Terrorist Nuclear Threat

[Colonel Cuddles]

People have been talking about a possible major terrorist attack in 2010. Some people say it may be nuclear. People have been in talks of an" American Hirosima" http://www.secretsofsurvival.com/survival/american_hiroshima.html. I'm sure some of this is all conspiracy, but it is completely possible. So what do you think the impact would be, targets, death toll? Personally I think Nuking NYC would collapse the economy. Discuss.

 

[StinkomanFan]

Until someone gives a real threat, I don't care

 

[1048576]

People have been fear-mongering ever since the Repubs and the Dems switched sides.

 

[Jon Farron]

well obama doesnt want the US to attack with nuclear weapons on the terrorists' countries so hes ruining our defences.
I can see this coming O_o

 

[tko112]

*sighs*

here we go again

 

[Teran]

well obama doesnt want the US to attack with nuclear weapons on the terrorists' countries so hes ruining our defences.
I can see this coming O_o

Yeah nuking somewhere leaves the entire area chock full of radiation poisoning for years and years to come.

Basically it makes the place uninhabitable. So like yeah you could nuke everyone, but you'd pretty much turn the place to sand and make it a barren wasteland for 100 years. Not very viable because we won't even get any oil out of them.

Too bad the UN banned lots of other cool weapons such as bioweapons.

 

[-Jumpman-]

well obama doesnt want the US to attack with nuclear weapons on the terrorists' countries so hes ruining our defences.
I can see this coming O_o

Would you attack someone who isn't a threat at all? Also, if America would get nuked, they would definitely shoot back, trust me.

 

[Teran]

If America actually got nuked, I'd lol really hard because they're supposed to have the best antiwarhead and antiterror defence.

 

[-Jumpman-]

If America actually got nuked, I'd lol really hard because they're supposed to have the best antiwarhead and antiterror defence.

The anti nuke (read: ICBM) lasers aren't active yet.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

This thread reminds me of Metal Gear Solid.

I think Shooting a nuke at anyone is too risky. The only reason we got away with hiroshima is because no one ellse could do anything about it. I say if someone nuked anyone that someone would be screwed, except for terrorists, because they don't belong to any one country.

 

[Teran]

The anti nuke (read: ICBM) lasers aren't active yet.

They can't be entirely defenceless, this is the same America that came out of the cold war.

If they are then they deserve to get nuked tbh.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

They can't be entirely defenceless, this is the same America that came out of the cold war.

If they are then they deserve to get nuked tbh.

Your just saying that because your safely in Eroupe.

 

[Colonel Cuddles]

Maybe the nuke will end up like the "Christmas Bomber" and fail and the nuke will melt all over Osama's crotch. Anyways, if NYC got nuked I think the world would go into economic collapse.

 

[Mr.Freeman]

North Korea will do it.

For a small man, Kim Jong-il's pretty scary.

 

[cutter]

Yeah nuking somewhere leaves the entire area chock full of radiation poisoning for years and years to come.

Basically it makes the place uninhabitable. So like yeah you could nuke everyone, but you'd pretty much turn the place to sand and make it a barren wasteland for 100 years. Not very viable because we won't even get any oil out of them.

Too bad the UN banned lots of other cool weapons such as bioweapons.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been since rebuilt after they were both bombed. They are far from "barren wasteland", as the nuclear fallout that was released back then has decayed to more than acceptable levels today.

 

[UberMario]

Your just saying that because your safely in Eroupe.

Safely? Even countries that are considered "bad" like Russia have been bombed in the last year.

Besides, the US is still hasn't completely calmed from having our wasp nest struck with a stick, I doubt we couldn't detect an unidentifiable plane and intercept it.

 

[Evil Eye]

So is there anything credible pointing to this? Like... at all? Or is this another one of those ridiculous alerts that were borne of a guy throwing two darts at a board that give them a ballpark of time and a type of SUPER THREAT?

well obama doesnt want the US to attack with nuclear weapons on the terrorists' countries so hes ruining our defences.
I can see this coming O_o

You're dumb.

1) Whether the U.S. will use nuclear retaliation has nothing to do with their anti-nuclear and anti-terrorist defences.

2) Nuking a country will, uh, kill a whole lot of civilians and a small handful of terrorists while the many surviving terrorists hide in their bunkers and caves.

3) Nuking a country will, uh, create more terrorists. You think they hate you now, for overthrowing some of their democracies, selling arms and takin' oil? How easy do you think it'll be for insane radicals to recruit terrorists if you nuke a place into oblivion? They'd just have to snap their fingers.


I could go on but I'd give myself a headache.

 

[Pluvia]

If America actually got nuked, I'd lol really hard because they're supposed to have the best antiwarhead and antiterror defence.

You can't shoot down nuke planes or nuclear missiles Teran.

 

[Teran]

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been since rebuilt after they were both bombed. They are far from "barren wasteland", as the nuclear fallout that was released back then has decayed to more than acceptable levels today.

Yeah, but the thermonuclear devices we have today make those bombs look like a box TNT.

You can't shoot down nuke planes or nuclear missiles Teran.

Actually, yes you can.

 

[Pluvia]

Yeah, but the thermonuclear devices we have today make those bombs look like a box TNT.



Actually, yes you can.

Hmm, I'm not sure explosions and fire and high speed impacts are things that devices that are just about to be detonated need.

 

[El Nino]

Hmm, I'm not sure explosions and fire and high speed impacts are things that devices that are just about to be detonated need.

The trick is to shoot them down before they reach your airspace. That way it can all rain down on someone else.

I'm sure you guys all know that in order to nuke someone, you first need to transport your bomb. So, you'd need either a bomber jet or a missile silo to launch the thing. The problem with a jet is that you might get shot down before you reach your target (esp. if your target is the U.S.). So launching is safer. Unfortunately, if you're launching, then that's a real big warhead attached to a real big missile, which is going to need a real big launching apparatus. Real big things are not easy to hide. Most likely, if you have a real big launch apparatus, you are not a rogue band of rebels; most likely you are the military of an established country.

And unfortunately, for you, that means the rest of the world knows where you are. And the U.S. has second strike capability. Meaning, you can't launch without having something come back at you.

Therefore, North Korea won't be launching at the U.S. any time soon. And the others who might like to are going to have to figure out the transportation complications first. After they secure a nuclear device, of course.

Where's Solid Snake when you need him?

 

[Teran]

Hmm, I'm not sure explosions and fire and high speed impacts are things that devices that are just about to be detonated need.

Detonating a nuclear warhead requires nuclear fission to occur, which in current bombs will trigger the fusion reaction which will go ape**** and destroy everything.

Unfortunately to trigger the fission reaction takes more than just powpowing a warhead out the sky. There's an actual mechanism within the bomb which will begin the fission. It's not a chemical explosive so it's not comparable.

Plus what El Nino said, you could just shoot it down and even if it does detonate you can hope it's just going to rain ash all over Poland or something.

 

[Pluvia]

Though if you're crazy enough to launch a nuke, or carry a nuke in a plane (they're about the size of big car I think), then you're crazy enough to detonate it before you reach you primary target rather than let it do nothing. Especially if you're a terrorist.

Also you can't blow up nukes over other countries. If a country with nukes see's all these American missiles enter their airspace, then suddenly a nuke goes off wiping out a few million of their people and raining down radiation over the rest, then it's bye bye America and all life on Earth.

 

[GoldShadow]

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been since rebuilt after they were both bombed. They are far from "barren wasteland", as the nuclear fallout that was released back then has decayed to more than acceptable levels today.

The blast yields of Fat Man and Little Boy were roughly 15-20 kilotons.

The nuclear weapons we have today range from several dozen kilotons to 10 megatons.

 

[El Nino]

Though if you're crazy enough to launch a nuke, or carry a nuke in a plane (they're about the size of big car I think), then you're crazy enough to detonate it before you reach you primary target rather than let it do nothing. Especially if you're a terrorist.

Let's not go with the assumption that everyone is completely crazy and only the U.S. is sane. People around the world generally want a lot of the same things. People who pick up arms in one country are often a lot similar to people in another country who do the same. Most people are rational, and most political actors are rational.

Although foot soldiers on any side of any conflict are often indoctrinated to fight and die for a cause (I must emphasize that this applies to just about EVERYONE), the ones pulling the strings are usually pragmatic in their aims, though also often ambitious.

War is not about ideology or fanaticism. War burns up a lot of physical resources, so in order for it to be worth all that effort, you must be able to gain a lot of those resources back. It takes a lot of money to wage a war, and money don't come easy. Zealots are people who stand on street corners with sandwich signs proclaiming the end of the world. They're not the ones with the means to wage a war.

What I'm saying is, don't just assume "everyone is crazy" because it's an easy assumption to make. If we're talking military tactics, it's unwise to think that your enemy is "crazy" and therefore unable to make sound judgments in order to further their own interests.

Is it "crazy" to launch or carry a nuke? Does that make you a crazy terrorist?

What country in the world has ever used nukes on living human targets?

Only one.

Also you can't blow up nukes over other countries. If a country with nukes see's all these American missiles enter their airspace, then suddenly a nuke goes off wiping out a few million of their people and raining down radiation over the rest, then it's bye bye America and all life on Earth.

Okay, well, I see your line of reasoning. But, for those of you who fell asleep during science class, what Teran said boils down to this: Nukes are not gasoline tankards. They don't blow up in response to a spark. That's not how it works.

Nukes have (usually) either uranium or plutonium on the inside. Uranium does not explode when you flick a match at it. What happens inside a nuke is like what happens inside a particle accelerator. A detonation sequence causes a tiny particle to shoot into a piece of uranium, which causes the uranium to split apart (fission). In theory, it would be possible to blow up the whole thing with a conventional missile, destroy the detonator, and prevent that entire fission reaction from happening in the first place. Without fission, the bomb doesn't blow up.

Now, what you say about radiation on the ground when it lands, that, in my understanding, would be a concern. It wouldn't be Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but it'd be a concern.

(This is just a general view based on low-level understanding of science. It isn't my field of specialty, and some of that up there may be outdated.)

 

[Pluvia]

I'd say suicide bombers are pretty crazy. They don'teven have to worry about the money side of things.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

lol

srs debatz0rz here guise

Also, nuclear blasts these days are far bigger than the ones in the old days.

I mean, look at the Tsar Bomb.

 

[El Nino]

I'd say suicide bombers are pretty crazy. They don'teven have to worry about the money side of things.

Suicide bombers don't act alone. They act as part of an organization, and that organization, which has somehow procured the means of training, equipping and indoctrinating people to die for their cause, is not behaving irrationally. War requires a tremendous expenditure of hard physical resources. It requires a hard, rational view on logistics. To do all that, I cannot call it irrational behavior. It may be overly ambitious and ruthless and inhumane and a whole lot of other things, but it is not irrational.

lol

srs debatz0rz here guise

I troll like woah.

 

[BBQTV]

some tourists dont care about dying, cause when they die they get 72 virgins

 

[Pluvia]

some tourists dont care about dying, cause when they die they get 72 virgins

Lol tourists.

But I disagree, anyone that is willing to kill themselves to kill like pregnant women and infants etc that they've never met is not acting rationally. Regardless if they're working for an organisation or not.

How much terrorist plots against the West have failed? Lots. If they were thinking rationally they would be able to see that too.

 

[El Nino]

Lol tourists.

It's no joking matter. Tourists are dangerous too.

But I disagree, anyone that is willing to kill themselves to kill like pregnant women and infants etc that they've never met is not acting rationally. Regardless if they're working for an organisation or not.

Whether the foot soldiers themselves are thinking rationally or not is not important. The only reason why they are doing what they are doing is because they are following orders. The people who issue those orders know exactly what they're doing and why, and they are neither irrational nor stupid about it.

How much terrorist plots against the West have failed? Lots. If they were thinking rationally they would be able to see that too.

In almost every war, one side wins and another side loses. I wouldn't assume that the main reason the losing side lost was because it was behaving irrationally. It lost because the other side had better tactics, weapons, resources, or something else that benefited them. Or it lost because it made bad decisions. But even if you think a particular decision was a "bad decision," that does not mean that it was an irrational decision.

 

[Pluvia]

You never countered my points. Just because a book says mass murdering people is ok, and you find people who agree with you, and you convince some of them to commit mass murder suicide, it doesn't make it rational.

Yeah there's not only one reason why one side would lose a war, but that still doesn't exclude irationality from being a part of it.

 

[BBQTV]

 

[Pikaville]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

That picture is amazingly funny.I have tears running down my face.

 

[BBQTV]

its typical reaction from a terrorist

 

[Jon Farron]

well obama doesnt want the US to attack with nuclear weapons on the terrorists' countries so hes ruining our defences.
I can see this coming O_o

Yeah nuking somewhere leaves the entire area chock full of radiation poisoning for years and years to come.

Basically it makes the place uninhabitable. So like yeah you could nuke everyone, but you'd pretty much turn the place to sand and make it a barren wasteland for 100 years. Not very viable because we won't even get any oil out of them.

Too bad the UN banned lots of other cool weapons such as bioweapons.

I'm not saying that we would just go and bomb everyone, im just saying people would be like "oh , they wont hurt us with that so lets go get them" Its more of a "oh they've got those nuclear weapons, what would they do if we do this?"

 

[GoldShadow]

You never countered my points. Just because a book says mass murdering people is ok, and you find people who agree with you, and you convince some of them to commit mass murder suicide, it doesn't make it rational.

That's not what he was referring to with the use of the words "rational" and "irrational". He was referring to the logistics more than the motivations.

The people at the top need to brainwash and train subordinates to go through with it, they need to plan, obtain equipment, manage and allocate resources, formulate ideas and blueprints, communicate with each other, try to avoid detection by national and international security agencies, and then execute the plan, among other things. Moreover, they have their own reasons (political or religious) for doing these things, and all these things are done with some level of deliberation. This requires rational thought and planning.

 

[Lawlb0t]

The real terrorists are in our own countries, everyone knows who they are. You see them on TV all the time.

 

[El Nino]

Just because a book says mass murdering people is ok, and you find people who agree with you, and you convince some of them to commit mass murder suicide, it doesn't make it rational.

1) I'm surprised that some people still honestly think that this is about a book.

2) I think we're getting in trouble over how we define "rational." As Goldshadow said, the act of planning out military operations requires rational thought. By "rational," we're talking about the ability to use logic.

An example of irrational thought would be a guy who thinks that a Beatles song is telling him to initiate a race war between whites and blacks in America. People under emotional duress who threaten to kill themselves after a break up are not thinking rationally. People under traumatic stress after a bad car accident, who sit in on the side of the road, rocking back and forth, are not thinking rationally.

The reason why Charles Manson failed to actually initiate a war is because he was not behaving rationally. He did get people to follow him, but it was a very small group, and although they did commit brutal crimes against a number of people, none of that can compare to what goes on in large-scale military organizations.

Since you brought up mass murder and the killing of infants and pregnant women, I just want to make sure that we're all square on the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian targets, yes? I don't think it's a good idea to call something irrational just because it was heinous or inhumane or brutal in nature. Those were military strikes, and they were executed with great planning and care on the part of the U.S. government of that time. And yet, on the ground, by the sheer magnitude of violence that it was, it would have appeared senseless. But whether it was the "right" or the "wrong" thing to do does not help us decide whether it was "rational" or "irrational." The people who made that decision were thinking rationally. They decided that the ends justified the means. They decided that it was in the best interests of their country to do this rather than to allow the other country to surrender with conditions. It may have been wrong in a lot of people's eyes, but it was still a rational decision.

It is a cold equation. Think of insurance companies deciding who to sell coverage to based on what is more profitable to them. War is like that.

 

[Pluvia]

That Charles Manson part appllies to what I'm saying.

And the decision to nuclear carpet bomb Japan and then send it troops 48 hours later was not a rational decision either.