If terrorists aquired nukes would they use them?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
There is an interesting article in Spoektrum der wissenschaft (the german edition of scientific american)
where it is said that a wise move would be (if the terrorists have a rocket as a carrier system for the weapon) to detonate the weapon in orbit, thereby eleminating a lot of the satellites in Orbit as well as computer on the ground via EMP, and also making replacing the satellites hard or even impossible for about one year because of the high amount of radiation that will only slowly disappear.

As the western civilization is very dependant on satellites this would have a much greater effect than "just" detonating the bomb in some american city.

though it'd probably be a little easier for terrorists to get the weapon in through mexico than get it into orbit.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Lancer
Getting it in might not be as hard as some here think. Just shipping it in via container would likely do the trick.

Do nuke weapons emit radiation detectable by a device? Could their radioactivity reveal their existance right through a shipping container?

If Hezbollah nuked us that's the same as getting nuked by Iran, yes?

True, other terrorist groups would be more difficult to pin down with a state to hold responsible. If one of them got us we would have to pull a name out of a hat and nuke them.

Ecthy, I'll have you know I recieved a brain at birth and yes I do use it, as a counterbalance to my ass.

after 9/11 I remember them saying how easy it would be. They started doing random checks with radiation monitors, but I doubt it would work with a shielded container. And the checks are very random (if at all)

[Dis]

There was an article in Newsweek a while back (I was reading when getting my oil changed ) that discussed the difficulty of tracing radioactive materials. I think we'd have a hell of a time figuring out who detonated the bomb. I believe the example they used was trying to trace the uranium that Pakistan used. They still aren't completely sure of the origin.

[axi]

Use a nuclear counterattack on a country with no evidence that links it's government to the attack?

The most certain way to cause WW3.

Get off your high horse. Nukes are not toys.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Dis
I believe the example they used was trying to trace the uranium that Pakistan used. They still aren't completely sure of the origin.

It came from China, as did the blueprints

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by axi
Use a nuclear counterattack on a country with no evidence that links it's government to the attack?

The most certain way to cause WW3.

Get off your high horse. Nukes are not toys.

What do you think would happen if a nuclear terror attack occurs (esp. one of a big scale)?

[Tattila the Hun]

Re: Re: If terrorists aquired nukes would they use them?

Originally posted by Monk


Well, I guess it's possible to argue that any would-be terrorist might think twice before taking out New York if it would happen at the expense of his people.

The main problem is though, and this is completely disregarding the moral issue, if some Saudi that isn't easily discouraged goes ahead anyway, you have to obliterate Mecca, and good luck on fighting terrorism after that happens.

"Jeezus, these guys are serious! And Allah didn't stop the nuking, so I quess our nuking was bad, too... "

Though, if that's muslim terrorist person, I wonder if he'd use Jeezus...

[axi]

Lots of scared Americans will build bunkers and make tinfoil hats.

Everywhere in the wold the store shelves will be emptied.

The US (assuming it's them who get it) will be able to coerce any country that is branded as the origin of the terrorists to put up to ANY demand.

A total commerce ban on nuclear enabling stuff will be enacted worldwide.

Actually it's easy to imagine a 11/9 and a Chernobyl, put together.

[Dis]

the americans could nuke one of their own cities and say the middle east did it as an excuse to nuke the middle east (or worse)

[Krill]

No one likes LA anyway...

[Blaupanzer]

Yes, terrorists would use a nuke if they had one. Good luck figuring out who detonated it after it goes off. Retaliation would be pointless after the attack, but this President would do it anyway against North Korea, Iran, or both.

The world would be forever altered in ways we only dimly comprehend.

[Diadem]

Not all terrorist groups would use a nuke if they got one, but many would. I can't see a group like ETA or IRA using one for example. But then again, these groups wouldn't even be interested in having one, most likely.

Those are non-muslim terrorist groups though. Most muslim terrorist groups (and that's the majority, I fear) would immidiately use one. They are just too fanatical to be rational. They aren't even fighting for a rationally defined goal anyway.

Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have, on several occasions, started terrorist campaigns that clearly hurt their own people more than it did the Israeli's. This does not concern them. They simply don't care about it. One might even argue that they do it on purpose. Their popularity only grows by it. For terrorist using nukes it'll be the same, only bigger. Much bigger.

Delivering nukes won't be as easy as simply sailing a boat into a busy harbor. Where do you get a boat from? When the harbor authorities ask you where you came from, what do you answer? "Ehm, some shady beach in the middle each where we left at the middle of the night". Probably not a good answer

Sailing a ship into a big port is easy. Loading a ship with nukes and then convincing everybody that you are entirely legit without arousing any suspicious is probably a lot harder. Especially with every secret service in the world looking for you.

Getting nukes is not easy. Stealing them is nigh impossible. Everybody will be looking for you then. And building them yourself is very hard. Hard enough to stop most countries from doing it.


Though to be quite honest I'm quite pessimistic in this regard. It may be very hard, but it is getting easier, as more and more countries get nukes. North-Korea already has them. What will they do with them. Stockpile, most likely. But they are insane enough to give one or two to Bin Laden as a present. Iran will soon have them. Are they insane enough to give them to Hezbollah or some other group? I hope they aren't, and I think they probably aren't, but you can't be sure. And even if they aren't insane enough to do that today, they might be tomorrow, under another leader. Same story for Pakistan. The dictator there is friends with the USA. That's nice. But what if he dies or falls and some religious fanatic takes over?

Maybe I'm paranoid. But in the present world, I would recommend against buying real estate in the New York area...

[Elok]

I don't see why any dictator would give WMDs to terrorists who were not completely loyal to him or his faction. Dictators don't stay in power by being trusting with munitions like that. Especially not when said terrorists would probably be going underground with them, leaving said weapons untrackable.

[Aeson]

I see more potential for damage to us from making the retaliation than from the terrorist attack itself. Making a threat that the retaliation would be made is itself something that threatens our national security.

The world has seen our incompetence. You really think no one out there would think we could be played against one of their competitors? Not to mention that anyone who would carry out a nuclear attack is probably going to see retaliation by us as a glorious start (and/or finish) to their holy war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Diadem
Those are non-muslim terrorist groups though. Most muslim terrorist groups (and that's the majority, I fear) would immidiately use one. They are just too fanatical to be rational. They aren't even fighting for a rationally defined goal anyway.

MOst are. You have Kashmir joining Pakistan, Independence for the Muslim sections of the phillipinnes, the creation of lslamists governments. Actually, most Muslim terrorist groups have rationally defined goals.

Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have, on several occasions, started terrorist campaigns that clearly hurt their own people more than it did the Israeli's. This does not concern them. They simply don't care about it. One might even argue that they do it on purpose. Their popularity only grows by it. For terrorist using nukes it'll be the same, only bigger. Much bigger.

And yet Hamas won an election, and Hezbullah's political position is stronger than ever. It seems both groups have acted quite rationally to increase their influence and importance, and even if Lebanse and Palestinians, being weaker, suffer more from confrontation, these groups clearly behave "rationally."