NationStates Jolt Archive

I was having this debate with a group of friends this evening. During the Cold War the world was divided into two. No one wanted to bomb their allies and no one really wanted to bomb an opposition country because one of the big two had a pretty good chance of stepping in with a TA strike.
With the Cold War over we no longer have the world essentially divided into two.
Now there are certain countries that do not have an immediately obvious nuclear deterrent.

With the removal of the fine NATO / Warsaw Pact balancing act is the world more likely to see isloated nuclear incidents?

If so, who could actually get away with it (militarily, politically, socially, economically, etc)?

Any country can get away with bombing something, so long as that something is in the country sending the bomb.

The problem is that MAD would probably still apply. Alot of the old alliances are still going strong.

In all the possible nuclear attack situations (Iran vs Israel, Pakistan vs India, North Korea vs Japan/America) both parties have a nuclear arsenal, except in the case of North Korea attacking Japan, but with the understandable American twitchiness about North Korean nuclear weapons, Kim Jong-Il could expect a US retaliatory strike, and the US isn't going to strike first in this conflict. Any nuclear attack would be met with mutually assured destruction, which tends to be a very big incentive not to fire. I doubt we're going to see a nuclear war in our lifetimes.

In all the possible nuclear attack situations (Iran vs Israel, Pakistan vs India, North Korea vs Japan/America) both parties have a nuclear arsenal...

True. I don't imagine that any country with a nuclear arsenal will see a nuclear attack. However, there were a significant number of occasions when nuclear countries came close to dropping the Bomb even during the Cold War. With the balance shifted does that prohibition still apply and, if it is broken, will it hold for everyone else?

As examples, Cuba, Egypt, Argentina and North Vietnam had all fallen under the shadow of a potential nuclear strike during the Cold War.

In all the possible nuclear attack situations (Iran vs Israel, Pakistan vs India, North Korea vs Japan/America) both parties have a nuclear arsenal, except in the case of North Korea attacking Japan, but with the understandable American twitchiness about North Korean nuclear weapons, Kim Jong-Il could expect a US retaliatory strike, and the US isn't going to strike first in this conflict. Any nuclear attack would be met with mutually assured destruction, which tends to be a very big incentive not to fire. I doubt we're going to see a nuclear war in our lifetimes.


but iran doesnt have nuclear weapons for fucks sake. nor do japan so how do they retaliate MAD wise?

india and pakistan go toe to toe over kashmir, india wins, pakistan hits the button before they are overrun. although tensions have eased there recently.

also if some crazy arab does somehow WMD the US, they will retaliate on some arab state , any one will do, in the same schoolboy bully way israel is responding to their military being humiliated recently.

but iran doesnt have nuclear weapons for fucks sake. nor do japan so how do they retaliate MAD wise?

india and pakistan go toe to toe over kashmir, india wins, pakistan hits the button before they are overrun. although tensions have eased there recently.

also if some crazy arab does somehow WMD the US, they will retaliate on some arab state , any one will do, in the same schoolboy bully way israel is responding to their military being humiliated recently.

So much wrong is so little space...

Iran probably does have nukes. There's no evidence for fusion devices, but provided they have the capacity to separate U-235 and a one reasonably well trained physicist, they can buid a simple nuclear weapon at any time. People sem to think nukes are difficult; the fact is, they're not.

As to Israel - well let's see, they're attacking THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE ATTACKING THEM. Something they have every right to do.

Everyone has too much to lose from a nuclear war; even Iran with its nutjob president wouldn't use its nukes for the simple reason that the clerics are the real rulers and they place self-preservation and self-enrichment far above any kind of religious crusade against Israel and the West. They're simply making too much money and living too well for them to consider giving it up through a nuclear attack.

All dictators know that a nuclear war would kill them and destroy their countries entirely, so why give up your life, the power and influence, and the luxurious wealth for a one-shot attack that won't even destroy your enemies?

...

If so, who could actually get away with it (militarily, politically, socially, economically, etc)?

For what my opinion is worth, a terrorist use of nukes is the most likely use in the foreseeable future.

Any country with nukes also has substantial military force to achieve the same ends, gradually and in a more controlled manner.
And most conflicts are local, so nukes would only be used as a last resort, because of fallout.
Possibly in a naval confrontation, say a fight over Taiwan.

Far more likely, though still a long shot:

Terrorism (eg Al-Qaeda) an armed force hijacking a nuke from a base.
Terrorist hackers, using the electronic side of a country's launch system, plus a few guys on the ground. I'm thinking Russia here, and it's scaring me.
Military or terrorist coup in a nuclear-armed state. Take Ukraine or Pakistan for no other reason than making a nuclear first-strike.
The Dr Strangelove scenario (or was it Fail Safe?) Those darn commies and their fluoridation.

The Dr Strangelove scenario (or was it Fail Safe?) Those darn commies and their fluoridation.
[/LIST]

MEIN FURHER!!! I CAN WALK!!!!

So much wrong is so little space...

Iran probably does have nukes. There's no evidence for fusion devices, but provided they have the capacity to separate U-235 and a one reasonably well trained physicist, they can buid a simple nuclear weapon at any time. People sem to think nukes are difficult; the fact is, they're not.

As to Israel - well let's see, they're attacking THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE ATTACKING THEM. Something they have every right to do.
I echo your words in reflection to your post:

"So much wrong is so little space..." So much doodoo, so much nonsense.

"Iran probably does have nukes." Now there is a strongly worded affirmation of a basic guess. In other words, you know squat.

The rest of your post is basically the same....talking points but no substance!!

Everyone has too much to lose from a nuclear war; even Iran with its nutjob president wouldn't use its nukes for the simple reason that the clerics are the real rulers and they place self-preservation and self-enrichment far above any kind of religious crusade against Israel and the West. They're simply making too much money and living too well for them to consider giving it up through a nuclear attack.

All dictators know that a nuclear war would kill them and destroy their countries entirely, so why give up your life, the power and influence, and the luxurious wealth for a one-shot attack that won't even destroy your enemies?
I don't often agree with you, but I sure do here. The only part I disagree with you on, is that I do not believe that Iran has any nukes and probably won't have a viable nuclear program for quite some time.

The only reason that Iran wants nukes, IMHO is to deter the same fate that befell Iraq.

The problem is that MAD would probably still apply. Alot of the old alliances are still going strong.


We can now reduce MAD to AD.

And be darned serious about it.

Nobody can get away with strat nukes. The US might be able to get away with tact nukes, after hours of crisis talks.

Nobody can get away with strat nukes. The US might be able to get away with tact nukes, after hours of crisis talks.


How so? Having more nukes than the rest of the world combined pretty much makes you the Lord Almighty, from a political point of view.

Or Satan Almighty - but politically, it comes out the same.

How so? Having more nukes than the rest of the world combined pretty much makes you the Lord Almighty, from a political point of view.

Or Satan Almighty - but politically, it comes out the same.

What, you think that the world would just stand there and let themselves be nuked? They'd hit back.

What, you think that the world would just stand there and let themselves be nuked? They'd hit back.
With what, sharp sticks and bits of fruit?

With what, sharp sticks and bits of fruit?

Harsh language. *nod*

Harsh language. *nod*
"Do that again and we'll...we'll...we'll shout about it even louder than we are now!"

That'll show 'em.

Who could drop a strategic nuclear bomb?

I could if I was really grumpy.

I could if I was really grumpy.

I'm more of a stink bomb kind of guy.

Do they make nuclear stink bombs?

I'm more of a stink bomb kind of guy.

Do they make nuclear stink bombs?

I'd take out the patent if I were you :D

I'm more of a stink bomb kind of guy.

Do they make nuclear stink bombs?
They're called Pukes.

I'm more of a stink bomb kind of guy.

Do they make nuclear stink bombs?

It depends on whether you've eaten a critical mass of tacos.

Harsh language. *nod*
No, with a hand grenade (http://www.moviewavs.com/0085934086/WAVS/Movies/Monty_Python/mp13.wav) silly guy!!

And when things are truly bad, you can always look on the bright side of life (http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/brghtsd.mp3)?

:D

I'd take out the patent if I were you :D

YAY! :D

They're called Pukes.

Double YAY! :D

It depends on whether you've eaten a critical mass of tacos.

Triple YAY! :D

No, with a hand grenade (http://www.moviewavs.com/0085934086/WAVS/Movies/Monty_Python/mp13.wav) silly guy!!

And when things are truly bad, you can always look on the bright side of life (http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/brghtsd.mp3)?

:D

Quadruple YAY! :D

It depends on whether you've eaten a critical mass of tacos.
In which case they could use gas (http://www.orangecow.org/pythonet/audio/grailwavs/fart.wav)?

Nuclear Stink Bomb Secret Recipe

2 lumps Pootonium
1 crock Pissphorus
1 fistfull Bitchmuth

sprinkling of Sodium, Potassium and Arsenic.

EDIT: yeah, I used the Periodic Table to make this joke. I am not a chemist. Try this at home!!

With what, sharp sticks and bits of fruit?

Their own nukes. I know you Americans like to think that you can knock out their nukes with your own, but it takes less time to detect a launch that it does for those launched missiles to strike.

Their own nukes. I know you Americans like to think that you can knock out their nukes with your own, but it takes less time to detect a launch that it does for those launched missiles to strike.
'Us Americans'?

I would forgive you for assuming that, if my location was not written right next to my post.

Besides, my point was that none of the people America is fighting in the 'War on Terror' have nukes, or the long range missles to carry them.

Next nuclear attack? In my opinion the most likely is that a terrorist organisation detonates a suitcase bomb in a busy city with a strong financial district.

'Us Americans'?

I would forgive you for assuming that, if my location was not written right next to my post.

Besides, my point was that none of the people America is fighting in the 'War on Terror' have nukes, or the long range missles to carry them.

I don't think the WoT was mentioned; I assumed it was the world in general.

And your location hasn't been a country since 1800.

And your location hasn't been a country since 1800.
Funnily enough, my 'location' has been a 'location' since 1707. And Great Britain is a country within the United Kingdom, in the same way Scotland and England are.

Next nuclear attack? In my opinion the most likely is that a terrorist organisation detonates a suitcase bomb in a busy city with a strong financial district.

The "suitcase bomb" of legend is very advanced technology, surely?

Get an old warhead. Wash it down, cover it with lead. Repeat previous step a few times.
Put it in a shipping container, centred amidst some lightweight consumer goods. Put on the consist that it's car parts. Ship it to the port of your choice. Sit by the dock and trigger it by mobile phone as it docks.
An old and degraded warhead is an even more horrific weapon than a suitcase bomb. Dirtier, assuming it actually goes off.
I shouldn't be saying this, but doh. If Homeland Security is getting their strategic planning from NS spammers, you're all fucked.

:) from sunny Australia. EDIT: Just noticed Greenhelm's location. Adjust my assumptions accordingly.

"Do that again and we'll...we'll...we'll shout about it even louder than we are now!"

That'll show 'em.


True.

World Peace is the result of one big fellow being so big that he can succesfully bully everyone else into submission.

Peace through love and understanding? Not this side of Armageddon.

True.
World Peace is the result of one big fellow being so big that he can succesfully bully everyone else into submission.
Peace through love and understanding? Not this side of Armageddon.

You're drunk again, aren't you? Cheers mate <clink>

The "suitcase bomb" of legend is very advanced technology, surely?

Get an old warhead. Wash it down, cover it with lead. Repeat previous step a few times.
Put it in a shipping container, centred amidst some lightweight consumer goods. Put on the consist that it's car parts. Ship it to the port of your choice. Sit by the dock and trigger it by mobile phone as it docks.
An old and degraded warhead is an even more horrific weapon than a suitcase bomb. Dirtier, assuming it actually goes off.
I shouldn't be saying this, but doh. If Homeland Security is getting their strategic planning from NS spammers, you're all fucked.

:) from sunny Australia. EDIT: Just noticed Greenhelm's location. Adjust my assumptions accordingly.


Yeah... it's stuff like this that worries me though;

In 1997, former Russian National Security Adviser Alexander Lebed made public claims about lost "suitcase nukes" following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In an interview with the newsmagazine Sixty Minutes, Lebed said:

"I'm saying that more than a hundred weapons out of the supposed number of 250 are not under the control of the armed forces of Russia. I don't know their location. I don't know whether they have been destroyed or whether they are stored or whether they've been sold or stolen, I don't know."

You're drunk again, aren't you? Cheers mate <clink>


Not at all.

Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Whatever.
Peace? It's one tough and ruthless chap imposing HIS law and HIS order on everyone else.

Yeah... it's stuff like this that worries me though;

<snip>

And from the same source:
"I don't really believe this is true. These are just legends. One can probably assume that somebody tried to sell some nuclear secrets. But there is no documentary confirmation of those developments." -Alexander Putin.

Love my Wikipedia. Want to buy the whole thing now, before it gets any more corrupted.

Not at all.

Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Whatever.
Peace? It's one tough and ruthless chap imposing HIS law and HIS order on everyone else.

OK. You're not drunk. You talk like that all the time.
You are to NS what WSW is to martial arts. All spandex and huge body hits.
EDIT: I stand to be corrected by more senior posters. Two or three of you point out how BM's bellicose statements of "common sense" are valuable to debate, and I'll publicly apologize, and thereafter try to ignore his bellowings.

And from the same source:
"I don't really believe this is true. These are just legends. One can probably assume that somebody tried to sell some nuclear secrets. But there is no documentary confirmation of those developments." -Alexander Putin.

Love my Wikipedia. Want to buy the whole thing now, before it gets any more corrupted.

lol yeah me too... But I mean you can't really believe anything Putin says because of propaganda. What would be better... a world that knows that they are under threat from nuclear suitcases or world that thinks it's safe from them? But yeah I understand the fact that the other guy could be lying too. The thing is it just plays on my mind :confused: and who's to say other nations haven't developed such weapons? ah well... this :fluffle: goes out to wikipedia!

OK. You're not drunk. You talk like that all the time.
You are to NS what WSW is to martial arts. All spandex and huge body hits.


No sir.
I know my history, I'm utterly cynical and openly hostile to sui-dissant humanitarianism.

I agree with Tolstoy:
'We ought to stop with all the humbug of humanising war.
If we were sure that war always meant killing and the near-certainty of being killed, we should stop going to war.'

Humanisation is not the solution.
Instead, it is part of the problem.

What's really alarming is that exactly where, or what, the Soviet nuclear arsenal was, was so secret that no-one knows which of the new republics have which weapons. Perhaps even the KGB didn't know, given the level of beaurocratic bullshit that typified the Soviet Union.

Suitcase bombs? Likely just like the "missile gap," a propaganda weapon, perpetrated by the Soviets, and taken seriously by the US because "you can't be too paranoid."

What's really alarming is that exactly where, or what, the Soviet nuclear arsenal was, was so secret that no-one knows which of the new republics have which weapons. Perhaps even the KGB didn't know, given the level of beaurocratic bullshit that typified the Soviet Union.

Suitcase bombs? Likely just like the "missile gap," a propaganda weapon, perpetrated by the Soviets, and taken seriously by the US because "you can't be too paranoid."


Well, you can be too paranoid.
Problem is, by the time you are too paranoid, you wont be able to see you're even a bit paranoid.
Paranoia can be neither succesfully detected nor combatted through self-reflection.

If you think I'm wrong, then I suggest sharing your home with a coke-user for 24 hours.

<snip>

...then I suggest sharing your home with a coke-user for 24 hours.

That's about the most sensible thing I've ever heard you post. :D
EDIT: I've used coke. It was great, but I knew when to stop.

OK, Greenhelm quite understandably doesn't want a piece of this shit.

"The use of nuclear weapons by a terrorist group, or by a group which has only just staged a coup in a nuclear state, is MORE LIKELY than the use of nuclear weapons by an established government, for strategic purposes." <-- my position.

"You wear spandex" vs "I'm a serious student of history, and know human nature" aside, will anyone debate that with me? It's not too far off topic.

That's about the most sensible thing I've ever heard you post. :D
EDIT: I've used coke. It was great, but I knew when to stop.


You're just jealeous because the little voices talk to me...

"Iran probably does have nukes." Now there is a strongly worded affirmation of a basic guess. In other words, you know squat.



I know everything necessary to make the statement. To wit: Iran has Nuclear Breeder technology. We know they do because we (the west) gave it to them. Iran has access to trained physicists. Iran claims to possess nuclear weapons.
Ergo: They probably do.

If you wish to know my chain of reasoning, ask away. Assuming I don't have one just makes you a moron.

OK, Greenhelm quite understandably doesn't want a piece of this shit.

"The use of nuclear weapons by a terrorist group, or by a group which has only just staged a coup in a nuclear state, is MORE LIKELY than the use of nuclear weapons by an established government, for strategic purposes." <-- my position.

"You wear spandex" vs "I'm a serious student of history, and know human nature" aside, will anyone debate that with me? It's not too far off topic.


Gosh oh gosh - I wonder why I am so extremely intolerant towards the idea of allowing terrorists/freedomfighters/whatevers have the slightest access to anything more dangerous than a stapler ( let alone anything really dangerous, such as access to communication ) , and prefer leaving not even one of 'em breathing air?

NOTHING that interferes with governmental monopoly on the use of force must be allowed to exist.

Gosh oh gosh - I wonder why I am so extremely intolerant towards the idea of allowing terrorists/freedomfighters/whatevers have the slightest access to anything more dangerous than a stapler ( let alone anything really dangerous, such as access to communication ) , and prefer leaving not even one of 'em breathing air?

NOTHING that interferes with governmental monopoly on the use of force must be allowed to exist.

So, freedom fighters in China shouldn't be allowed anything more than a stapler?

Terrorism isn't always evil.

So far we have?

Yes. Terrorists. (I would ask this to be discarded as I was more concerned about the case of Nations doing it than individual, small organisations).

So that leaves us with:-

No. Not without an all out nuclear strike suppressing all the other nations who might take issue with it?
...
If this is so, why does advanced planning for specific, isolated strategic nuclear drops crop up every decade or so from the 50's to the present day?

I can think of a minimum of 5 times that the West has come within a hair's breadth of dropping nuclear weapons.
I would hazard a guess that if the West have come close then so has Russia and China...

What would the world do if Russia had dropped one in Chechnya?
Or if America had dropped one in Afghanistan?
There would be plenty of public outcry but would there be much more?

A more important question to ask is "Who would drop the bomb if given the opportunity, and under what circumstances would they be able to rationalize their decision."

Oh, the US could get away with it on account of they have a Stargate and an Alpha-site, so they could survive a nuclear war.

Oh, the US could get away with it on account of they have a Stargate and an Alpha-site, so they could survive a nuclear war.

Indeed. But would a single strike on, say, Damascus(?) by, say, Britain (as they are much more vulnerable than the usual suspects) provoke a nuclear war? Would there be any significant material consequence for the nation that dropped it?
If Britain couldn't, could the US (as it is far more robust to international issues) or Russia? China?