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

[:) 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...