Will nuclear bomb(s) be detonated for aggressive purposes in the next 50 years?

[Winston]

That is, during warfare or as a means of terror, not counting test detonations and possible accidents. Quite a few nations hold it as their highest ambition to add nuclear capapbility to their weapons arsenal, and the nuclear club has already expanded considerably over the last years. Today it was reported that Iran will probably be able to produce a bomb in 2-3 years' time. The balance of terror like we saw during the Cold War won't necessarily work on these new players, not under all conditions anyway.

Also the world is growing smaller, for good and for bad, so it would seem likely that individuals or organisations will someday get their hands on nuclear devices. Whether they'll be able to put them to use is another matter.

[Victor Galis]

Your question is very vague. The way it's worded, it seems to include a test done specifically for the purpose of intimidating someone else.

[Odin]

Almost certain.


Possible antagonists:

NK against Japan
Pakistan against India or vice versa
Muslin Terrorists against US or Israel
Iran against Israel

[Winston]

Victor,

I mean detonated to inflict harm on others. As in 'for real'.

[Victor Galis]

That can still be interpreted I mean if you detonate one to prove that you have one then make some demand that they only give into because of the phrase, "OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" you have done them harm, but I know what you mean.

[Worthingtons]

i find it likely that they'll be used somewhere, probably by a smallish or rogue state used as a means of Combat rather than mass population destruction, although possibly a revenge attack.

I also dread to think What Israel would do if they ever lost the support of the US. Stockpile Nukes very quickily most likely as a defense against a mass arab assault.

[Ted Striker]

I'd say it's not a matter of if but when.

Hopefully Jack Bauer will be on the case and save the day.

[Kramerman]

i see a nuke being detonated in a major US city by terroists within the next 50 years almost definatey, perhaps within the next decade... really scarey when you think we can do little but have a strong offense to defend against that.

[Al B. Sure!]

it would seem so anti-climatic that the world gets destroyed by nukes 50 years after the cold war...

[Proteus_MST]

Yes, it may be possible.

Depends on what Size they are.

Major Nuclear Bombs probably from

NK against SK, Japan or the USA assuming, that their Multistage Carrier System which can reach California will be developed further )
Pakistan and India, as mentioned.

Iran against US-Troops in Case of an Invasion, assuming that they don´t have far reaching Carrier Systems and so can´t attack the US-Mainland.

Terrorists most probably against USA or Israel.

Also I assume,
that the USA could use minor tactical Nuclear Weapons,
such as Nuclear Bunkerbusters or the like,
assuming that the Scruples against using such Weapons will decrease the more time passes since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[CerberusIV]

Yes, but only if something more effective and easier to use doesn't become available.

[lightblue]

Originally posted by Odin
Almost certain.


Possible antagonists:

NK against Japan
Pakistan against India or vice versa
Muslin Terrorists against US or Israel
Iran against Israel

Agree, would add

Israel vs any country that threatens its existence

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Yes, but only if something more effective and easier to use doesn't become available.

Of course,
out of this the reason they probably also won´t use large Nukes against large concentrations of Troops.

The MOAB has almost the same psychological Effect and doesn´t carry the Stigma a nuclear Weaopon has.
And of course also doesn´t generate the same Waste

[Gangerolf]

not very likely

[Whaleboy]

Not very likely. Terrorist orgs won't be able to develop them (althuogh they could use dirty bombs, but those are very easy), small nations wouldn't use them. They are mainly a bluffers weapon.

[:) Smiley]

Do you suppose anything will ever replace the nuke as the ultimate weapon?

[lightblue]

Hmm.. a less polluting weapon that does the same thing, maybe?

[GePap]

Very likely, but not for certain.

The current regime of non-proliferation is falling apart slowly, if only becuase there is very little validity to the old canard that only 5 states had the right to have nukes, if only cause they got there first.

One of the most likely users of nukes will be the US: given the penchant some in the pentagon have for "mini" (hiroshima size to a couple times bigger)-nukes as bunker busters. They intend to use them, and the US is one of the only two states (the other being Pak) that has not explicitly claimed its nukes are only to be used as a last resort self defense. Paks has a biggere xcuse for this than the US.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by elijah
Not very likely. Terrorist orgs won't be able to develop them (althuogh they could use dirty bombs, but those are very easy), small nations wouldn't use them. They are mainly a bluffers weapon.

Yes, there is no danger of Terror Organizations developing Nukes.
But there is a Danger that they might acquire them
by Russia (as many of the Members of the Nuclear Force, which were once considered Elite now often not even get their monthly Salary at the right time and so might be open to forget one Bomb or the other for monetary gains)
or by Pakistan (as many members of Pakistans Military Force can be considered to be Sympathizers of the Taliban and/or Al Quaida)

[St Leo]

I think it's not very likely as long as Bush is voted out in 2004.

[Odin]

Replacement for nukes? CtP's Nanite Bomb (Eco-Love Bug).

[Winston]

Can anything be done to prevent it, besides what we're already trying to do? Something radical, agreed upon by the 5 'old' nuclear countries (among whom the balance of terror proved its worth)... Here, I'm only thinking of preventing sovereign nations' first use of nuclear weapons.

Let's say some devastating countermeasure was agreed upon, publicly announced and guaranteed by a mutual treaty among US, Britain, Russia, France and China. Something like completely leveling the capital of the first-user (conventional bombings), forewarned and commencing exactly 72 hours after the detonation, to give time for the evacuation of citizens. It won't happen, I know, but could it prevent first use if all governments knew it would cost them their capital?

It's an atrocious thought, but nobody could blame anobody but the first user if it was a known condition beforehand.

If it was this way, we'd only have to worry about first use by one of the 5 old countries, and they seem to have it figured out wrt. mutual deterrance (sp.?), at least so far...

[Kramerman]

what if aliens invade or a asteroid or comet comes plummiting toward earth (seriously)? nukes are our only trump card, we need them.

[Winston]

Kramerman,

Yes, in the most extreme thought experiments, they could be useful, but we don't need new countries to obtain them other than those who've already had them for decades.

[Kramerman]

oh, i thought you were talking about a complete ban on nukes by everyone including the 5 originals...
perhaps a complete ban on nukes by everyone except the US would be helpful

[St Leo]

perhaps a complete ban on nukes by everyone except the US would be helpful

Ha ha... not funny.

[JCG]

I think it's a bit unlikely (within the next 50...if you said 100, I'd be much more willing to bet on it), but if someone does, it'll be NK or some sort of Terrorist group, evidently.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Odin
Replacement for nukes? CtP's Nanite Bomb (Eco-Love Bug).

I'd buy that for a dollar!

[Dis]

I voted not-very likely.

why? well I'm not sure

but I do think nukes will be used mainly as threats and blackmail devices (as NK did to Clinton and Bush). I don't think anyone has the balls to actually use them.

[Sava]

Difficult to see. Always in motion the future is...