If terrorists aquired nukes would they use them?

[Lancer]

Originally posted by 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...

I believe nukes will be used extensively once they are used again. Feelings are running high, the terrorists are insane and the US could win this holy war in an hour.

Question then becomes, whomoves into all that slightly glowing oil rich vacant real estate?

We should position some settlers off the coast.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Lancer
I believe nukes will be used extensively once they are used again. Feelings are running high, the terrorists are insane and the US could win this holy war in an hour.

No one wins if you are right about the extensive use.

[Lancer]

No one would have won in a nuke exchange between the US and Soviet Union however a nuke war between the US and the terrorist states wouldn't be much of an exchange. The US would win. I know it's not very touchy feely, but that's what would happen. Peace in the mid east, even if it is a bit quite, would be kinda nice.

Then again I'm one of those crazys who see terrorists and terrorist states, not the US, as one of the main impediments to world peace.

Then again, we would lose in the initiail terrorist nuking of one of our cities that would prompt the nuking of terrorist countries, so you have a point there...

Nevermind.

[Aeson]

You freak me out Lancer. I can't believe anyone would think nuclear genocide is a valid option. Even if you ignore all moral entanglements, it's a cluster-**** of epic proportions. The impact on world climate, economies, possible 3rd party involvements...

If I'm just reading you wrong, and you think we can force the entire Islamic world to submit, pull your head out of the sand and look at what's happening in Iraq. And that's before we unite a billion Muslims against the great Satan that just glassed over hundreds of thousands of their faith. It won't be just one city of ours that gets hit. It will be the occasional mushroom cloud from here on out.

I'd much rather face a reconstituted USSR in another cold war than have us do what you suggest.

[Dis]

we can't nuke the middle east. we need people to operate the oil wells. That's all I care about. Cheap gasoline.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson
You freak me out Lancer. I can't believe anyone would think nuclear genocide is a valid option. Even if you ignore all moral entanglements, it's a cluster-**** of epic proportions. The impact on world climate, economies, possible 3rd party involvements...

That's of course all right, but the point is also what the right reaction to a nuclear attack would be and if that's realistically the reaction we can expect, because in the aftermath of a nuclear attack several factors may drive US policy into a very strong, possibly nuclear counter reaction.

[Dis]

I don't think the U.S. would act irrationally. I think we kept our cool pretty good after 9/11. Though a nuke attack is completely different, I know.

So what would we do? forensic evidence would be very hard to come by (though not impossible). We'd have to go off of intelligence. I really don't think the U.S. would nuke anyone if we only got nuked once (very likely it will be a small tactical nuke that won't even come close to destroying a downtown district). Instead I think we'd convene full scale conventional bombing on any country that is harboring these terrorists (and don't hand them all over).

[_BuRjaCi_]

Nuclear non-proliferation is a joke as it is- how long can they keep a technology from 1945 a secret. As technology progresses it will get easier and easier for country’s or even groups to develop nuclear weapons. And since more countries will get them, they will be easier to steal or buy as well.

I suppose that nobody here knows that out of the 100 Russian suitcase nuclear bombs (developed during the cold war) at least 19 are not accounted for. I can’t imagine some employ losing one; I suspect they were sold on the open market to the highest bidder. If America is lucky that was either the CIA or Israel, if not it could have been China, NK or even Iran (if terrorists would have bought them they would have used them by now).

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Dis
I don't think the U.S. would act irrationally. I think we kept our cool pretty good after 9/11. Though a nuke attack is completely different, I know.

Emotional factors aside a strong reaction to such an attack isn't per se irrational, since doing nothing would mean weakness and so could just invite the next attack. It's not a nice way of thinking but generally not irrational. Of course if that leaves only the option to nuke someone else (who is probably not exactly identified in case of a terror act) in return is another question.

[Heresson]

there are no syrian terrorists

[Datajack Franit]

Can we nuke Mecca right after that?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Dis
I don't think the U.S. would act irrationally. I think we kept our cool pretty good after 9/11. Though a nuke attack is completely different, I know.

So what would we do? forensic evidence would be very hard to come by (though not impossible). We'd have to go off of intelligence. I really don't think the U.S. would nuke anyone if we only got nuked once (very likely it will be a small tactical nuke that won't even come close to destroying a downtown district). Instead I think we'd convene full scale conventional bombing on any country that is harboring these terrorists (and don't hand them all over).

Depends on who is at power during the time of attack I think.
If for example the neocons are at power I don´t expect a rational answer to the situation.

Although I think even these would only start a nuclear attack if there are strong evidences which tie the bomb to be from the arsenal of one of the countries on the expanded axis of evil (cuba, iran, north korea or france [germany can be omitted as we don´t possess any nukes])

But most likely they will implement some paranoid response like kind of patriot act III (putting all muslims within the country on surveillance and giving the governmental agencies the right to record phone calls, eMails and the like without being accountable to anyone)

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Can we nuke Mecca right after that?

Mekka is located in Saudi Arabia which is allied to you.
So no, you cannot do this but instead have to downplay any evidences which point to this direction (same is true when the terrorists used nukes from pakistan).

But you can freely nuke Iran, North Korea or any tiny african nation, as long as there is even the slightest hint that any of these nations might be involved in the attack

[Guardian]

Re: If terrorists aquired nukes would they use them?

Originally posted by Lancer
Iranian/Syrian terrorists, Saudi terrorists, whoever. If they use nukes should we now announce that the parent country will reap the retaliation? Might that draw a line in the sand, stop them from using them?

Ummm... no, I don't think so. The thing is, these guys believe they are already at war with Western Civilization in general and the US in particular. They seek to fan the flames of what they see as the good fight between Islam and the good muslims on one side and the evil westerners on the other. They will use every weapon at their disposal, and by threatening retaliation against a whole country - or against all of Islam - I believe the US would only make matters a whole hell of a lot worse.

Don't forget, there are over 1 billion muslims out there, and if even 1% of them had anything to do with Al Qaeda or any other terror organization, that would put about 10 million terrorists out there right now, plotting attacks or helping prepare for them. Does the world today look like there are 10 million terrorists out there? I don't think so. To me it looks more like a handful here, a dozen there, a few hundred scurrying about in the dark somewhere in between, maybe a few thousand supporters hiding in the shadows.... and that's about it, I think. Well, if the US threatened to nuke Mecca, it wouldn't be anymore, because... well, I could make a big long list of points here, but to cut things short, I basically believe that this would be like telling over 1 billion muslims that "We hate your religion, we hate you - and even if you don't attack us, we might nuke you anyway!"

Hardly a good way to keep the peace, I say.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Aeson
You freak me out Lancer. I can't believe anyone would think nuclear genocide is a valid option. Even if you ignore all moral entanglements, it's a cluster-**** of epic proportions. The impact on world climate, economies, possible 3rd party involvements...

If I'm just reading you wrong, and you think we can force the entire Islamic world to submit, pull your head out of the sand and look at what's happening in Iraq. And that's before we unite a billion Muslims against the great Satan that just glassed over hundreds of thousands of their faith. It won't be just one city of ours that gets hit. It will be the occasional mushroom cloud from here on out.

I'd much rather face a reconstituted USSR in another cold war than have us do what you suggest.

I don't consider nuclear retaliation such an irrational concept. Sorry if it freaked you out.

If New York or some other major city got blown away I would be very surprised if a terrorist state or two didn't get nuked really hard. Sad, but according to my understanding that's the way these things work. Also the government would have little choice, the people would be ripping mad and out for blood...justice perhaps, payback for some...