Discussion in 'Trading' started by oneway, Mar 3, 2002.

  1. tampa


    I for one am going to write a letter to the editor. This is outrageous, and must not be permitted to happen.

    And while I am at it, I will call my congressman, and demand legislation to prohibit such a thing.

    Perhaps Pres. Gump will ask for tax cuts to deal with the situation.

    (God, how I wish that I had some of the stuff you must be smoking tonight)
    #11     Mar 3, 2002
  2. I would suspect that since 9/11 if any major corporation (including exchanges) don't have contingency plans, they are scrambling to do so (offsite functional offices and computer systems). A nuclear bomb would probably disrupt activity in a wide area for much longer than 9/11. A dirty nuclear bomb would probably do much less physical damage but in either case fear would be extreme. From what I understand, a nuclear bomb such as the so-called "suitcase bomb" (more like a coffin-sized bomb) would destroy an area equivalent to about 2-4 city blocks. The radiation would probably linger for years though.
    #12     Mar 3, 2002
  3. Rigel


    A suitcase nuke (1.5-12 kilotons) at ground level would only take out 4 to 12 blocks square. We're not talking megatonage here. It would be terrible but we would recover. All the financial databases and software are backed up.
    #13     Mar 3, 2002
  4. Take Rigel's estimate on damage from a suitcase bomb, mine is obviously low.

    In all of this the human loss is hardest to replace.

    How many city blocks did the 9/11 attack on the twin towers "destroy" or make unusable?
    #14     Mar 3, 2002
  5. Just a thoght -

    The nuke detonated at Hiroshima had a yield of only 12.5 kilotons

    At that level, the pressure wave blast damage zone would be maybe a mile or so in radius with the most intense pressure (about 12 psi) out to about 1/4 mile or so radius from the blast point.

    Hanging the bomb over the edge of the roof (or out a window) of a building would increase the blast zone.

    The fallout zone would be much larger and especially uglier if the bomb was purposely dirtied up with a casing of cobalt or similar material.

    Possible good news is that most of the old Soviet portable nukes are old enough that the fissionable material may need to be replaced - not impossible but the manufacture and machining of the material means it's also not like simply changing batteries :)
    #15     Mar 4, 2002
  6. Setting off a nuke in NY/DC would just be the tip of the iceberg, folks.

    We wouldn't know whether they had more, and you can bet major population centers like Chicago, L.A., Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth etc. would see major panics and exoduses away from the city centers.

    Plus, what would our government's response be? When it comes to our nation's survival, Dubbya may just say "F*** It" and nuke any country that has been even remotely hostile to us in the past...

    Borders would shut down, food/water hoarding, mass hysteria...

    Not a pretty thought....

    What pisses me off about all this is that there haven't been nuclear weapons inspectors in Iraq for what, several years now? Didn't we "WIN" that war? ...I like the Israeli attitude, like when they attacked that Iraqi reactor in the early 80's..

    Let's hope it doesn't happen, but if it does the market will be the LAST thing on my mind....
    #16     Mar 4, 2002
  7. Tampa,

    Are you for real...did I misunderstand this post?

    "Attention all terrosists....the US has now made it illegal for you to bomb us. Anyone caught attempting to do so will be punished to the fullest extent of the law."

    Yeah that ought to do it.
    #17     Mar 4, 2002
  8. Cockroaches can survive massive amounts of radiation, so the market makers should still be around.
    #18     Mar 4, 2002
  9. oneway


  10. I would imagine that if anything of destructive magnitude occured in NYC's stock market...the SEC, NYSE and NASD would move the opening bell to the West Coast. In which case, we would start our trading day 12 noon (in the East Coat), instead.

    I'm not worried about what ominous threat lies ahead. Clinton is taking care of us, as we merrily trade:

    #20     Mar 4, 2002