: Dean Barnett on suitcase nukes and “24”
posted at 10:24 pm on January 27, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
I’ve watched this three times and I still can’t quite make out what DB’s saying through that thick-as-chowder Boston accent. It sounds like some sort of pidgin Klingon.
Any readers here from New England able to decipher? We could probably wring a workable translation out of someone from Providence.
Just kidding. He did a nice job.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
haha I understood every word DB said…there’s another accent mixed in there too…Irish
JetBoy on January 27, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Underestimating our enemy is very foolish and as have already been proven, deadly.
Prepare for the worst and be damn grateful if and when it doesn’t happen.
Speakup on January 27, 2007 at 11:03 PM
And then Los Angeles gets chased by wolves!
Savage on January 27, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Hey, I listen to “Cah Tahwk” enough to be able to translate Bahwston to English…
Heidi Theiss comes off as clueless when she talks about a “blast of radiation” from a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb doesn’t “blast radiation”, it disperses fissile material that is radioactive, (emitting radiation on an ongoing basis) by means of a conventional explosion. Depending on the material in question, it can be really nasty (Litvinenko). But generally, there is an inverse relationship between the radioactivity of a particular isotope and the length of its half-life. Short half-life means less window of opportunity to actually use it.
“International Affairs Expert” maybe, but definitely not “Weapons Expert”. But, just like the Global Warming crowd, and Stephen King (who could also probably translate Bahwston to English), you can make a living out of scaring people.
The Monster on January 27, 2007 at 11:17 PM
’suitcase nukes’ are as real as Carmen Electra’s ta-tas
Janos Hunyadi on January 27, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Heidi Theiss is an “Int’l Affairs Expert” as much as I am a brain surgeon.
Bomb Doctor on January 27, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Just ’cause it’s the weekend…a little bah-ston humor Simpsons-style
JetBoy on January 27, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Actually if an atomic weapon were detonated in Los Angeles, Mexico would be very angry having been attacked like that.
They would be especially mad because Al Qaeda and Hezbollah have operated freely there.
They would probably expect a detonation on an area of the US not Mexico.
Speakup on January 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Mmmmmm Carmen…I mean…sorry…
EnochCain on January 27, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Well, it would take a big suitcase, but 74 pound “Backpack Nukes” existed more than 40 years ago.
Look up W54 and SADM on the internet.
Also look up the Davy Crockett warhead.
Since then, I’d imagine that they have found ways to make them even smaller and possibly more powerful.
I’m less familiar with Soviet made small nukes, but WE definitely had them, and to think that they don’t and can’t exist is pure foolishness.
LegendHasIt on January 28, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Nothing to see here folks, go about your business……….
Move along now, nothing to see, go back to sleep sheeple, baaaaaaaa…. nothing to see.
No threat, what so ever, there was never a Soviet Union that wanted to pound us into dust, but since they ould not match our military, they only infiltrated our schools as learnered professors………
Nothing to see…….. Iran is a peaceful country with no former or current ties to the current peoples country of Russia, Republic of……
Nor Syria, Republic of…..
Nor North Koria, Republic of….
Go on, about your Peace Protests…….. listen to your MSM, and Democrat Party, it’s all President Bush fault, nothing to see, keep moving, keep moving……..
You have the Super Bowl to worry about, nothing to see, there is no threat, it’s all a NeoCon conspiracy, just listen to Michal Moore……….
Move along folks…. here is the handout from the “Peace March”, please note the comments from Jane Fonda…… keep walking towards the Mosque….
Nothing to see, keep moving, keep moving………. BOOM.
PinkyBigglesworth on January 28, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Let me see your identification.
You don’t need to see his identification.
We don’t need to see his identification.
These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.
These aren’t the droids we’re looking for.
He can go about his business.
You can go about your business.
Move along.
Move along… move along.
AZPatriot on January 28, 2007 at 1:21 AM
I think the thick accent helps to shield his true intent. Let’s learn from this.
thedecider on January 28, 2007 at 1:32 AM
Okay, then, Carmen Electra’s ta-tas are sheer foolishness
Everybody wants to quibble tonight: Okay, if you see a mook staggering down the boulevard underneath an 80 lb footlocker ( arming device not included ), BE AFRAID,,,,,,BE VERY AFRAID
Janos Hunyadi on January 28, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Kasich may not be “convinced” that breif-case nuclear devices aren’t ‘currently’ a threat, but I disagree. We’ll be as dumbfounded as we were on 9/11 when one goes off, but it’s not like we weren’t warned.
thedecider on January 28, 2007 at 2:25 AM
…but suitcase nukes are real,
…and THEY ARE MAGNIFICENT!
CyberCipher on January 28, 2007 at 3:06 AM
Sorry AP, but I have to disagree with your assesment of the job Dean Barnett did.
While they may not be the size of a suitcase, they were most definitely developed into a bacpack size. I direct your attention to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition Also, conduct your own Google search of the material.
As LegendHasIt has already pointed out, the W-54 SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition) did/does in fact exist in the U.S. arsenal. They were developed in the late 60s.
Two things should be noted.
1. If we figured out how to create them you can be sure the Soviet Union did too.
2. With current technology if they were still being developed they could certainly be smaller, more powerful, and more portable.
So, for Mr. Barnett to immediately outright discount them as “Urban Myth,” “Tall Tales,” “Internet Myths,” and “no likelihood that it could be reality,” is just foolhardy, and frankly pretty damn stupid and irresponsible.
Another thing he says is that they were the size of “three steamship trunks.” That’s not true either.
It’s apparent that Mr. Barnett is definitely not an expert on the subject and certainly shouldn’t have been making the claims that he did.
V5
V5 on January 28, 2007 at 4:13 AM
.
One steamship trunk–and you mean ’steamer trunk’? A back-pack the size of a steamer trunk? They still have steamship/steamer trunks nowadays?
I thought Carmen and I cleared this up already. Apparently some earnest souls do not know the diff. between a ‘prototype’ and a field-tested, operational weapon–one that doesn’t just look snazzy enough on graph paper to get funding, but actually GOES BOOM!!!
Janos Hunyadi on January 28, 2007 at 4:30 AM
Tonight, … last night, as you all slept,…..
Thousands, of illegal aliens crossed into our southern border undetected………. and instead of some being raped or left to die in the desert, all they had to do was carry “something”.
Not all were coming across just to do “the jobs Americans won’t do”. Some were trying to escape the never ending oppression and corruption, in a chance to live a better life, or just to rejoin thier families.
Others, and the facts show this to be true, were drug runners, rapists, child molesters, gang memebers, and many, many OTM’s {Other Than Mexicans} going back after being deported…..
Just one could have carried a battery pack, another a BNC to N {type} connector cable, another one, half of a lead housing, another, the other half, still more…. just small amounts of TNT, that if put together would resemble a soccer ball, specifically shaped, but small, none the less…. another a large thermos, with the internal lining encasing a small, but leathal amount of plutonium………. Thousands…….. get it?
Not one suspect, whom once caught, ICE could parade before the media, but thousands with small packages, instructions where to leave it, and some money to get them on their way, along with their lives….
Just enough to make sure that when the time is right, there is a supply chain of willing individuals that don’t know what thier role is in the big picture, they are just “mules”.
Don’t think so? Have you seen some of the trash and other “items” that have been left and found along the southern border????
I live on the southern border. I used to carry a side arm and took an oath. This is no fictional story line for a TV show, this is reality…..
We have been shouting on top of the mountains, ringing the Klaxon for years, and still from Washington…………. {crickets chirping}.
For wanting to protect my country, the lives of my family, and of my friends, I have been, well let’s just say….. left to my own.
It might not be a Soviet suitcase, but I tell you, the stuff they are finding and doesn’t make CNN makes you want to look at our government and say “WTF?”
But I sleep better tonight, knowing that Nancy Pelosi, the “swimmer”, Mr. Reid, the “pink pant suit”, and the “waffler”, etc. are on the job…..
Just because it is not documented in an offical government report, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist……… other than the “magic bullet”… or Able Danger…. or Jamie Garellick….. or….. sloppy, sloppy, sloppy Burgler.
PinkyBigglesworth on January 28, 2007 at 5:29 AM
LegendHasIt, ya beat me too it.
If you can think of it, it can be done. Just ask Jules Vern and Leonardo Da Vinci.
- The Cat
MirCat on January 28, 2007 at 7:14 AM
I like how the host is skeptical that a nuclear bomb can be so small.
Well I have a question for him… just how big does he imagine they are or should be?
From my understanding you have a compact core surrounded by enough something to cause a chain reaction… how big cn taht possibly be
VinceP1974 on January 28, 2007 at 7:31 AM
I clearly heard r’s being pronounced. That wasn’t a Boston accent. Sorry. I can’t hep with the translation. I need to go staht my cah! It’s cols heah!
LonelyMassRepublican on January 28, 2007 at 7:37 AM
I have never seen Dean Barnett before but his comments prove he is a tool. There are several sources, totally unclassified, you can look at showing that the U.S. Army had, indeed, developed compact, man-transportable nuclear weapons back in the 1960’s. In fact I used to use these sources—one was a pictorial pamphlet the Army put out each year highlighting its weapons inventory i.e. tanks, howitzers, infantry weapons—that used to be up on the internet. There were basic fact sheets and pictures of each weapon and two of the weapons profiled were man portable atomic demolition munitions, code names MADM and SADM and the old Davy Crocket weapon system warhead was profiled too. As I recall MADM and SADM were gun type ADMs with a yield in the low Kt range and weighed somewhere between 60-80 pounds, so they could be backpacked in to a detonation site by a large, well-conditioned soldier. The other publication that listed and discussed these particular atomic demolition munitions was a profile of the U.S. nuclear arsenal by William Arkin. The U.S. retired these weapons long ago but, they did exist.
As for the Russians, they are notorious for sloppy record keeping and laxity in keeping track of and protecting their nuclear weapons and materials. Their “suitcase nukes” were for use by their special forces, the Spetznaz.. I can well believe that in the chaos of the disintegration of the old U.S.S.R. some of these suitcase nukes disappeared.
Sam on January 28, 2007 at 9:32 AM
Janos and any other deniers:
Here is a photo of a jump container/ backpack of one. Note the size compared to the small fire extinguisher.
http://www.az123.com/SADM.jpg
Not only did they exist, but they were tested at least twice and they worked as intended.
LegendHasIt on January 28, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Dude. You under 40 guys need to know something: that lame-ass goatee look went out about an hour after it came in 20 years ago. And these little under-the-jaw-line beards? Same.
You all look like 20 year philosophy majors trying to hit on cheerleaders. Ain’t. Happening. Get. A. Shave.
Jaibones on January 28, 2007 at 11:46 AM
“Everything that can be invented has been invented.”
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899
Limerick on January 28, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Correction
Janos Hunyadi,
Yes, I meant “steamer trunks” and not “steamship trunks.” My bad on the misquote.
But, while I made a simple writing error, I’m not ignorant of the real world facts that these things did and do exist. Contrary to your assertion that they don’t – or were untested prototypes – they were actually tested and in the U.S. Arsenal until the late ’80s. If we had them you can be sure the Russians did.
Sorry to say Janos, but your claims hold about as much water as a sieve. I actually hope that you were just being snarky.
V5
V5 on January 28, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Three steamer trunks Dean?
How does a moderin Bostonian with moderin facial hair not know wicked Wiki?
Stephen M on January 28, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Happy to oblige. What can I say? Ahhm a givah!
The gist of it is that Jack Bauer can save America, but he’s going to need Curt Schilling in the Senate to do it.
Pablo on January 28, 2007 at 12:50 PM
As a person who has both built and maintained nuclear weapons both Mr. Barnett and Ms Theiss have some correct points. There are no briefcase sized nukes. The yield from a properly shielded package that small could take out a house but would need to be re-machined just prior to use. The chips from the machining are so hot they would be visible from outerspace and will kill the machinist if done with regular lathes and mills. There are nukes about half the size of a 55 gallon drum with a ten kiloton yield that take a two man team to handle. One would take out a city block and the radiation spread would be lethal to thousands. If you did try to set one off with a new trigger without re-machining it would start a very nasty, lethal fire. When the fire department tried to extinguish it, they would spread a lot of radiation and certainly kill all the firefighters and a lot of people close by. Think a small Chernobyl.
Beto Ochoa on January 28, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Anyone notice the girl has Pelosi Disease?
lsutiger on January 28, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Isutiger, yeah, what can I say? I’d never done anything like that before and I was nervous as hell. I’m just relieved I didn’t fall off the little barstool I was perched on.
The Monster said: “Heidi Theiss comes off as clueless when she talks about a “blast of radiation” from a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb doesn’t “blast radiation”, it disperses fissile material that is radioactive”
You are absolutely correctinvestigative report done in a round-table style debate, so I thought it would be much longer and more involed. How do you cover the complexity of nukes in 2.5 minutes? I didn’t realize it was really meant as a opinion piece – which is exactly all Barnett and Kasich had to say about it – their opinions, minues facts.
Ah well…live and learn.
Redhead Infidel on January 28, 2007 at 2:19 PM
My above comment had an extra tag in it so it skipped the middle paragraph to monster. Hhere it is in its entirety:
Isutiger, yeah, what can I say? I’d never done anything like that before and I was nervous as hell. I’m just relieved I didn’t fall off the little barstool I was perched on.
The Monster said: “Heidi Theiss comes off as clueless when she talks about a “blast of radiation” from a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb doesn’t “blast radiation”, it disperses fissile material that is radioactive”
You are absolutely correct, Monster, and I almost DID fall off my stool kicking myself at that point. I meant to say a “blast of radioactive material” but I mangled it. Have you ever said something and as soon as it was out of your mouth you were like, “Ohhhh, no, that’s not what I meant!” I felt like that last night times ten.
The segment was pitched to me as an investigative report done in a round-table style debate, so I thought it would be much longer and more involed. How do you cover the complexity of nukes in 2.5 minutes? I didn’t realize it was really meant as a opinion piece – which is exactly all Barnett and Kasich had to say about it – their opinions, minues facts.
Ah well…live and learn.
Redhead Infidel on January 28, 2007 at 2:20 PM
I have no idea who this “Dean Barnett” is, but he obviously does not have a clue about anything he is talking about.
Just one example: “The radiological material in these devices decays, and if it is not updated and replaced every six months, the device becomes useless.”
Fact: The half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,110 years (source: Wikipedia); the half-life of uranium-235 is 7.038×10^8 years (703,800,000 years; source: again, Wikipedia). This is something even a high-school physics class teaches. Does this guy think that every nuclear weapon in the world (U.S., Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, etc.) is re-made every six months?
The fact that Fox News is using someone like this as an ‘expert’ really drops their credibility level in my eyes.
rmgraha on January 28, 2007 at 2:36 PM
He misstates the case. Fissile material swells up and must be re-machined to specific dimensions
or it will not achieve critical mass. Not so often in implosion type uranium weapons as in the gun type plutonium device.
As a matter of fact they are re-machined regularly.
Beto Ochoa on January 28, 2007 at 3:14 PM
As I understand it, nuclear weapons contain a extraordinarily precisely formed multi-part plutonium “pit” that is the key to successful detonation. Over time these pits are deformed by the radioactive decay of the plutonium and eventually the weapon will no longer detonate. Thus, such “pits” have to be replaced every so often. So, if a terrorist acquired an old “suitcase nuke” its “pit” would probably have to be replaced for it to detonate.
Anyone want to bet a city that Russian weapons scientists–who used to be a highly paid, privaleged elite in the old U.S.S.R., but who can barely feed their families these days–wouldn’t be tempted to do a little rehab work if the price were right?
Sam on January 28, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Re; What Sam and Beto Ochoa wrote above:
That’s why the computer controlled multi-axis milling machines needed to perfectly mill and reform the “pit” are a heavily monitored/controlled item. However, who knows how many of them from the French, Germans, Russians, and other technologically advanced countries have been sold or stolen.
V5
V5 on January 28, 2007 at 3:55 PM
I thought (briefly) about commenting on your first post, but decided against it. It was pretty clear from that post that you were, perhaps, stretching the truth a little bit. You “both built and maintained nuclear weapons” nuclear weapons? Where did you work? Los Alamos National Lab? Lawrence Livermore National Lab? The Pantex Plant, which, by the way, is the only place in the U.S. where nuclear weapons are assembled and disassembled? Probably not, since your comments clearly show you do not have a very good grasp of nuclear weapons components.
While it is true that the NW pits do not last forever, their lifetimes are measured in decades, not months. Next, the pits are not “re-machined periodically,” they are re-manufactured. Also, while there are limited-life components in nuclear weapons, they are not replace every six months as you imply, but on a time scale much longer than that.
You may want to apply for a job at Fox News; Since Barnett was able to get on the air, you should be able to also.
rmgraha on January 28, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Bomb Doctor, I did not select how they labeled me. They merely got that from my bio that International Affairs was my background. In fact, I would’ve much preferred that they put my website url under my name, as they did for Dean. I wass disappointed to discover that they didn’t.
And Monster, in my own defense, I never claimed to be a weapons expert and that’s not what I was there for. I was supposedly there to address nuclear proliferation among terror groups. So much for that, eh?
I’ve posted here what I thought I’d be able to say last night about terrorism’s nuclear proliferation. Thank g-d for blogs!
Redhead Infidel on January 28, 2007 at 4:15 PM
rmgraha, if your knowledege is only as informed as a wikipedia article it’s you hwo has a poor grasp of the subject.
Beto Ochoa on January 28, 2007 at 4:37 PM
I will say this about the show Heartland. It could use some production tips from Vent. I’ve never seen the show before, but when I watched it last night it seemed frenetic and choppy, as if raced through subject after subject with ill-selected stock video footage. I cannot imagine why Fox thinks Kasich has the on-air presence to pull off his own show.
It seems to me that Vent with MM is a far superior product. In fact, I can think of a few video blogs that would be more interesting and professionally produced than Heartland. As well, now that I know how difficult it is to be well-spoken and lucid while staring into the void inside a green circle, I have to give huge props for Michelle doing that on a regular basis on Fox! I had no idea, and now I’ve got some serious respect for Michelle’s contributions to Fox News.
Redhead Infidel on January 28, 2007 at 4:52 PM
It’s just more of the same “nothing to see here, move along” BS the current administration has spewed out since 2001. No wonder so many Americans are doubting the radical Islamic threat even exists. Look at it this way the NoKs have the annual GNP of say New Orleans and they have a “nuke” but we’re to believe that terrorist groups lavishly funded by some of the richest nations in the world could never have them. While suitcase bombs might be a figment of imagination (especially when you show a pic of a briefcase), I’m sure that many folks cold pack a W54 sized device into a large suitcase.
Buzzy on January 28, 2007 at 5:01 PM
Perhaps Wikipedia is the only unclassified source I’m willing to use as a reference. Would you like other sources?
Pantex Plant is America’s only nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly facility. Source: Pantex Plant web site.
Half-life of uranium-235: 704 million years. Source: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Half-life of plutonium-239: 24,110 years. Source: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Are these adequate references? I notice you don’t bother to back up any of your wild statements with any sources.
rmgraha on January 28, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Sorry, all. My last post should have been directed to that master of nuclear weapons, Beto Ochoa.
rmgraha on January 28, 2007 at 5:13 PM
So as I figured. All you know is what you found on the internet and you have drawn sweeping conclusions as to the building and maintainence of these devices. Do you have one clue as to how nukes are “re-manufactured”? How about the schedules? Obviously not. You haven’t any idea of the sophistication of the process. I, on the other hand, have worked on design, manufacturing and mainteinance processes of the warheads. The artillery, rockets and missiles that deploy them and the planes and submarines that deploy the missiles. No one person does it all, just a bunch of worker bees doing their part.
I retired from the field some time ago but came out of retirement to work on ways to spy on the public and fry them in large groups. It’s been a very successful endeavor.
Beto Ochoa on January 28, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Actually, I do have quite a bit of knowledge about the workings of nuclear weapons. Although I’ve retired from the military, I’m still active in this field, working at one of the national security labs. And since you totally ignored the word “unclassified,” I can be certain that you have no concept on the importance keeping references generic (and I notice that you still aren’t providing any links to back up your claims. I’m betting that you’re a democrat (making wild claims, and trying to shout down anyone attempting to provide actual facts). Your only experience is probably giving nuclear weapons secrets to the Chinese during Hazel O’Leary’s reigh as secretary of DOE.
By the way, I’m setting my BS-rejector to the micro-moron level, don’t bother posting any more – your posts won’t show up any more.
P.S. I’m glad you enjoy working for the jihadists.
rmgraha on January 28, 2007 at 6:23 PM
I always thought John was on our side. When did he jump so far to the left? Was NBC auditioning his show this weekend? This segment contained almost as much bull-chat as a Wolf Blitzer report or as much truth as a ‘This Week in Washington’ shinola reunion. I know more than both of them combined. And I admittedly know very little.
Griz on January 28, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Smaller is more intriguing, but there is nothing to stop a “large” nuke (regular “warhead”) from being trucked /shipped into any coastal city (the farther you travel the more chance of detection, so it stands to reason that it will be a seaside burg).
The War has been declared.
If the jihadists will fly own own planes into our own buildings -and into the central seat of our military- and gladly be blown to bits themselves in the process, then far worse is inevitable.
Unless the denialist / defeatist / retreatist mindset at large (thanks to the hysterically slanted imagery of the MSM) is overcome, some U.S. city will certainly be slag.
And the size of the device will hardly be important.
profitsbeard on January 28, 2007 at 11:38 PM
“our own planes…”
-Erratum note from the Department of Redundancy Department.
profitsbeard on January 28, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Sorry to point out this fact… the border to the United States is still open, last count, 3,896 and counting Illegals, thanks La Raza …
Enjoy the evening…
PinkyBigglesworth on January 29, 2007 at 12:52 AM
These things put out a lot of radiation and are easy to spot so most likely a ship in the harbor or along the coast somewhere. New York, D.C., Miami, San Diego, San Fran, Seattle. Easy targets for the determined jihadists. Just not bloody likely’s all.
Beto Ochoa on January 29, 2007 at 1:59 AM
The Americans wouldn’t be speculating and arguing about such things if they had already destroyed half their enemies and thereby shown their willingness to destroy the other half.
Kralizec on January 29, 2007 at 2:10 AM
And the numbers, people, keep coming in…… Surge in Iraq?
PinkyBigglesworth on January 29, 2007 at 2:15 AM
Sorry, that is just the unclassified account of tonight along the US/Mexico… Republic of.. border, not counting Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, the East and West Coast ports, and the entire Northern Border…… this is just how many have been tracked in ol’ San Diego sector……
PinkyBigglesworth on January 29, 2007 at 2:18 AM
Yes, V5, mea culpa, I am a sieve…
Janos Hunyadi on January 29, 2007 at 4:27 AM
Janos,
Errare humanum est. Ego te absolvo.
I apologize for being over passionate about this particular subject. After reading all of the comments I’d have to say that it doesn’t do any of us any good to get insulting towards each other.
Mea maximus culpa.
With Respect,
V5
V5 on January 29, 2007 at 8:53 AM
The Monster:
Not necessarily true. Although in today’s context, it is generally understood that a dirty bomb would be radioactive components designed to be scattered over a rather small area by conventional explosives, back in the 70’s the U.S. had (and still probably has) dirty nuclear explosives in their stock that give a much greater blast, but are designed for air bursts, scattering deadly materiel and making areas uninhabitable, but not necessarily doing a great deal of physical damage.
For that matter, nuclear blasts using fission as their basis are generally pretty dirty.
Natrium on January 29, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Comment pages: