NationStates Jolt Archive

I’ve been sporadically contemplating this question lately: How would North America or Europe react to Islamic radicals detonating an atom bomb in a major city? Now… I don’t know nearly enough about European culture and politics to speculate on this matter. However, North America, I imagine, would respond violently both internally and possibly externally. The rage such an attack would provoke may allow federal authorities to establish, for an indefinite amount of time, executive powers, without serious objection. Anyone declared a threat would be detained, without legal recourse or human right protections; we would effectively become a police state. If America or Canada were attacked in such a way they would maintain solidarity, both acting as though they were subject to the aggression. Perhaps there would be a subsequent middle east killing spree wherein the States and Canada (if possible, provide their military limitations) seek revenge on any Muslim dominated nation (within political and economic restraints, so Saudis are off the hook).

I may have it all wrong; this is just my naive take on such an event, perhaps others care to give there thoughts on this matter? I’m curious what the Europeans have to say about this, I here there are already tensions with your Muslim populations; would there be mass deportations or genocide?

European nations don't really have the ability to project power internationally as the US does.

Without the aid of the US, no European nation on Earth could successfully invade a country, say, like Iran.

The US could successfully invade, but then they would be stuck there for the next 40 years, fighting insurgents.

So, unless the US deigned to help a European country victimized in such a way, no European country would be able to retaliate at all.

That's probably why their foreign policies don't favor retaliation - because it's just impossible for them to do.

I’ve been sporadically contemplating this question lately: How would North America or Europe react to Islamic radicals detonating an atom bomb in a major city? Now… I don’t know nearly enough about European culture and politics to speculate on this matter. However, North America, I imagine, would respond violently both internally and possibly externally. The rage such an attack would provoke may allow federal authorities to establish, for an indefinite amount of time, executive powers, without serious objection. Anyone declared a threat would be detained, without legal recourse or human right protections; we would effectively become a police state. If America or Canada were attacked in such a way they would maintain solidarity, both acting as though they were subject to the aggression. Perhaps there would be a subsequent middle east killing spree wherein the States and Canada (if possible, provide their military limitations) seek revenge on any Muslim dominated nation (within political and economic restraints, so Saudis are off the hook).

I may have it all wrong; this is just my naive take on such an event, perhaps others care to give there thoughts on this matter? I’m curious what the Europeans have to say about this, I here there are already tensions with your Muslim populations; would there be mass deportations or genocide?

If it happened in the UK (God forbid) I think you would see a number of things: There would be a clampdown on immigration and asylum, you would see fewer political parties harping on about tolerance, laws against "incitement to religious hatred" would be struck down, multiculturalism would be considered to have failed, there would be a dramatic increase in emphasis given to national security and more funding more the intelligence services. Civil rights organisations and political liberals would be marginalised. There would be an upsurge in racism, racist violence and an upsurge in feelings of national identity. For the large part however, I think national solidarity, law and order and the rule of law would be maintained - give or take a few weeks after the incident where some breakdown would be only natural.

Unfortunately, MAD does not really work in this scenario.

I’ve been sporadically contemplating this question lately: How would North America or Europe react to Islamic radicals detonating an atom bomb in a major city? Now… I don’t know nearly enough about European culture and politics to speculate on this matter. However, North America, I imagine, would respond violently both internally and possibly externally. The rage such an attack would provoke may allow federal authorities to establish, for an indefinite amount of time, executive powers, without serious objection. Anyone declared a threat would be detained, without legal recourse or human right protections; we would effectively become a police state. If America or Canada were attacked in such a way they would maintain solidarity, both acting as though they were subject to the aggression. Perhaps there would be a subsequent middle east killing spree wherein the States and Canada (if possible, provide their military limitations) seek revenge on any Muslim dominated nation (within political and economic restraints, so Saudis are off the hook).

I may have it all wrong; this is just my naive take on such an event, perhaps others care to give there thoughts on this matter? I’m curious what the Europeans have to say about this, I here there are already tensions with your Muslim populations; would there be mass deportations or genocide?


An hypothetical response to a 100K nuke being set off on lets say London Bridge in the center of London.
Est casulties 250 000 dead, 250 000 injured

Following day Arrest of all terrorists suspects and associates under watch by the security services, followed by instant deportation of any foriegn nationals within that group, internment for the others innocent or not.
Police and Army mobilised and sent to the muslim areas of large british cities, this is done to protect the innocents against the stupid racist thugs (and believe me there'd be a lot more of them after a nuking than before).

British prime minister would announce that the trail of the terrorists would be investigated and if the trail led to a particular country , then they would be liable to instant retaliation by any and all means nessasary.

Multiculturalism would die in the UK, closely followed by a lot of civil liberties, the majority of the population would approve of this.

The government would also organise mass airlifts of any muslims who wanted to leave the UK.


"hopefully this is a hypothetical question and long may it remain that way"

If it happened in the U.S. i think there would be a massive investigation and if any ties to a specific country were found we would immediately go to war with said country with full support of almost all the populace of the U.S. and the number of racists idiots would rise dramatically in a very short time. I dont know about Europe cause i dont live there but if they went to war and wanted the U.S. to help i doubt that we would help, unless it was like the U.K. cause they always got our back when we wanna invade some other country so we gotta have theirs.

European Nations would strongly denounce the terrorist act and then start fighting about the best way to fight.

If a European city was razed by Islamist terrorists, there would be a complete lockdown on all borders. Militaries would be called in to assist the police. Anti-terrorism measures would be greatly expanded, to the necessary detriment of privacy rights.

It would depend a lot if the terrorists were foreign or home-grown (like the July 2005 London bombers). If home-grown, most Muslims living in Europe would probably be deported or imprisoned, eventually. If foreign, I'm not sure what would happen. PRobably greater willingness to go along with whatever the US suggests.

Also, let's not forget, Israel would most likely use the attack as an excuse to organise a complete genocide in Palestine.

Also, let's not forget, Israel would most likely use the attack as an excuse to organise a complete genocide in Palestine.
you are right they would but would usa use it to destroy other? who?

I think we're all forgetting one thing: regardless of wherever it happens, the other powerful nations will use it as an excuse to go ballistic anyway. Trust me. Even if the freaking FRENCH were nuked the U.S. would be uber-pissed about it. (I say this only in that most of the U.S. find the French detestable for some reason. I don't. Frenchies are cool.)

Also, let's not forget, Israel would most likely use the attack as an excuse to organise a complete genocide in Palestine.

Shouldn't this be under the humour section?


:headbang:



I think we're all forgetting one thing: regardless of wherever it happens, the other powerful nations will use it as an excuse to go ballistic anyway. Trust me. Even if the freaking FRENCH were nuked the U.S. would be uber-pissed about it. (I say this only in that most of the U.S. find the French detestable for some reason. I don't. Frenchies are cool.)


If someone actually did nuke france, of course I'd be worried. That's because France pussy foots around everything important.

I beleive probably the most likely nuke scenario would either be North Korea or Iran.



Minuteman XI-delivery in 30 minutes or else your next one is free!

Bomb material can be traced back to the reactor where it was produced. So, after they analyze the blast, they can find out which reactor the terrorists got their uranium from, and demand an explanation. If the explanation isn't satisfactory, well...

Bomb material can be traced back to the reactor where it was produced. So, after they analyze the blast, they can find out which reactor the terrorists got their uranium from, and demand an explanation. If the explanation isn't satisfactory, well...
The one thing they wouldn't do is nuke back. It wouldn't work.

...though if they did nuke back, you know they're going to target Mecca.

Shouldn't this be under the humour section?
An exaggeration, yes, but if the right circumstances came up for them, they could get away with it. They've already shut the Palestinians behind walls. Both the Nazis and the Communists did that.

I beleive probably the most likely nuke scenario would either be North Korea or Iran.
Then it wouldn't be nuclear terrorism, it would just be a straight-up nuclear war. Iran isn't likely, so I tihnk the most appropriate response would be to raze Pyongang as fast as possible and destroy all nuclear and military facilities in North Korea.

...though if they did nuke back, you know they're going to target Mecca.
No. Mecca is immune from attack from the West. This is because it's in oily Arabia, and also if you nuked Mecca, almost every Muslim in the world would turn against you.

No. Mecca is immune from attack from the West. This is because it's in oily Arabia, and also if you nuked Mecca, almost every Muslim in the world would turn against you.
But if the projected scenarios regarding police state America and the entire country in uproar were to occur, the immunity Mecca enjoys would evaporate more swiftly than a cup of water on the surface of the sun.

If terrorists nuked a city in Europe, there'd be outrage, disgust and sadness. There would not be deportations, there would not be a violent response.

Instead there would be a lot of talk about how Europe must preserve its values despite the attack, and stay civilised and humane.

Inofficially, there'd be a lot of investigation and secret service activity to find out who did it. Then there'd be arrests or firefights, as was the case in Madrid.

Depends also of course on which country it is. If it was France that was attacked, they'd probably go a little more apeshit than all that. France and the US aren't all that different in many respects.

Of course, this begs the question how in hell you'd manage to nuke a European city, given that Islamist terrorism has changed to be very decentralised and localised, but then this is a hypothetical.

If terrorists nuked a city in Europe, there'd be outrage, disgust and sadness. There would not be deportations, there would not be a violent response.

Instead there would be a lot of talk about how Europe must preserve its values despite the attack, and stay civilised and humane.

I'm not suggesting that the European country would become fascist, and I think that we would be a bit more relaxed than the Americans, but I don't have so much faith in the people of Europe that they wouldn't embark on pogroms against Muslims. Most Muslims would no longer want to stay in Europe.

After the attacks on Madrid and London, life went on more or less as normal. I don't think it would be like that after a nuclear attack. There would be serious government action to crack down on terrorism, indeed all religious extremism. I imagine that most countries would gladly go along with whatever foreign target the Americans suggest attacking.

The severity of US response would be dictated almost entirely by how the attack occurred and the importance of the target.


An EMP blast over New York city essentially guarantees destruction of every major city in every country thought to even be tangentially related. Not just Mecca would disappear, but Riyadh, Damascus, Sanaa, Tripoli, and possibly Tehran. An attack on the US stock market effectively ends US supremacy on the world scene, and this would essentially dictate the end of all presumed threats upon the US. You would see hundred square mile sections of countries disappear entirely. Certain portions of arabian nations would be one contiguous sheet of glass. This is the worst case scenario.


Something like a 1 meg detonated in San Francisco harbor would result in an outcry significatly greater than 9/11. The executive could suspend civil and political liberties for an extended period of time and get away with it. The rules of evidence and rules of war would get thrown out temporarily. Immediate responses against all suspected offenders would be warranted (doesn't matter whether they are innocent or not, just so long as intelligence evidence points in their direction). The amount of devastation caused here would simply make any response less than the aforementioned look unconcerned with the plight of those who died.


And if the terrorists weren't so stupid as to do any of the above, and did something like a 10k detonated in a small town, then the situation changes. America and its people go on alert. The long term political climate changes more drastically than 9/11. Defense and intelligence spending go through the roof. The CIA's ground program would immediately get reconstituted. Satellite and other early warning detection systems would get set into place. And once the US found out whose country was housing those responsible it would get bombed into the stone age. Doesn't matter which country it is. Even Saudi Arabia loses its protection, and I will tell you why.


First it bears mentioning why Saudi Arabia has the protection it does. It has about a billion dollars invested in the American economy. Beyond this it has a lion's share of the world's LIQUID petroleum. It bears emphasizing "liquid" here because the US has vast reserves of oil based shales in the Rocky Mountains. If SA were to disappear, then the US is going to start processing the shales even if it is more expensive than liquid oil. Part of the reason the US doesn't already do this is because OPEC threatens to raise oil prices considerably if we do. But if you start engaging in nuclear terrorism, then the US frankly won't give a ****.

NT

Ordering a nuclear attack on the US is a very good way of either:

a: getting turned into ash
b: getting turned into glass
c: having some very nice people in combat fatigues and carrying many weapons wake you up when you're sleeping and telling you that you're "going on a trip".

The British would shrug it off and then complain about the weather.
The French would make angry speeches, then increase taxes.
The Germans would try to invade Russia in winter.
The Italians wouldn't notice.
The US would invade Nigeria.

to the main poster :

Whatever your illusions are man , take a look at the universal human rights declaration , at who gets arrested in your country , at how the media justidy it , and you will understand that your country is already a police state , just one step from totalitarianism

The British would shrug it off and then complain about the weather.
The French would make angry speeches, then increase taxes.
The Germans would try to invade Russia in winter.
The Italians wouldn't notice.
The US would invade Nigeria.
Nigeria?

Nigeria?
Well, doesn't really matter which one, as long as it's the wrong country.

Well, doesn't really matter which one, as long as it's the wrong country.
You've got a point there. But if you're really going to attack an obscure country, we might as well invade East Timor, or possibly Male.

I'm going to take a worst-case scenario here: a nuclear terrorist attack in New York (high population, economic hub, has several notable landmarks) or Washington, D.C. (home of the government) leaving at least a million people dead and a Bush Administration-esque government in charge of the United States. In the vivid and utterly pessimistic world of my waking nightmares, a doomsday series of events could ensue:

1. - The United States would shed its democratic institutions, probably within days (or even hours). In democracy's stead, a military-industrial dictatorship and/or Christian theocracy would rule the country. In all likelihood, this government would try to force everyday American citizens to live by a Puritan code of conduct (due to the Christian elements of the government), while the governing elite (consisting of wealthy military-industrial plutocrats like Cheney and rich, holier-than-thou televangelicals like Pat Robertson) would be free to indulge themselves - basically, a weird fusion of 1984 and The Handmaid's Tale, with some corporate elements thrown into the mix.

2. - Most estimates I've heard indicate that the United States has ~1000 major nuclear warheads. I suspect that at least half of these warheads would be used to vaporize most, if not all, Middle Eastern cities, starting with Mecca, Medina, and Tehran (in that order), leading to a global holy war. Actually, make that a nuclear global holy war - since I'm going worst-case scenario here, I'll go out on a limb and say that at least 1 billion (1x10^9) people would die.

(Naturally, the U.S. would pull its troops out of Iraq before the nukes begin to fall.)

3. - Since this is a doomsday scenario... the American theocracy, having destroyed most of the military capacity (and population) of the Middle East*, would begin to exert pressure on Europe (among other countries) to convert to the new, militant American fundamentalism. This could lead to even more nuclear destruction as Russia and China respond to the American threats, or we could see a good deal of Europe occupied by American troops. In addition, the world could easily see another genocide on a Holocaust scale as the American theocracy killed or indefinitely detained any Muslim who refused to convert to the new American fundamentalism.

4, 5, 6, etc. - *insert global misery, mass purges of "infidels", the death of Taredas and half of the rest of this forum... you know, the works*

I'm going to take a worst-case scenario here: a nuclear terrorist attack in New York (high population, economic hub, has several notable landmarks) or Washington, D.C. (home of the government) leaving at least a million people dead and a Bush Administration-esque government in charge of the United States. In the vivid and utterly pessimistic world of my waking nightmares, a doomsday series of events could ensue:

1. - The United States would shed its democratic institutions, probably within days (or even hours). In democracy's stead, a military-industrial dictatorship and/or Christian theocracy would rule the country. In all likelihood, this government would try to force everyday American citizens to live by a Puritan code of conduct (due to the Christian elements of the government), while the governing elite (consisting of wealthy military-industrial plutocrats like Cheney and rich, holier-than-thou televangelicals like Pat Robertson) would be free to indulge themselves - basically, a weird fusion of 1984 and The Handmaid's Tale, with some corporate elements thrown into the mix.

2. - Most estimates I've heard indicate that the United States has ~1000 major nuclear warheads. I suspect that at least half of these warheads would be used to vaporize most, if not all, Middle Eastern cities, starting with Mecca, Medina, and Tehran (in that order), leading to a global holy war. Actually, make that a nuclear global holy war - since I'm going worst-case scenario here, I'll go out on a limb and say that at least 1 billion (1x10^9) people would die.

(Naturally, the U.S. would pull its troops out of Iraq before the nukes begin to fall.)

3. - Since this is a doomsday scenario... the American theocracy, having destroyed most of the military capacity (and population) of the Middle East*, would begin to exert pressure on Europe (among other countries) to convert to the new, militant American fundamentalism. This could lead to even more nuclear destruction as Russia and China respond to the American threats, or we could see a good deal of Europe occupied by American troops. In addition, the world could easily see another genocide on a Holocaust scale as the American theocracy killed or indefinitely detained any Muslim who refused to convert to the new American fundamentalism.

4, 5, 6, etc. - *insert global misery, mass purges of "infidels", the death of Taredas and half of the rest of this forum... you know, the works*
Maybe in an alternate universe where people are just a bit more whacked, but there's no way that'd happen here, no matter what occurred.

Maybe in an alternate universe where people are just a bit more whacked, but there's no way that'd happen here, no matter what occurred.

And nobody thought passenger jets would be used as weapons either.

Passenger jets used at bombs is at least plausible. What you've described is the set-up for badly written fiction in an alternate universe.

And do you have any idea of how big a billion is? A billion people is a MASSIVE number.

lets see if a warhead would be detonated in the United States as a terrorist action by Al Quaeda or Hazzballah...
picture Nazi Germany but with Arabs in the Death camps instead of Jews.

And do you have any idea of how big a billion is? A billion people is a MASSIVE number.


about 1/7 of the entire world's population

"A Hypothetical: Nuclear Terrorism"

The response would be instant, violent and overwhelming.

"A Hypothetical: Nuclear Terrorism"

The response would be instant, violent and overwhelming.

and the public (except for bleeding hearts of the world united aka Amnesty international and all other peace groups) would be completely behind the actions

Any country remotely connected would get a couple hundred nukes up it's ass.

If the US suffers a nuclear attack on any of its major cities, but especially Washington and New York, I would say this would be the catalyst to WW3, in what ever form that would take.

and the public (except for bleeding hearts of the world united aka Amnesty international and all other peace groups) would be completely behind the actions

Don't worry. All those communist peace-loving hippies will be arrested and shot as Al-Qaeda conspirators so Real Americans™ can get things done the "America, Fuck Yeah!!" Way.

Passenger jets used at bombs is at least plausible. What you've described is the set-up for badly written fiction in an alternate universe.

And do you have any idea of how big a billion is? A billion people is a MASSIVE number.

1 billion = 1x10^9
1 million = 1x10^6
1 thousand = 1x10^3

Given that I estimated that the United States has about 1000 'nukes'... if the United States launched 1000 nuclear warheads which killed an average (arithmetic mean) of 1 million people each, then the total casualties would be 1 billion people (1000 * 1x10^6 = 1x10^9).

Also note that the lowest estimate of the number of Muslims worldwide that I have seen is 1.1 billion. If the United States nuked Mecca, then I suspect that a large majority of the Muslim world would be out for vengeance... which is why turning the sands of Mecca into green glass should probably be viewed as an act that will indirectly wipe out a large percentage of the world's population.

Yeah, 1 billion is not a small number. Unfortunately, if nuclear warheads are ever launched at major population centers, the casualty figures would not be so small either.

An exaggeration, yes, but if the right circumstances came up for them, they could get away with it. They've already shut the Palestinians behind walls. Both the Nazis and the Communists did that.

Who was suicide bombing, car bombing, shooting, bombing, mortaring, and launching rockets and Nazi and commie civilians?

Then it wouldn't be nuclear terrorism, it would just be a straight-up nuclear war. Iran isn't likely, so I tihnk the most appropriate response would be to raze Pyongang as fast as possible and destroy all nuclear and military facilities in North Korea.

Ahh true. There's no real clear cut answer to be given if a group of individuals nuke a city..the closest thing to a response would be to raze their hometown.....

ETA: I am thinking way too small.

Thing bigger.

MECCA!
:eek:

:D

And nobody thought passenger jets would be used as weapons either.

Untrue.

"In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

European Nations would strongly denounce the terrorist act and then start fighting about the best way to fight.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME...wow european nations would stroungly denounce...IF IT HAPPENS OVER 250,000 PEOPLE WOULD BE DEAD...what are you going to do...send an angry letter to bin laden telling him your not happy..ha like that would happen... if that logic worked there would be about 20 million more jews in europe, and there would have only been one world war.

1 billion = 1x10^9
1 million = 1x10^6
1 thousand = 1x10^3

Given that I estimated that the United States has about 1000 'nukes'... if the United States launched 1000 nuclear warheads which killed an average (arithmetic mean) of 1 million people each, then the total casualties would be 1 billion people (1000 * 1x10^6 = 1x10^9).

Also note that the lowest estimate of the number of Muslims worldwide that I have seen is 1.1 billion. If the United States nuked Mecca, then I suspect that a large majority of the Muslim world would be out for vengeance... which is why turning the sands of Mecca into green glass should probably be viewed as an act that will indirectly wipe out a large percentage of the world's population.

Yeah, 1 billion is not a small number. Unfortunately, if nuclear warheads are ever launched at major population centers, the casualty figures would not be so small either.


yeah a billion might be right...but come on buddy...lets not kid ourselves...the united states has a defense budget 25x that of the #2 country in the world...russia...do you honestly think that the U.S. only has 1000...come on...its been reported god only knows how many times that the u.s. has well over 20,000 nukes of various sizes

If the US suffers a nuclear attack on any of its major cities, but especially Washington and New York, I would say this would be the catalyst to WW3, in what ever form that would take.

WW3 would only last a few days...if even that long...U.S. Russian and nations' missiles can reach any target in the world in 30 mins or less if the U.S. got nuked...bush wouldnt waste any time getting iran syria n. korea and anybody else...the war would only last as long as it takes for 1,000 nukes to hit their targets.

of course what would happen if the U.S. did nuke other nations after it got nuked itself. with the u.s.'s position in the world would china nuke america. sadly enough even if america suffered hits to washington and new york the rest of the nuclear world would probably see any retaliation higher than a letter to be too extreme and the u.s. would have another 100 nukes jammed up their asses..

yeah a billion might be right...but come on buddy...lets not kid ourselves...the united states has a defense budget 25x that of the #2 country in the world...russia...do you honestly think that the U.S. only has 1000...come on...its been reported god only knows how many times that the u.s. has well over 20,000 nukes of various sizes

+1. We've got a lot more than 1000. MAYBE if you are talking about the big ones, ICBMs. We've also got small nukes, medium nukes, tomahawk nukes, torpedo nukes, nuclear tank rounds, cruise missile nukes, nuke bombs, artillery nukes...we collect them like stamps.

[QUOTE=Neu Leonstein]If terrorists nuked a city in Europe, there'd be outrage, disgust and sadness. There would not be deportations, there would not be a violent response.

Depends also of course on which country it is. If it was France that was attacked, they'd probably go a little more apeshit than all that. France and the US aren't all that different in many respects.


this guys got it right...didnt chirac just say that any nation that attacked france would receive an even greater punishment...i hate to say it, but the french are really getting this brinksmanship thing down.

+1. We've got a lot more than 1000. MAYBE if you are talking about the big ones, ICBMs. We've also got small nukes, medium nukes, tomahawk nukes, torpedo nukes, nuclear tank rounds, cruise missile nukes, nuke bombs, artillery nukes...we collect them like stamps.


you have no idea how hard im laughing right now

WW3 would only last a few days...if even that long...U.S. Russian and nations' missiles can reach any target in the world in 30 mins or less if the U.S. got nuked...bush wouldnt waste any time getting iran syria n. korea and anybody else...the war would only last as long as it takes for 1,000 nukes to hit their targets.

of course what would happen if the U.S. did nuke other nations after it got nuked itself. with the u.s.'s position in the world would china nuke america. sadly enough even if america suffered hits to washington and new york the rest of the nuclear world would probably see any retaliation higher than a letter to be too extreme and the u.s. would have another 100 nukes jammed up their asses..

100 nukes is nothing. 20,000 is nothing. All it takes to start MAD is one little one.

100 nukes is nothing. 20,000 is nothing. All it takes to start MAD is one little one.


this is true

An hypothetical response to a 100K nuke being set off on lets say London Bridge in the center of London.
Est casulties 250 000 dead, 250 000 injured

Following day Arrest of all terrorists suspects and associates under watch by the security services, followed by instant deportation of any foriegn nationals within that group, internment for the others innocent or not.
Police and Army mobilised and sent to the muslim areas of large british cities, this is done to protect the innocents against the stupid racist thugs (and believe me there'd be a lot more of them after a nuking than before).

British prime minister would announce that the trail of the terrorists would be investigated and if the trail led to a particular country , then they would be liable to instant retaliation by any and all means nessasary.

Multiculturalism would die in the UK, closely followed by a lot of civil liberties, the majority of the population would approve of this.

The government would also organise mass airlifts of any muslims who wanted to leave the UK.


"hopefully this is a hypothetical question and long may it remain that way"


Bomb material can be traced back to the reactor where it was produced. So, after they analyze the blast, they can find out which reactor the terrorists got their uranium from, and demand an explanation. If the explanation isn't satisfactory, well...

Pretty much this is what'd happen in the US.

And if, on the very slim chance it's traced to Saudi Arabia, it's Riyadh and Jeddah that go up in radioactive ash, emphatically NOT Mecca.

The severity of US response would be dictated almost entirely by how the attack occurred and the importance of the target.

-snip-

First it bears mentioning why Saudi Arabia has the protection it does. It has about a billion dollars invested in the American economy.

First, no, a nuclear attack is a nuclear attack, and it won't be dealt with differently depending on where and the size. Also, the scenarios you set out are an over estimate, about right, and an under estimate of the likely reactions.

And Saudi's have a lot more than a measily billion invested in the US - it's closer to 500-1000 billion.

Nuclear weapons are easy to design and construct. I once built a mock nuke. The problem with nukes is getting enough material to fuel the big kaboom. If you tired to buy uranium anywhere it'd set of alarms in the US, Russia, UK, France, and China. And the damage a nuke can do can vary greatly. The nuke also has to use a significant portion of this material in the split second before the bomb is destroyed. A nuke could be used to blow up a single building or an entire city depending on how much uranium or plutonium you use.

Also, there is no such thing as a suitcase nuke. That was an exageration. They can be shrunk down to the size of a footlocker and be carried or run around on a dolly but that's it.

Nukes aren't just weapons though. There are some conceptual craft that use nukes to propel them.

What I'd be afraid of is someone finishing Project Pluto and using it anywhere. There's no green to be seen at reactor #4 and something like SLAM (Supersonic Low-Altitude Missile) would just spread it around while it blows away multiple targets.

Passenger jets used at bombs is at least plausible. What you've described is the set-up for badly written fiction in an alternate universe.

And do you have any idea of how big a billion is? A billion people is a MASSIVE number.


Even the cold war planners only estimated 500 million ppl dead and injured from an all out nuclear war between the Warsaw pact and NATO

Most of these being in the US, Europe, and Russia

Boris

An hypothetical response to a 100K nuke being set off on lets say London Bridge in the center of London.
Est casulties 250 000 dead, 250 000 injured

You don't have any idea about how many people live in London, do you?

It'd be more like "5 or 6 million dead and the rest radiation-poisoned but just about alive".

Following day Arrest of all terrorists suspects and associates under watch by the security services, followed by instant deportation of any foriegn nationals within that group, internment for the others innocent or not.
I'd fight that tooth, nail and claw. Locking up innocents is ridiculous.

Police and Army mobilised and sent to the muslim areas of large british cities, this is done to protect the innocents against the stupid racist thugs (and believe me there'd be a lot more of them after a nuking than before).
If the army got sent to the Muslim areas, a fair deal of ethnic cleansing might occur by the more racist elements of our forces. I hope it doesn't happen.

British prime minister would announce that the trail of the terrorists would be investigated and if the trail led to a particular country , then they would be liable to instant retaliation by any and all means nessasary.[QUOTE]
That would be horrible, but not unlikely, but on the other hand, it would probably lead to us taking some more nukes from their allies, which would be pretty horrible.

[QUOTE]Multiculturalism would die in the UK, closely followed by a lot of civil liberties, the majority of the population would approve of this.
I wouldn't approve at all. No intellectuals would approve of that. If that happened and TB was still in power, he'd be hanging from a lamp-post by the end of that day.

The government would also organise mass airlifts of any muslims who wanted to leave the UK.
Where the hell would they send them?

"hopefully this is a hypothetical question and long may it remain that way"
Well yes...

Why does this have to be Islamic extremists, by the way?

Why not like "the BNP". Because that would be an extremely interesting situation, in terms of what happened after the explosion. More anti-racist laws? A clampdown on fascist parties?

European nations don't really have the ability to project power internationally as the US does.

Without the aid of the US, no European nation on Earth could successfully invade a country, say, like Iran.

The US could successfully invade, but then they would be stuck there for the next 40 years, fighting insurgents.

So, unless the US deigned to help a European country victimized in such a way, no European country would be able to retaliate at all.

That's probably why their foreign policies don't favor retaliation - because it's just impossible for them to do.

Bullshit.

The British Royal Navy alone has the ability to project itself anywhere in the world, and there are many other top class militaries in Europe on a par with that. Assuming that the Europeans co-operate (which they would) and that they would be really really pissed (which they would), then with the exception of the USA and China no nation on Earth would withstand their wrath.

Don't underestimate Europe, it is the natural capital of this Earth.

I'd fight that tooth, nail and claw. Locking up innocents is ridiculous.


If the army got sent to the Muslim areas, a fair deal of ethnic cleansing might occur by the more racist elements of our forces. I hope it doesn't happen.

I wouldn't approve at all. No intellectuals would approve of that. If that happened and TB was still in power, he'd be hanging from a lamp-post by the end of that day.


Where the hell would they send them?


Well yes...

Why does this have to be Islamic extremists, by the way?

Why not like "the BNP". Because that would be an extremely interesting situation, in terms of what happened after the explosion. More anti-racist laws? A clampdown on fascist parties?

1) I'd like to say that I would join you in fighting against locking up innocents, but the fact is that we would be vastly outnumbered by very, _very_ angry people.

2) Although it would be regrettable, I am almost certain that in that situation the armed forces would abuse any liberties they were given vis. their weapons. And not just the armed forces, there would be "chavs" (or rather ignorant, scared, and very angry young men) ripping Asians to shreds in broad daylight, literally. I would not want to be dark-skinned and outside. And then there would be retaliations of thousands of young Asians whose families have been murdered retaliating on anyone they see. For a moment it will seem like a full-fledged civil war, and I doubt the government will be able to do anything to stop it without resorting to terrible atrocities.

3) And about Tony Blair hanging from a lamp-post. Simply not true, in times of crisis the national leader is deified and given total loyalty, Churchill was a fat racist alcoholic Imperialist, but to this day he is regarded as the 'Greatest Briton' simply because he was in charge when the lufteshit hit the blitzfan. Tony Blair would be raised to the status of our Dear Leader, dissent would not be tolerated, not just by the government, but by society at large.

4) Where will they send them? Anywhere. Seriously, they will not even stop to ask. Asians would be escorted to airports and crammed onto the next flight to Bangladesh. Either that or they will be interned like Japanese-Americans in WWII, and honestly, that would probably be the safest place for them, not bearing in mind the almost certain abuse by the camp guards.

And 5) Because this wouldn't be the BNP's style. The BNP are not terrorists, they are not bright enough. The fact remains that Islamic Fundamentalists are a much more potent threat to our liberty (well, the government is, but I'm sure the government will use Islamists to justify themselves).

You don't have any idea about how many people live in London, do you?

It'd be more like "5 or 6 million dead and the rest radiation-poisoned but just about alive".

Ermm the total population of London btw is about 7 million

The best place for my example nuke being let off is about 10 000 -12 000 ft above London, however I said being let off on London Bridge... a ground burst which does far less damage, the zone of total destruction would be about 6 miles across, remember Hiroshima, even with an ideal height of 2000 ft up still only destroyed an area 1.5 miles in radius.


I'd fight that tooth, nail and claw. Locking up innocents is ridiculous.


I doubt whether people would make that distinction




I wouldn't approve at all. No intellectuals would approve of that. If that happened and TB was still in power, he'd be hanging from a lamp-post by the end of that day.


Intellectuals? heck a fair number of them would have been vapourised , remember the old saying, Nothing turns a politically correct liberal into a screaming right wing reactionary faster than having his house burgled



Why does this have to be Islamic extremists, by the way?

Why not like "the BNP". Because that would be an extremely interesting situation, in terms of what happened after the explosion. More anti-racist laws? A clampdown on fascist parties?

Because someone posed the question, and you'd also find that a fair number of BNP people would be thrown in jail at the same time in order to try and preserve some civil order.


But all this talk is just a hypothetical case, but you can be damned sure every western government has drawn up plans "just in case"