The world's first nuclear exchange

[latent aaaack]

I know little about the extent to which people believe there will be a nuclear war and when it will happen, so I'm curious. Obviously popular beliefs change with changing international political landscapes, reaching a low right after the fall of the USSR, but this poll is meant to be taken from the standpoint of your best guess given what you know now.

[Overman]

My first vote. It will probably be after that...but I got a hunch!

I got $1,000,000 on it as well if there are any takers!

[Crazycowbob]

I was going to shoot for 2012-2017, but my plans are progressing far slower than I had hoped. :D

[Piscivore]

IMO there is absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose for any country from a first strike. I can see an extreme remote possibility that a terrorist group or a really bat-s[rule 8]t loco dictator might have a slim chance of getting hold of one, but them getting a chance to use it would be even slimmer, and there would be absolutly no reason at all for the victim country in those cases to respond in kind. IMO.

[Merko]

There's already been a first strike.

As for an exchange, I won't tell who I think is most likely to initiate it, but I have a clear feeling that the return strike will come by exploding a nuke that has previously been installed by clandestine delivery.

[Tricky]

There's already been a first strike.

As for an exchange, I won't tell who I think is most likely to initiate it, but I have a clear feeling that the return strike will come by exploding a nuke that has previously been installed by clandestine delivery.

If you're talking "dirty bombs", you may be right, but I seem to recall that conventional nuclear bombs require the incredible potential energy of being dropped from great heights in order to start the nuclear reaction.

[gumboot]

I said never.

I believe large scale state-based warfare is probably a thing of the past. Guerilla/Clandestine/Terrorist type warfare seems far more likely.

I find it pretty likely that some sort of terrorist-type organisation will use a nuclear weapon at some point in the future, especially with states like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and so forth. However, as already pointed out, I fail to see how any victim state would respond with nuclear weapons.

Of course, in time, civilisations will change and we might again experience large-scale warfare between powerful states, but I predict that by then nuclear weapons will be obsolete.

-Gumboot

[President Bush]

Oceania is at war with the Shiites. Oceania has always been at war with the Shiites.

[WildCat]

If you're talking "dirty bombs", you may be right, but I seem to recall that conventional nuclear bombs require the incredible potential energy of being dropped from great heights in order to start the nuclear reaction.
They don't have to be dropped from great heights to start the nuclear reaction, but a bomb exploded high off the ground makes full use of its blast potential to obliterate a wider area.

[WildCat]

I find it pretty likely that some sort of terrorist-type organisation will use a nuclear weapon at some point in the future, especially with states like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and so forth. However, as already pointed out, I fail to see how any victim state would respond with nuclear weapons.
I disagree. Take that off the table and there's no incentive for a rogue state not to arm a terrorist group w/ nukes if it so wishes.

Kennedy said in his Presidency that a nuclear attack on the US by any ally of the USSR would be responded to w/ a full retaliatory strike on the USSR. That was good enough for the USSR to not arm Castro w/ nukes, I think a similar policy would go a long way to keep NK and Iran in check.

[Hamradioguy]

This sould be an interesting poll/thread. Back in the 1980s I did nuclear attack preparedness training for our state's emergency management (civil defense) office. Jack Greene, a fellow health physicist (and author of "Will The Insects Inherit The Earth?") conducted a similar poll among the health physics community.

I modified his poll and did my own polling among the students I taught. The question was something like, "What are the chances that there will be a nuclear/thermonuclear explosion done in anger somewhere in the world in the next ten years?". Choices ranged from 1:1 to 1:10,000. Remember that this was at the height of the "Cold War" with president Reagan pushing his "Star Wars" program, the MX missile, Soviet military posturing, and "Crisis Relocation" plans for evacuating people from nuclear target areas. I don't recall the specific results but do remember that most of the responses were at either the 1:1 end or the 1:10,000 end.

Interestingly, even though those polled were emergency responders taking a nuclear preparedness course, a high percentage picked the 1:10,000 answer. It was a nice surprise to see such optimism.

[Dave1001]

I know little about the extent to which people believe there will be a nuclear war and when it will happen, so I'm curious. Obviously popular beliefs change with changing international political landscapes, reaching a low right after the fall of the USSR, but this poll is meant to be taken from the standpoint of your best guess given what you know now.

My vote is never. Looks like global civilization is beyond inter-state warfare at the nuclear power level. Human beings are moving too freely and making too many connections, inluding through the internet.

[Piscivore]

There's already been a first strike.

Point taken.

Although, If Japan had had the capacity to respond in kind, it wouldn't have happened.

[Tony]

and there would be absolutly no reason at all for the victim country in those cases to respond in kind. IMO.

There wouldn't?

[Lonewulf]

Point taken.

Although, If Japan had had the capacity to respond in kind, it wouldn't have happened.

I dunno about that.

You ARE talking about a post-WWI mindset here, especially for the Japanese. The Japanese were, quite frankly, ruthless; if America wouldn't have been able to bomb the Japanese with an atomic weapon, or if Japan could respond in kind, then quite frankly things would have definitely escalated in far worse ways than they did. The Japanese were... fervent, to say the least. They were training their children to fight as soldiers, and were willing to fight to the last man, practically.

The atomic bombs just made that will futile.

[Darth Rotor]

I said never.

I believe large scale state-based warfare is probably a thing of the past. Guerilla/Clandestine/Terrorist type warfare seems far more likely.

I find it pretty likely that some sort of terrorist-type organisation will use a nuclear weapon at some point in the future, especially with states like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and so forth. However, as already pointed out, I fail to see how any victim state would respond with nuclear weapons.

Of course, in time, civilisations will change and we might again experience large-scale warfare between powerful states, but I predict that by then nuclear weapons will be obsolete.

-Gumboot
So, Gumboot, the Cold War was the war to end all "big" wars?

I don't share your optimism. China is just now waking up.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

My vote is never. Looks like global civilization is beyond inter-state warfare at the nuclear power level. Human beings are moving too freely and making too many connections, inluding through the internet.
So, if I understand you correctly, the internet Flame Wars represent the war to end all nuclear wars. ;)

Yay us, you *&^% little *&&^%%$V ing (**&^!!. :D

DR

[Piscivore]

I disagree. Take that off the table and there's no incentive for a rogue state not to arm a terrorist group w/ nukes if it so wishes.

Kennedy said in his Presidency that a nuclear attack on the US by any ally of the USSR would be responded to w/ a full retaliatory strike on the USSR. That was good enough for the USSR to not arm Castro w/ nukes, I think a similar policy would go a long way to keep NK and Iran in check.

A very good point. I said before in another thread that the guys in the missle tubes prevented WWIII and that is why.

[Lonewulf]

So, Gumboot, the Cold War was the war to end all "big" wars?

I don't share your optimism. China is just now waking up.

China has more to gain from dominating the economic market as opposed to dominating with military might, though.

[Tony]

I disagree. Take that off the table and there's no incentive for a rogue state not to arm a terrorist group w/ nukes if it so wishes.

Kennedy said in his Presidency that a nuclear attack on the US by any ally of the USSR would be responded to w/ a full retaliatory strike on the USSR. That was good enough for the USSR to not arm Castro w/ nukes, I think a similar policy would go a long way to keep NK and Iran in check.

I completely agree. It doesn't make sense that a victim nation wouldn't be able to respond to an attack by a rouge group. If a nuclear attack were to happen, it would most likely be from a North Korean or Middle Eastern enemy. Naturally, a target for a counter attack would be predicated on who made the attack. In the case of a middle eastern/islamic source, a counter attack could be made on Mecca or Iran, if it were North Korean, attack Pyongyang. I see no reason why a future president couldn't announce a policy similar to that of Kennedy.

[Crazycowbob]

...

I see no reason why a future president couldn't announce a policy similar to that of Kennedy.

That's deffinately possible, but I'm not sure Nuclear deterrence would work as well today as in the past, the main reason being that, against the USSR, they knew that we would push the button, just as we knew they would if we attacked. This day and age, the biggest problem is that the rogue countries can fire a nuclear weapon and rest assured that if we were to retaliate in kind, the rest of the world would come done on us far more harshly than the country that initiated the exchange. I fear many countries don't believe we would ever use nuclear weapons in retaliation. After all, it's pretty clear Sadam never expected us to actually attack him directly, I'm fairly sure he thought we'd continue to wait since the rest of the world would condemn an attack.

[fuelair]

I said never.

I believe large scale state-based warfare is probably a thing of the past. Guerilla/Clandestine/Terrorist type warfare seems far more likely.

I find it pretty likely that some sort of terrorist-type organisation will use a nuclear weapon at some point in the future, especially with states like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and so forth. However, as already pointed out, I fail to see how any victim state would respond with nuclear weapons.

Of course, in time, civilisations will change and we might again experience large-scale warfare between powerful states, but I predict that by then nuclear weapons will be obsolete.

-Gumboot

If we are the victim state I trust we will respond with nukes. Decisively.

[Merko]

This day and age, the biggest problem is that the rogue countries can fire a nuclear weapon and rest assured that if we were to retaliate in kind, the rest of the world would come done on us far more harshly than the country that initiated the exchange.
I disagree. If another entity launched a nuclear attack on the US, I'm sure the world would rally in support of the US just as it did after 9/11. However, what Bush has to realise is that if he initiates a nuclear attack, as he's been stating very clearly that he doesn't rule out, then yes, the world would come down on him and on the US almost as harshly as on any other nation initiating a nuclear attack. Let's imagine he nuked Iran, and Iran countered by some dirty chemical bomb (or, in the future, nuke) in New York. I'm sure the world wouldn't exactly praise the Irani retaliation - but the main blame would no doubt fall on the US.

[Crazycowbob]

I disagree. If another entity launched a nuclear attack on the US, I'm sure the world would rally in support of the US just as it did after 9/11. However, what Bush has to realise is that if he initiates a nuclear attack, as he's been stating very clearly that he doesn't rule out, then yes, the world would come down on him and on the US almost as harshly as on any other nation initiating a nuclear attack. Let's imagine he nuked Iran, and Iran countered by some dirty chemical bomb (or, in the future, nuke) in New York. I'm sure the world wouldn't exactly praise the Irani retaliation - but the main blame would no doubt fall on the US.

Eh, I am deffinately looking forward to a new administration myself. I can think of no circumstances that America (or any civilized nation for that matter) should ever use nuclear weapons in a first strike scenario in today's world. We all understand how bad they are now (Deffinately moreso than we did in 1945), and it's should be safe to say any sane country in possession of them should be holding them as a last resort/deterrence. Unfortunately we know not all countries are sane, and I fear if Bush had as much power as dictators in other countries, we'd be in trouble. Fortunately the president isn't the sole decision maker in our country, and while things may seem bad now, we can rest knowing he won't be in charge forever.

To clarify things though, what kind of nuclear weapons was he suggesting? I know they were considering useing tactical nukes (bunker busters) in retaliation to 911, though that idea was turned down, and that was against purely military targets, with minimal chance of civilian casualties, even from radiation. I find it difficult to believe any other sort of nuclear weapon would even be considered for use.

For what it's worth, I supported Bush in the first election, and agreed that Saddam needed to be removed from power (though I think we rushed into that), and dealing with the Taliban went as well as could be hoped. However, the execution of the Iraqi invasion I think has been terribly implemented, especially in regards to faulty intelligence and general dishonesty to the public, and things have just been in decline for years now.

[Fnord]

I'm applying the "Rule Of 47" to produce a WAG of 2016. :rolleyes:

That is, 1969 + 47 = 2016.

1969 == the year that SALT II started in Helsinki, Finland.

47 == the difference between 18 and 65.

18 == the age of majority (when most people seem to find their political voices).

65 == the age of retirement (when most people seem to surrender their political influence).

The Rule of 47 is based on the (woo-woo) idea that individuals spend most of their lives -- between the ages of 18 and 65 -- trying to act against the socio-political conditions that frightened them most as pre-adults. Once those people surrender their influence, the same conditions rise up to play bogeyman against another generation, and the cycle repeats. :eek:

For instance, 47 years after Joseph P. McCarthy's Commie Witch trials (1950 to 1954 + 47 = 1997 to 2001), a new "Bogeyman" will arise and occupy the fears of the American people. Does the name "Al-Quaida" ring a bell? Or 09-11-2001? :jaw-dropp

Yeah, me neither. May as well try to use presidential biorhythms to predict the next veto.

Woo. Pure, unadulterated woo.

2016 is still my answer, though.

[Lonewulf]

I'm applying the "Rule Of 47" to produce a WAG of 2016. :rolleyes:

That is, 1969 + 47 = 2016.

1969 == the year that SALT II started in Helsinki, Finland.

47 == the difference between 18 and 65.

18 == the age of majority (when most people seem to find their political voices).

65 == the age of retirement (when most people seem to surrender their political influence).

The Rule of 47 is based on the (woo-woo) idea that individuals spend most of their lives -- between the ages of 18 and 65 -- trying to act against the socio-political conditions that frightened them most as pre-adults. Once those people surrender their influence, the same conditions rise up to play bogeyman against another generation, and the cycle repeats. :eek:

For instance, 47 years after Joseph P. McCarthy's Commie Witch trials (1950 to 1954 + 47 = 1997 to 2001), a new "Bogeyman" will arise and occupy the fears of the American people. Does the name "Al-Quaida" ring a bell? Or 09-11-2001? :jaw-dropp

Yeah, me neither. May as well try to use presidential biorhythms to predict the next veto.

Woo. Pure, unadulterated woo.

2016 is still my answer, though.

You know too much.

Fnord.

[Fnord]

You know too much.

Fnord.

{"Knowledge Is Power"} + {"Might Makes Right"} = Fnord

:cool:

[Soapy Sam]

Are the numbers dates...or times?

[Fnord]

Are the numbers dates...or times?

Dates.

BTW: "01.09.11" represents September 11th, 2001. This keeps in concept that the least significant digits in a counting sequence always change the most.

[Tony]

This day and age, the biggest problem is that the rogue countries can fire a nuclear weapon and rest assured that if we were to retaliate in kind, the rest of the world would come done on us far more harshly than the country that initiated the exchange.

That's easy to say, but I don't think it's very likely that the majority of countries in the world would side with an Islamic organization or North Korea if they happened to detonate a nuke in the USA. When you get down to it, American and Western values are more widely shared throughout the world than Islamic values or Juche/Stalinist Values.

I fear many countries don't believe we would ever use nuclear weapons in retaliation. After all, it's pretty clear Sadam never expected us to actually attack him directly, I'm fairly sure he thought we'd continue to wait since the rest of the world would condemn an attack.

Apples and oranges my friend. There is a great difference between our conflicts between a pest like Saddam and a nuclear weapon being successfully detonated in an American or European city.

[fishbob]

If we are the victim state I trust we will respond with nukes. Decisively.

Why with nukes?

Not very likely is an organized attack by a recognized government - they all know we have deterrent capabilities.

I picture the eventuality with some fringe loonie group nuking us, not with an ICBM, but with a SORT (surreptitiously obtained rental truck). In that case, who do we respond against with our nukes? Where do we target? If we are not absolutely certain, then a conventional weapons response might make more sense.

[Crazycowbob]

That's easy to say, but I don't think it's very likely that the majority of countries in the world would side with an Islamic organization or North Korea if they happened to detonate a nuke in the USA. When you get down to it, American and Western values are more widely shared throughout the world than Islamic values or Juche/Stalinist Values.

I agree that they would not side with the aggressor country, but what I'm saying is that they would be highly critical of us were we to use nuclear weapons in response.



Apples and oranges my friend. There is a great difference between our conflicts between a pest like Saddam and a nuclear weapon being successfully detonated in an American or European city.

True, and in this post Iraq invasion world, I'd wager pretty much everyone thinks we'd be more likely to jump the gun than to hold back, so it's probably irrelevant anyway.

[Fnord]

Who originally said, "Nuke them back to the Stone Age, then bounce the rubble"?

[Beerina]

IMO there is absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose for any country from a first strike. I can see an extreme remote possibility that a terrorist group or a really bat-s[rule 8]t loco dictator might have a slim chance of getting hold of one, but them getting a chance to use it would be even slimmer, and there would be absolutly no reason at all for the victim country in those cases to respond in kind. IMO.

The victim country might figure out where the nuke came from, then issue an ultimatim to that country that, if your nukes are gonna kill us anyway because you are sloppy caretakers, turn them all over now, or else.

[Beerina]

I dunno about that.

You ARE talking about a post-WWI mindset here, especially for the Japanese. The Japanese were, quite frankly, ruthless; if America wouldn't have been able to bomb the Japanese with an atomic weapon, or if Japan could respond in kind, then quite frankly things would have definitely escalated in far worse ways than they did. The Japanese were... fervent, to say the least. They were training their children to fight as soldiers, and were willing to fight to the last man, practically.

The atomic bombs just made that will futile.

Yes, but are we allowed to continue thinking Japan was about to collapse anyway, in order that we may keep hating on America from a safe cushy distance in the future?

[Beerina]

Eh, I am deffinately looking forward to a new administration myself.

Well, imagine if Gore had eked out his win. He'd probably have cowered out of invading Afghanistan, waiting for "sanctions" to work, and Bin Laden would be still there thumbing his nose at us.

[SezMe]

...cowered out...
Ya know, Beerina, when you use language like that your whole post, if not your whole argument, loses most of ability to convince me.

[Kerberos]

Ya know, Beerina, when you use language like that your whole post, if not your whole argument, loses most of ability to convince me.

Argument? What argument? Beerina's post contained about as much of an argument as the Monty Python sketch.

[Merko]

Well, imagine if Gore had eked out his win. He'd probably have cowered out of invading Afghanistan, waiting for "sanctions" to work, and Bin Laden would be still there thumbing his nose at us.
And what exactly is Bin Laden doing now?

[Solus]

I'm not optimistic as some of you here. I don't believe it will be in my lifetime but someday the human race is going to wipe itself it out with nuclear or whatever weapon comes next. You can say I believe the worst of human nature will bring as all down in the end.

It's that: if I'm dying I'm taking you with me mentally. As seen in history, rational thought does not guide the destines of nations.

[Lonewulf]

I'm not optimistic as some of you here. I don't believe it will be in my lifetime but someday the human race is going to wipe itself it out with nuclear or whatever weapon comes next. You can say I believe the worst of human nature will bring as all down in the end.

It's hard to be disappointed when you predict the downfall of civilization is at hand...

[Hamradioguy]

If we are the victim state I trust we will respond with nukes. Decisively.

One take on how this might play out is addressed in the movie, "By Dawn's Early Light" (Based on the book "Trinity's Child"). It's a good example of how I believe a nuclear exchange could begin: The "Things spin out of control" scenario.

[Steve H]

Interesting thread. I voted "never" myself but it was made in the context of a overt 'country vs country' exchange* which I don't think will happen (knock on wood). India/Pakistan came close in late 2001 and it wouldn't have surprised me if Pakistan would have resorted to nukes to stop a conventional Indian military onslaught if things escalated but those two traditional foes have chilled out the last few years. Iran doesn't have a nuke yet and I doubt they'd risk a nuke exchange with Israel which unofficially has a lot of 'em. North Korea likes to rattle it's sabre but never had the need to go to the next step since they're coddled every time they make noise (S. Korea actually paid them to agree to a meeting a few years back!) and I doubt any potential China/Taiwan (U.S.) conflict would go nuclear.

*All bets are off if a terrorist suitcase-type nuke is detonated somewhere but it's not a given that such an attack would necessarily be "state-sponsored" or conducted against a nuclear-armed country.

[Schneibster]

Simple question: whadda ya mean, "exchange?" You mean a full-blown all-out nuclear exchange, or onesie-twosies? The answers are very different for these two, IMHO.

[Steve H]

Simple question: whadda ya mean, "exchange?" You mean a full-blown all-out nuclear exchange, or onesie-twosies? The answers are very different for these two, IMHO.Spare the semantical BS. The difference between "onesies-twosies" and "all-out nuclear exchange" is predicated on the number of nukes the combatants have and are willing to use and it's a safe bet no one here needed you to tell us that. Either vote/comment or take a hike.

[Schneibster]

Steve H, meet mute button. Mute button, Steve H.

Bye now.

[Steve H]

Something tells me I have plenty of company in that respect. ;)

[Lonewulf]

Something tells me I have plenty of company in that respect. ;)

I think I've already earned it myself. :D

If not, I will someday.

[Schneibster]

Well, since you mention it...

Two things I have no use for: woos, and aggressive woos.

It must be nice to join the likes of David Jay Jordan and hammegk.

[Lonewulf]

What's your definition of either?

[Schneibster]

Woos are people who don't know enough to talk intelligently about the subject they're talking about, but have very strong opinions. They come in various forms; IDers, fanatic AGW deniers, and the occasional complete nutjob like the above-mentioned DJJ, who believes that jebus invented sex.

No, I'm not kidding. Go look it up; it's over on SMM&T.

I don't really care what your politics is; as long as you have some sort of intelligent reason for believing it. For example, Darth Rotor is pretty right-wing; but he's not a nutjob. Has a good grasp of realpolitik and military history. Unfortunately, people on my side of the fence rarely have that; it's seen by many as some kind of infatuation with military science. I've never figured that one out; and I've muted a lot of people from my side of the fence for it, too.

I don't do it for simple nastiness, either- I can be pretty damn abrasive myself, and frankly, I really don't care what people think about it. But persistent nastiness, I see no point in listening to- nor do I bother with it myself. If I'm being nasty to someone every time they open their yap, obviously I shouldn't be reading it. Easy to fix.

And DanishDynamite is most definitely on the list; but not just for wooery. There's where the part about aggressive comes in. I'm not interested in being anyone's playtoy- I just mute them, and then make nasty comments until they go away if necessary.

So if you think it's merely that I don't like your politics, think again. If I've got you on mute, you should be seriously considering whether you're making a mistake. In fact, a series of mistakes- because that's what it takes.

[This Guy]

I went with never. I think if it does happen it's more likely to be between India and Pakistan. As mentioned by someone else, they seem to be in a cooling down period currently. Hopefully they will play nice with each other.

I think it's more likely that it will be something set off in the back of a truck or car, by some radical (pick a flavor). Now, if that happens to be a car or truck setting in Downtown Jerusalem, then I suspect that at least one major city in the Middle East will suffer retaliation on a grand scale. I hope it never comes to that, but I fear it's just a matter of time. And I think we (the US) are almost as likely a target as Israel.

I don't think any sane nation would try a full frontal nuclear attack on the US. Having served as a "Cold Warrior" (11 FBM Submarine Deterrent patrols, 72 days each on average, under the water), and knowing what our abilities were when I got out, and having seen the next generation of gadgets that were going on the Trident II Fire Control System/Ohio class Submarines, I have no doubt that we could rain down a torrent of nuclear warheads that no defensive shield could withstand, and that could be done if every man/woman/child on land in the US was dead, and every plane/satellite shot down. It would be suicide on a national level to even try it. Of course if Nuclear Winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter) is a valid theory, it might be suicide on a global level :boggled:

Even using air burst detonation for a "cleaner" explosion (not as much surface matter is thrown up to be contaminated and blown about as with a ground burst) there would likely still be more than enough radiation spread around to make things pretty ugly. Would it be an Omaga Man (http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue68/classic.html) scenario? Probably not, but I think those areas most affected by the radiation cloud would be devastated, and that the results would make Chernobyl look minor in comparison.