Started By
Message
locked post

Flight 370 & EMP Possibility

Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:44 am
Posted by DeltaDoc
The Delta
Member since Jan 2008
16089 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:44 am
I posted this in the OT Mega-Thread...thought it has applicability hear more so than there...

Observation:

It seems as though it would be possible (though not probable) to have landed the plane, and load it with a nuclear device or dirty bomb, and use this plane as a delivery mechanism for an EMP over Europe or another heavily dependent area of the world on electricity.

For years, we have heard of the damage an EMP could do to the US, but the two issue for the terrorist were to (1) get a dirty bomb or nuke; and (2) have a delivery mechanism (most say a rocket shot off of a ship close to US mainland).

Well, if they have a nuke (maybe Iran has developed one or even North Korea), and they have a plane that can fly at 40,000 feet (i.e., a delivery mechanism), then they have the capability to send the US or Europe back to the 1800s pretty quickly.


Posted by Crawdaddy
Slidell. The jewel of Louisiana
Member since Sep 2006
18358 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:49 am to
Wouldn't the large jet that is not accounted for stick out like a sore thumb in the skies?

More so than an obvious missle headed your way?
Posted by dante
Kingwood, TX
Member since Mar 2006
10669 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:54 am to
quote:

Wouldn't the large jet that is not accounted for stick out like a sore thumb in the skies?
If that was the case wouldn't we know where it was now?
Posted by C
Houston
Member since Dec 2007
27816 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:54 am to
why do people think Iran and North Korea don't have modern planes that take off from their airports on a weekly basis?
Posted by Homesick Tiger
Greenbrier, AR
Member since Nov 2006
54202 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:54 am to
The main thing I've learned from all this is, if there is something up there flying around (alien ships/missles) with a bomb or not, without a transponder on it and turned on, it will be too late to do anything about it before all the bantering back and forth is over with as to what the solution is to do about it.

Now if there is a picture of a dog's head painted on the front of the projectile there's no doubt shots will be fired immediately and questions asked later.
Posted by WreckinRams05
Houston, Texas
Member since Dec 2005
6186 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:56 am to
Chances that a plane flies over mainland usa and drop a bomb is probably less than 1%
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 10:58 am
Posted by ruzil
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2012
16862 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 10:58 am to
Swag stealin' ain't cool bro.
Posted by DeltaDoc
The Delta
Member since Jan 2008
16089 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 11:00 am to
quote:

Chances that a plane flies over mainland usa and drop a bomb is probably less than 1%


Not saying they drop a bomb...but just suicide mission and detonate over a heavily populated area. Even if shot down, if a nuke device is aboard, that would be cause for concern from radioactivity if nothing else.

Note, I am not saying they could make it over the US mainland either.
Posted by REG861
Ocelot, Iowa
Member since Oct 2011
36397 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 11:03 am to
quote:

why do people think Iran and North Korea don't have modern planes that take off from their airports on a weekly basis?


This, the idea that they would go through all this trouble when they already have planes is ridiculous
Posted by dante
Kingwood, TX
Member since Mar 2006
10669 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 11:04 am to
If the plane was in fact hijacked, do you think anyone on the plane would have tried to make calls or send txts to notify loved ones or authorities?
Posted by DeltaDoc
The Delta
Member since Jan 2008
16089 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 11:06 am to
quote:

If the plane was in fact hijacked, do you think anyone on the plane would have tried to make calls or send txts to notify loved ones or authorities?


I think that the pilots probably depressurized the cabin and put everyone to sleep but themselves (hence the rise in altitude to 40,000)
Posted by themunch
Earth. maybe
Member since Jan 2007
64569 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 11:08 am to
applicability hear more so than there

OT knowledge swag
Posted by WreckinRams05
Houston, Texas
Member since Dec 2005
6186 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 11:09 am to
Another thing is the plane would have to fly low to stay off radar and due to this fuel intake will increase because of more resistance. So they would have to launch fairly close from a ship or supporting countries surrounding USA
Posted by Crawdaddy
Slidell. The jewel of Louisiana
Member since Sep 2006
18358 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 11:12 am to
quote:

If that was the case wouldn't we know where it was now?


This would be a different style of flying. To get this jet high enough and far enough, it will be detected.
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
51440 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 11:41 am to
quote:

Wouldn't the large jet that is not accounted for stick out like a sore thumb in the skies?

More so than an obvious missle headed your way?


If it has no transponders on and stays low over low-population areas the chance that it gets noticed is practically zero.

Under normal commercial conditions the flights I have been on take about 30 minutes to go from take-off to 30-40k feet. That's under normal, we-aren't-out-to-kill-people conditions. With that, taking into account they could already be moving at cruising speed at just under 5k feet, they could push the system and probably be at 40k within 10-15 minutes.

Take about 10 minutes out for the various agencies monitoring flights to figure out something is wrong, especially when they don't get a response (or a BS response) from the plane in question and you have a window of only about 5 minutes for jets to be scrambled from a nearby air base, get to the plane and shoot it down over an sparsely populated area.

With that in mind, using this plane to pop an EMP/nuke is a distinct possibility for countries within a 1,000-2,000-ish mile radius (not sure of the fuel consumption difference at such a low altitude plus any headwind issues). That's a LOT of water with the higher probability land targets being China and India.

But.... once the heat dies down move the plane to some secret/unmonitored Maldives or Sri Lanakan airstrip and suddenly the terrorist hotbeds of Yemen and Somalia come into play as a possible destination. From there you have Israel within striking distance and how long would Israel's defense last without modern warfare technology?
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
90460 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 12:01 pm to
quote:

why do people think Iran and North Korea don't have modern planes that take off from their airports on a weekly basis?


It isn't that.

The issue is that the country's government couldn't outfit one of those planes with a nuke and send it on it's way. It would cause hell to rain down on them as soon as the US found out they did it.

So in essence, if this were to happen, it would have to be performed by a terrorist group needing a large plane capable of traveling long distances. Either they acquired a nuke through black market, or a certain government secretly gave them one or allowed them to 'steal" one.

So the terrorists hijacked a plane, and flew it somewhere where they could outfit it and refuel it.

I figure they have a few possible plans they could possibly try.

1. Fly it over countries with little technology that wouldn't notice it on radar, to somewhere like Israel and detonate there. This would fit the Iranian agenda and a nuke over Jerusalem would decimate that small country. I think this is most probable of the situations..but they'd have to get the plane close without being shot down, because Israel will shoot it down without hesitation. We are assuming the passengers on the plane will be used as hostages in the case that they are detected early on radar and need leverage to buy some time to get closer to the target. Israel wouldn't give a damn about the hostages.

2. Hit the U.S. Fly low overseas and try to get close to a major city like New York. Chances of being detected early are greater, though not impossible. Assume that all it has to do is get within range of the EMP blast to affect the city...even shooting down a plane won't stop a detonation if it is already armed and on a timer. A nukes casing is so strong it can withstand a substantial blast.

Also the U.S would be more likely to be slow in making a decision if hostages were involved and they didn't know a nuke was on board. Israel takes no chances, we on the other hand have a tendency to be too passive.

Posted by dr smartass phd
RIP 8/19
Member since Sep 2004
20387 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 12:09 pm to
Widespread EMP will only work in upper atmosphere detonation of 95,000+
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
51440 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 12:22 pm to
quote:

Hit the U.S. Fly low overseas and try to get close to a major city like New York.


I think the distance is far too great to try that. That distance plus all the defenses they would have to overcome... it's too much of a risk for a first strike.

I agree on Israel though. Surrounded by lower-tech countries that aren't exactly friendly to them, there might as well be a neon WELCOME sign flashing over a red carpet.

Even with that though, there will have to be a tremendous infrastructure in place as well as secure communications channels and no one involved running off at the mouth while they acquire the nuke then move the jet into a position to be able to hit Israel with it.

It's doable, but tough.
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
90460 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 12:42 pm to
Would it be possible that they could bring the plane into a small rural airport with the hostages, change out the transponders with one from another plane, repaint new numbers to match the ones on the plane that you took the transponders from, register the hostages under fake names and passports, put it on a flight plan, and head your way to a target destination?

You could fly it directly into a major city with the air traffic controllers thinking it was another plane.
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
51440 posts
Posted on 3/17/14 at 12:53 pm to
quote:

Would it be possible that they could bring the plane into a small rural airport with the hostages, change out the transponders with one from another plane, repaint new numbers to match the ones on the plane that you took the transponders from, register the hostages under fake names and passports, put it on a flight plan, and head your way to a target destination?


Absolutely but if they go to that much trouble I think they would just kill the hostages instead of putting them on the plane. Pull the window shades down and just say they are on there, maybe play a pre-recorded message from one to continue the BS for a little longer but if they did their jobs with the tail numbers and new transponder correctly I don't think they would ever need the hostages. Besides, losing that extra weight means a longer range for the plane.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram