NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone think in the near future the insurgents could get hold of a nuclear weapon? Everyday you hear more soldiers are dieing, more shit is being destroyed, more people are being taken hostage. I'm just thinking about what would happen if the guerillas got hold of like a small sized nuke and detonated it in Baghdad.

Or even worse like Smallpox or some other WMD..
At this point, I don't think it would matter if they used a WMD..

The world will become cynical and desensitised. The only people that care, will care because of a certain black fluid.

Ah well, it's only Bagdad and if something bad happens we can still say "Saddam would have went on killing innocent people anyway, so people would have died horribly one way or another."

My solution:
Make Iraq a confederacy, divide into confederal states. Turkey must allow the secession of Kurdistan under pressure of Europe mainly. Europe should make it a condition for entering the E.U.. In Iraq, there must 1 state for every ethnicity. The squabbles over who has the most oil shall be prevented by extreme force. Oil shall be a federal matter. Iraq will always need a strong military and police force.

My solution. Give U.N control of Iraq, and give it a British style parliament and constitution (I know there is no 1 document, but it exists.)
Make oil a concern for parliament. Adopt a combined U.S U.K style police force, hold elections as soon as possible, then leave.

Where would they get one from? Bearing in mind that military-grade nuclear fission technology is not something one can cook up in a garage.

The nuclear-armed countries today are, listed in descending order of number of functioning nuclear weapons:

USA, Russia, France, UK, China, Israel, India, Pakistan.

(China and Israel might be the other way around, it is hard to say)

I can't see any of them wanting to give nuclear weapons to Iraqi insurgents. Nor can I see anyone being successful in stealing one or buying one on the black market. Luckily, nuclear weapons technology is still something quite exclusive to an elite few.

Personally I think that Bush had no right going into Iraq in the first place because he has not found any WMDs so basically i think the US should help set up a government then leave. So basically yea..I may be an american but i don't support bush what so ever

Does anyone think in the near future the insurgents could get hold of a nuclear weapon? Everyday you hear more soldiers are dieing, more shit is being destroyed, more people are being taken hostage. I'm just thinking about what would happen if the guerillas got hold of like a small sized nuke and detonated it in Baghdad.

Or even worse like Smallpox or some other WMD..
At this point, I don't think it would matter if they used a WMD..

Probably not.. given Iraq never had WMD to begin with.. not since they destroyed it all after Gulf 1.. I supose it might be possible if a foreign fighter brough it in.. but I doubt it. Just my opinion.

The world will become cynical and desensitised. The only people that care, will care because of a certain black fluid.


So that's why Britain entered the war! We needed the Bovril!

On a more serious note, Iraq has become the Vietnam of the twenty-first century. To avoid this happening:
VOTE LIB DEMS!
They may appear a bit weedy, but they won't throw your opinion out of the window like the Conservatives or New Labour.
Of course, you could vote Green or Socialist, but you aren't going to see them get the power to change things for a while yet.

Where would they get one from? Bearing in mind that military-grade nuclear fission technology is not something one can cook up in a garage.

The nuclear-armed countries today are, listed in descending order of number of functioning nuclear weapons:

USA, Russia, France, UK, China, Israel, India, Pakistan.

(China and Israel might be the other way around, it is hard to say)

I can't see any of them wanting to give nuclear weapons to Iraqi insurgents. Nor can I see anyone being successful in stealing one or buying one on the black market. Luckily, nuclear weapons technology is still something quite exclusive to an elite few.

With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the utter disintergration of it's huge military...the nuclear command and control structure was shattered, renegade officers just might be inclined to sell of some of their former charges to the highest bidders, especially if they were Georgian or Chechen or any of the former Far East Republics.

Yea that's true. I've seen alot about how the former Soviet states do still have unemployed former scientists who are willing to sell parts or an entire bomb for that sake to the person with the most money.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

US & UK security have been prepared for a 'dirty' nuclear device being detonated in Washington, New York or London for some time. Read some recent news.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

Actually, very little of the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces were ever based in the now-independent republics, the rationale being, the peripheral regions would be over-run first in the event of a full-scale war, rendering them useless and a potential liability. Not to mention fear of popular uprisings which could deliver fully operational nuclear silos to a potentially hostile revolutionary government. Those units that were based in such places were generally the mobile ones more suited to tactical / theatre warfare, and were fully withdrawn in an orderly fashion at the time of the dissolution of the communist government.

What little was left behind in the ex-Soviet republics is nuclear waste material, particularly from medical and scientific instruments. Hence the dirty bomb scenario, which would be an area denial rather than a mass destruction weapon.

Obtaining a nuclear weapon from Russia was and remains out of the question without the acquiescence of the Russian government.

Actually, very little of the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces were ever based in the now-independent republics, the rationale being, the peripheral regions would be over-run first in the event of a full-scale war, rendering them useless and a potential liability. Not to mention fear of popular uprisings which could deliver fully operational nuclear silos to a potentially hostile revolutionary government. Those units that were based in such places were generally the mobile ones more suited to tactical / theatre warfare, and were fully withdrawn in an orderly fashion at the time of the dissolution of the communist government.

What little was left behind in the ex-Soviet republics is nuclear waste material, particularly from medical and scientific instruments. Hence the dirty bomb scenario, which would be an area denial rather than a mass destruction weapon.

Obtaining a nuclear weapon from Russia was and remains out of the question without the acquiescence of the Russian government.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I agree with that completely but with one observation. The Ukraine contained a great deal of Soviet military hardware and have always refused to give it to the Russians. They do however, allow Russians to 'montitor' their activities (as if they had a choice).


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

Oh yes, although in their case, Russia has not made that big a deal out of it. The Ukraine can be relied upon not to do something n00b with all the stuff they ended up with, so it is something they can accept, even if it annoys them. Kazakhstan is also noteworthy for the cosmodromes and associated ballistic missile technology Russia still maintains and operates there, although the focus is now civilian. The facilities were so vast, and geographic location so important, they had no choice but to cut a deal with the new government.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

US & UK security have been prepared for a 'dirty' nuclear device being detonated in Washington, New York or London for some time. Read some recent news.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

Uh yeah I was talking about Iraq but ok

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

US & UK security have been prepared for a 'dirty' nuclear device being detonated in Washington, New York or London for some time. Read some recent news.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

Uh yeah I was talking about Iraq but ok

I was responding to the comments about whether the material could be available to terrorists.
Since you ask, no, I don't think Quaeda or their bastard friends would use it in Iraq. As I say, they'd prefer the US & UK or even somewhere like Saudi. The outside 'freedom' fighters in Iraq, along with the indiginous terrorists want the west out and a Iraqi/Arab controlled Iraq, not a big hole in the ground.

See, by the time we know they have a weapon, we'll be dead. I quit worrying a long time ago about this stuff.

lol well I still think if anyone in the Middle East who is crazy and opposed the American invasion got their hands on a small suitcase nuke or something, they would use it. I don't know why I just think they would.