Nuclear explosion in London

[Undesired Walrus]

If a nuclear bomb went off in London, I was wondering if I would be killed instantly. I live in NW6, about 5 miles from the centre of the city.

Would I be frazzled, or would I just suffer from horrific poisoning? What exactly would happen? How long would it take for the blast to reach me? What would I see?

[fuelair]

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html should answer your questions. With a 20 megaton burst in air over central London, at 6 miles away, you will burn pretty quickly or be killed by the blast wave then burned. You won't have loads of time to notice.

[Ziggurat]

The answer is that it depends. fuelair is probably right about a 20 MT explosion, but that's really the yield range of a hydrogen bomb, not just a nuclear bomb. Little Boy was under 20 kT, by comparison. Most structural damage in Hiroshima was confined to within about 2 miles of the blast, so 6 miles away is definitely far enough to survive. Furthermore, the yield isn't the only thing that matters, the blast location matters as well. In particular, air bursts (detonations at significant altitude) are more effective at destroying targets on the surface of the earth (as opposed to underground) than surface bursts (ground-level detonations). If London were hit by a terrorist nuke, it would probably be a surface burst, but if it were attacked by a military, it would almost certainly be an air burst.

[Dancing David]

Either way you won't be happy, if it lands on you , you won't know. If the building yu are in just collapses, that will last longer.

But in the old days i would assume that London had multiple targeted weapons, so the effects would be spread around.

[Undesired Walrus]

What would the blast wave look like?

[Mark6]

AFAIK, no country currently deploys 20 megaton warheads. Or even 10 megaton. A terrorist nuke is likely to be physically small, and thus of fission type rather than fusion. OTOH, no telling if it would be placed in the CENTER of the city.

[BenBurch]

What would the blast wave look like?

http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/films/testfilms.aspx

[Lothian]

If a nuclear bomb went off in London, I was wondering if I would be killed instantly. I live in NW6, about 5 miles from the centre of the city.

Would I be frazzled, or would I just suffer from horrific poisoning? What exactly would happen? How long would it take for the blast to reach me? What would I see?You would find Killburn living up to its name.

[I Ratant]

What would the blast wave look like?
.
Something like this.... depending on where you were unlucky enough to be, it would be coming at about 1000 feet per second.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngq2jb79mPU

[Big Les]

Have a bash at this fun little app. Select your bomb, punch in your city, and hit 'nuke it'.

http://www.carloslabs.com/node/16

[Hindmost]

What a warm fuzzy this thread is...

glenn:boxedin:

[rorylee]

Have a bash at this fun little app. Select your bomb, punch in your city, and hit 'nuke it'.

http://www.carloslabs.com/node/16
Wow, that's pretty cool! thanks for the link.

[mhaze]

The answer is that it depends. fuelair is probably right about a 20 MT explosion, but that's really the yield range of a hydrogen bomb, not just a nuclear bomb. Little Boy was under 20 kT, by comparison. Most structural damage in Hiroshima was confined to within about 2 miles of the blast, so 6 miles away is definitely far enough to survive. Furthermore, the yield isn't the only thing that matters, the blast location matters as well. In particular, air bursts (detonations at significant altitude) are more effective at destroying targets on the surface of the earth (as opposed to underground) than surface bursts (ground-level detonations). If London were hit by a terrorist nuke, it would probably be a surface burst, but if it were attacked by a military, it would almost certainly be an air burst.Last but not least, don't neglect the effect of a detonation at 100 miles plus altitude.

[Ladewig]

AFAIK, no country currently deploys 20 megaton warheads. Or even 10 megaton. A terrorist nuke is likely to be physically small, and thus of fission type rather than fusion. OTOH, no telling if it would be placed in the CENTER of the city.

If it were that small, wouldn't it be worthwhile to attach it to some weather balloons and get it up a few thousand feet?

[quixotecoyote]

Have a bash at this fun little app. Select your bomb, punch in your city, and hit 'nuke it'.

http://www.carloslabs.com/node/16

The sequel lets you see pressure and fallout

http://www.carloslabs.com/node/20

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Would it kill Rebecca? She lives there now.

[Hellbound]

If it were that small, wouldn't it be worthwhile to attach it to some weather balloons and get it up a few thousand feet?

Actually, the optimal height for an airburst depnds on the size of the bomb. IIRC correctly, there's a ratio you want (something like the height above surface is equal to half the blast radius...that's not it, but it's something like that).

So, for a small nuke, even the top of a high building might be sufficient.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If you said, "What was that?" you would be much worse off. :(

[BenBurch]

You know, I've lived my whole life in fear that there would be a nuclear war.

And it really looks to me like we are closer to it now than any time since the Gorbachev era.

When I was young I was really focussed on how to survive such a thing; Now I think I would be happiest to be at Ground Zero when it starts.

[plumjam]

What would the blast wave look like?

A larger version of the current mayor.

[Ziggurat]

If it were that small, wouldn't it be worthwhile to attach it to some weather balloons and get it up a few thousand feet?

No. Deploying a balloon large enough to lift even a small nuke would not be a quick operation, and that introduces opportunities for police to interfere.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

A larger version of the current mayor.

The mayor of London is overweight and phosphorescent?

[brodski]

The mayor of London is overweight and phosphorescent?
Yes and (if you mean the hair) yes.

[Dancing David]

If it were that small, wouldn't it be worthwhile to attach it to some weather balloons and get it up a few thousand feet?

I talked to someone who does study bombs (he is a major nuclear scientist) about this, he said that the hard part of making one of these bombs is to get the stuff together correctly.

First off you assume nobody cares if they get a lethal dose, that is part of the usual problem, making it without dosing your self.

The second issue is that you need to get a mechanism to bring the subcritical masses together in the right fashion, if you bring them too close without slamming them together, well then you just irradiate the heck out of yourself, they might melt and you don't get the boom.

So you have to assemble the mechanism and then place the masses. He had some suggestions for how to do this, but I won't post them here.

But you won't be using a weather balloon, that takes a very sophisticated mechanism, not the kind of thing you can improvise.

[commandlinegamer]

IIRC, the novel Domain by James Herbert, third in the Rats series has a pretty good description of a nuclear strike on London. The rest of the book deals with with the triumph of the rats over their human overlords.

[Ladewig]

I talked to someone who does study bombs (he is a major nuclear scientist) about this, he said that the hard part of making one of these bombs is to get the stuff together correctly.

First off you assume nobody cares if they get a lethal dose, that is part of the usual problem, making it without dosing your self.

The second issue is that you need to get a mechanism to bring the subcritical masses together in the right fashion, if you bring them too close without slamming them together, well then you just irradiate the heck out of yourself, they might melt and you don't get the boom.

So you have to assemble the mechanism and then place the masses. He had some suggestions for how to do this, but I won't post them here.

But you won't be using a weather balloon, that takes a very sophisticated mechanism, not the kind of thing you can improvise.

I do understand the difficulties in making a suitcase nuke if one does not have the resources of a U.S. or Russia. I do not under stand the last line of your post. Why does attaching a device to a weather balloon require a more sophisticated mechanism?

[Ladewig]

No. Deploying a balloon large enough to lift even a small nuke would not be a quick operation, and that introduces opportunities for police to interfere.

I like to think I could inflate some weather balloons without police interference, but in any case I completely withdraw my claim that it is possible to do that in London and change the hypothetical to ask: which would kill more people, ground-level suitcase bomb or elevated suitcase bomb?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Why does attaching a device to a weather balloon require a more sophisticated mechanism?

Your nuke would have be small and fully automated.

[Ladewig]

Your nuke would have be small and fully automated.

I was assuming that the terrorists could use as many weather balloons as necessary so that size was not an issue. Why does fully-automated bomb require significantly more sophistication than a bomb that is detonated by someone pushing a button?

[Undesired Walrus]

Have a bash at this fun little app. Select your bomb, punch in your city, and hit 'nuke it'.

http://www.carloslabs.com/node/16

Thanks. The Joe-4 I survive (and just. The last wave stops a few hundred yards from my flat).

[Undesired Walrus]

Looking at some of the larger bombs I find it extraordinary something like this can actually exist. Check out the Tsar Bomba effect on London. I die within 24 hours.

How wide would the area be in which people instantly die? What would I see (If anything)?

[Undesired Walrus]

You know, I've lived my whole life in fear that there would be a nuclear war.

And it really looks to me like we are closer to it now than any time since the Gorbachev era.

Really? How so?

[Information Analyst]

You would find Killburn living up to its name.

To say nothing of Burnt Oak....

[Ladewig]

To say nothing of Burnt Oak....

Why do I have the fear that this thread will devolve into a game of Mornington Cresent?

[BenBurch]

Really? How so?

Because the war is likely to happen between small nuclear nations. Israel vs Pakistan, Pakistan vs India, Iran vs Israel, etc.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Why do I have the fear that this thread will devolve into a game of Mornington Cresent?

Can't. Rule 23.77(ii) of the 1890 Rules say "NO DEVOLUTION". :cool:

[Ziggurat]

Because the war is likely to happen between small nuclear nations. Israel vs Pakistan, Pakistan vs India, Iran vs Israel, etc.

Which would mean that while nuclear war may be more likely, it's also likely to be much more limited than all-out nuclear war between the US and the USSR could have been. So unless you expect to be in a target zone, your preference for an immediate death seems rather bizarre, especially since surviving unscathed seems not only possible but likely even if such a war should occur.

[BenBurch]

Which would mean that while nuclear war may be more likely, it's also likely to be much more limited than all-out nuclear war between the US and the USSR could have been. So unless you expect to be in a target zone, your preference for an immediate death seems rather bizarre, especially since surviving unscathed seems not only possible but likely even if such a war should occur.

If it happens, I cannot see the major powers staying out of it. I hope I am wrong.

[Ashles]

I read the thread title and for a tiny split second thought "What!"

Then I remembered I am currently sitting in an office building in Canary Wharf, so would probably know about such an event before reading about it on the internet.

[Ziggurat]

If it happens, I cannot see the major powers staying out of it. I hope I am wrong.

What sort of involvement do you expect, and why would that lead to direct nuclear confrontation between the major powers? I'm just not seeing it.

Russia has no reason to go to the mat for any of those players. They're somewhat of an ally of Iran because Iran pays them and they like sticking it to us, but that's because at present, such support is essentially free to them. They might raise hell at the UN, they might block any UNSC attempts to fix things, but Russia does NOT care about Iran enough to go to war for their sake. Hell, they might even be happy if Iran goes down in flames, because it could drive up the price of Russian oil. And between Pakistan and India, well, they've been friendlier in the past with India than Pakistan (who helped drive the USSR out of Afghanistan). And India is a more natural ally of the US than Pakistan is too. So I don't see how they would come to blows with us if those two started going at it either.

China doesn't like India, but they've got no real love of Pakistan either, what with their Uigar problems. And they don't care what Israel and Iran do to each other either. They'll care about any disruption in oil flow, but they're also smart enough to know that 1) we want that too, and 2) going to war with the US isn't a fix to that problem.

Could either Russia or China exploit a regional nuclear war to cause problems? Oh, quite definitely. Would either of them do anything to risk direct nuclear confrontation? I don't see why on earth they ever would.

[dudalb]

Because the war is likely to happen between small nuclear nations. Israel vs Pakistan, Pakistan vs India, Iran vs Israel, etc.

Put Pakistan Vs India on the top of the list,because the outstadning issues between the two countries are a lot more critical then the others.
As horrid as that would be, I don't see it setting off World War 3.

[Dancing David]

I do understand the difficulties in making a suitcase nuke if one does not have the resources of a U.S. or Russia. I do not under stand the last line of your post. Why does attaching a device to a weather balloon require a more sophisticated mechanism?

Because of the size and weight, what he suggested needed a house and utilized machinery and architechtural elements to control/shape the explosion and control the trajectory of the moving subcritical mass as it slammed into the other sub critical mass.

he said that the huge obstacle is teh sheilding to keep the subcritical masses from just irradiating and melting, so it is easier to separte them with distance.

So he said that a two story house would be ideal. That way you can separate the masses prior to detonation, and have sheilding without having to create a sophistcated structure on a very small scale. (This was from a man who designs bombs as part of his job.)

Basicaly you need a tube, an explosive charge and the masses to slam together. You have to use sheilding and distance to keep them masses from irradiating and melting.

[fuelair]

The answer is that it depends. fuelair is probably right about a 20 MT explosion, but that's really the yield range of a hydrogen bomb, not just a nuclear bomb. Little Boy was under 20 kT, by comparison. Most structural damage in Hiroshima was confined to within about 2 miles of the blast, so 6 miles away is definitely far enough to survive. Furthermore, the yield isn't the only thing that matters, the blast location matters as well. In particular, air bursts (detonations at significant altitude) are more effective at destroying targets on the surface of the earth (as opposed to underground) than surface bursts (ground-level detonations). If London were hit by a terrorist nuke, it would probably be a surface burst, but if it were attacked by a military, it would almost certainly be an air burst.
Actually, this is not a fuelair specialty area - if the source I gave is correct, what I said was likely was correct. Just a very minor quibble!!:):):)

[Safe-Keeper]

Everyone knows that you'll be okay if you have a lead-lined fridge handy.

[KingMerv00]

The sequel lets you see pressure and fallout

http://www.carloslabs.com/node/20

Tsar Bomba is some scary crap.

Even scarier to think that if Chixulub hit DC, windows would shatter in NEBRASKA.

[BenBurch]

Put Pakistan Vs India on the top of the list,because the outstadning issues between the two countries are a lot more critical then the others.
As horrid as that would be, I don't see it setting off World War 3.

How likely was an anarchist killing Archduke Ferdinand with a bomb to cause a war that killed 9.7 million soldiers and 6.8 million civilians?

[Safe-Keeper]

Even scarier to think that if Chixulub hit DC, windows would shatter windows in NEBRASKA. This could be interepreted in several ways. Any takers:p?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Even scarier to think that if Chixulub hit DC, windows would shatter windows in NEBRASKA.

Shortly before the rain of molten rock.

[KingMerv00]

This could be interepreted in several ways. Any takers:p?

Fixed my shameful mistake. :P

[RecoveringYuppy]

I was assuming that the terrorists could use as many weather balloons as necessary so that size was not an issue. Why does fully-automated bomb require significantly more sophistication than a bomb that is detonated by someone pushing a button?

Hmmm, I suppose I'd consider fully automated and just pushing a button to be the same thing.

Maybe you're assuming that terrorists have stolen an advanced miniaturized device and I missed that. If not, then you have to assume a lot to imagine that a device put together clandestinely in the middle of a foreign city by an undergound organization with no well secured labs, is going to be light enough to fly and stable enough to go off without a lot of last minute tinkering.

[Ladewig]

Hmmm, I suppose I'd consider fully automated and just pushing a button to be the same thing.

Maybe you're assuming that terrorists have stolen an advanced miniaturized device and I missed that. If not, then you have to assume a lot to imagine that a device put together clandestinely in the middle of a foreign city by an undergound organization with no well secured labs, is going to be light enough to fly and stable enough to go off without a lot of last minute tinkering.

Dancing David's post was very helpful in explaining why size would be an issue.

[soylent]

It turns out that for moderately sized weapons(e.g. 100 kilotons to a megaton, the kind of warheads actually being stockpiled) the lethal radius from the direct radiation effects(neutrons, gammas, x-rays) is significantly less than the heat and blast. It takes a small device of only a few kilotonnes for direct radiation to dominate.

The halving distance for gamma rays in air is less than 200 meters(depends on energy). 5 miles is ~8000 metres, which is more than 40 halving distances; exposure to prompt gammas will be attenuated a factor greater than 2^-40 = 9*10-13. There is also an inverse square distance term simply from the geometry of being farther from a point source. When direct radiation becomes a significant concern at 5 miles(~hundreds of megatonnes!) the blast will flatten most structures out to ~20 miles and the heat will give any exposed skin third degree burns out to ~50 miles.

Without advance warning pretty much all you can do to try and reduce burns recieved is to duck and cover. If you look at old footage of larger tests, you'll see that the brightness increases very rapidly to an early peak, declines a bit and then goes up to a bigger peak after several seconds. This happens because a large volume of air becomes so hot that it is no longer translucent to light(just like the early Universe); when it cools and expands it becomes translucent and lets the thermal radiation out. For a really big blast duck and cover should help a little bit; for a smaller blast I can't see how it would make much difference as it takes too long to cover up exposed skin. Even if you are inside, fire can be a serious danger if you survive the blast.

It takes a ~1 MT device at optimal height for a blast overpressure of ~5 psi at 5 miles, which is enough to flatten most houses that aren't made of reinforced concrete. This level of blast is not enough to directly kill a significant number of people at 5 miles; deaths will be indirect from being trapped under rubble and such.

It takes a ~400 kT device to cause third degree burns at 5 miles to skin with a direct line of sight to the fireball.

For smaller weapons the biggest concern is disruption of services and fall-out.

The fall-out takes several forms. The early component is junk that was sucked up in the blast and mingled with fission products but wasn't large enough to stay suspended in the air; large grains of sand, pulverized bits of concrete and so on. This is the most problematic kind of fall-out because it is geographically concentrated and the short-lived fission products have not had time to decay away. It comes to rest just like you would imagine dumping a bunch of sand from an airplane, mostly on flat surfaces and groves in gently slanted surfaces. The early fall-out is big enough that it would not be easy to inhale, hence you don't have to have a closed air supply. What it does is come to rest some place and then just sit there emitting gamma rays. What you want to do is put as much concrete, earth, water or sand-bags between you and where you believe the fall-out has come to rest(ground outside, the roof...); gather up enough drinking water, food, a bucket(...) and other things so that you don't have to move around much in areas where you'd have greater exposure for the next week or so.

Halving thickness depends heavily on the number of protons in the nuclei of the material and the density of the material.

Some common halving thicknesses swiped from wikipedia:
Lumber ~29 cm
Water ~18 cm
Packed dirt ~9 cm
Concrete ~6 cm
Steel ~3 cm
Lead ~1 cm
Depleted uranium ~0.2 cm

If, like most people, you don't have anything like a fall-out shelter, you'd probably want to make your way into some kind of basement or the center of an appartment building or office building(far from the ground floor, the roof and the exterior walls). If possible you'd also want to quickly stack up some junk in the direction you believe there is the least shielding; maybe get a sturdy desk to sit under and pile on some appropriate objects you happen to find, like some left over bags of cement, gardening soil, filled buckets of water or jugs, left-over bricks or tiles; scootch up that ratty old sofa you stuck in your basement because you couldn't be bothered to throw it away next to the table; that sort of thing.

The other component of fall-out consists of small particles that take days(big plume), weeks(continent sized area) or even years(global) until they come down. It's not any kind of immediate concern and there's not much you can do about it; at worst the late fall-out can very, very slightly increase cancer rates over a huge area.

[soylent]

How likely was an anarchist killing Archduke Ferdinand with a bomb to cause a war that killed 9.7 million soldiers and 6.8 million civilians?

If you go rubbing a balloon against some random surface it is likely to find some grain of sand, some sharp edge or something to prick it. It's quite extraordinarily unlikely that this proximate cause would be the one that finally popped the balloon; but the ultimate cause, the fact that you're going around rubbing it against things, is in fact extremely likely to cause it to pop.

Archduke Ferdinand is only the proximate cause for world war I. The ultimate causes of the war had been building for decades and war was if not inevitable then very likely to occur from any proximate cause that happened to come along.

[Mark6]

How likely was an anarchist killing Archduke Ferdinand with a bomb to cause a war that killed 9.7 million soldiers and 6.8 million civilians?
In 1914 major European powers had been itching for a war for a long time. If it were not Archduke Ferdinand, it would have been something else. Situation today is totally different.

[Mark6]

Several years ago on a different web forum I participated in a fairly long discussion with someone who was certain that a nuclear detonation -- anywhere, by anyone, -- would inevitably lead to World War III. With him it was basically an article of faith. Bunch of people all pointed out the reasons it is not so (same ones as on this thread, more or less), and his only reponses were "You are naive", and "Nobody [in Washington, Moscow, etc.] is really in control]." I am not saying that's BenBerch's position, but I am genuinely curious -- where does this fatalist certainty comes from?

[BenBurch]

I fear a chain-reaction of alliances that will draw in the major powers.

[philkensebben]

If a nuclear bomb went off in London, I was wondering if I would be killed instantly. I live in NW6, about 5 miles from the centre of the city.

Would I be frazzled, or would I just suffer from horrific poisoning? What exactly would happen? How long would it take for the blast to reach me? What would I see?

If you are, i am definintely am in NW2 :(

[Mark6]

1. Personal survival trumps alliances. Especially if you know that your allies will not be alive to blame you for abandoning them.

2. See Ziggurat's post #40. None of the likely nuclear "trigger nations" even HAS an ally with much stake in the game. (Well, Israel has US, but none of Israel's enemies has a devoted nuclear-armed ally.)

[Undesired Walrus]

I like the asteroid option.

[Undesired Walrus]

If you are, i am definintely am in NW2 :(

Do you live in Brent? I work off cricklewood broadway.

[philkensebben]

Do you live in Brent? I work off cricklewood broadway.

Pm'd response

[Ashles]

But I'm right in thinking one could survive any of these if you correctly duck and cover?

[Mark6]

But I'm right in thinking one could survive any of these if you correctly duck and cover?
I assume you are joking. But the serious answer -- depends on how far away from the explosion you are. Any nuclear exposion has a "completely lethal" radius, but surrounding it is a vast area where blast and radiation had attenuated enough to be survivable, but heat will still kill you unless you quickly get behind some solid object... i.e. duck and cover.

Yes, that endlessly derided technique could save thousands of lives if actually used "in the event".

[macdoc]

They would stay out Ben.

13 Days with Kennedy and Krushev and Cuba .....that was *********** close with hawks on both sides playing the fool.....

I can STILL relive that period only too easily...:(

[KingMerv00]

Yes, that endlessly derided technique could save thousands of lives if actually used "in the event".

We know that now thanks to the dozens who gave their lives by experimenting with "stand up and uncover". Poor souls.

[Mark6]

We know that now thanks to the dozens who gave their lives by experimenting with "stand up and uncover". Poor souls.
It's been known since Hiroshima. Quite a few combat-experienced Japanese soldiers survived because when they saw a blinding flash, they reflexively hit the ground -- and were lucky enough to be behind a tree or a car. Whereas people right next to them who tried to run instead, died.

IIRC, the person who was closest to ground zero and lived, was swimming in a pool at the time and at the most critical moment was underwater.

Frankly, I find jokes on this matter to be in very poor taste.

[Safe-Keeper]

I assume you are joking. But the serious answer -- depends on how far away from the explosion you are. Any nuclear exposion has a "completely lethal" radius, but surrounding it is a vast area where blast and radiation had attenuated enough to be survivable, but heat will still kill you unless you quickly get behind some solid object... i.e. duck and cover.

Yes, that endlessly derided technique could save thousands of lives if actually used "in the event". Don't understand myself why the duck and cover thing is so ridiculed, or why people go "what was the use of bomb shelters, a nuke would've blown them to bits!".

Bombs don't only affect those at "ground zero".

[Mark6]

Don't understand myself why the duck and cover thing is so ridiculed, or why people go "what was the use of bomb shelters, a nuke would've blown them to bits!".

Most likely because the very act of building a shelter, or practicing "duck and cover", or (as an example) learning how to decontaminate clothes meant preparing for living in the aftermath of Apocalypse. For quite a few people the idea of finding themselves in the midst of (largely) destroyed civilization was so unthinkable, they HAD to ridicule anyone who actually did some thinking on the matter. It was a coping mechanism.

Of course, I may be completely wrong here :)

[Safe-Keeper]

From what I remember from high school, it was also a reaction to what was perceived as fear mongering - the constant "duck and cover" drills after a while started to be seen more as political instruments than actual safety measures. Kinda like the terrorism threat meter after 9/11.

[Comsat Angel]

How likely was an anarchist killing Archduke Ferdinand with a bomb to cause a war that killed 9.7 million soldiers and 6.8 million civilians?

I hate to quibble in a debate about megatonnes and city-busters, but the Archduke was offed with a simple pistol. Not a bomb.

(Not sure if Gavrilo Princep was an anarchist as much as he was a Serbian nationalist, either).

[commandlinegamer]

Frankly, I find jokes on this matter to be in very poor taste.

Not as poor taste as having all these flipping bombs.

[aviolet4u]

well seeing as I live near Manhattan, technically I wouldn't have time to worry that long if a big one is used. Many people rather be at ground zero than suffering the effects close by. The pain and anxiety would be unbearable. If you ask why I bumped this thread, yes I'm that grim.

[aviolet4u]

Not as poor taste as having all these flipping bombs.

Its scary how we've come to this point in human history, spending so much energy, time and money creating these weapons of mass destruction. America has the most and seems to be the biggest target. "Oh what a tangled web we weave..."

[BenBurch]

I hate to quibble in a debate about megatonnes and city-busters, but the Archduke was offed with a simple pistol. Not a bomb.

(Not sure if Gavrilo Princep was an anarchist as much as he was a Serbian nationalist, either).

Oh, you're right.