Hypothetical: Terrorist Nuclear Attack

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-02 06:53am

Okay, The Big One has gone down, Osama and his pals have vaporized
a square mile or so of a major urban area, killed tens of thousands, with
hundreds of thousands more irradated.....

What happens after that?

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-08-02 07:00am

Bush invades Qatar~~

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-02 08:41am

From my thinking, the Logic Chain that would be going on in Washington
(or on the E-4B) is:

1.) Who the fuck gave them the fissile material?
2.) Who the fuck initated this device?
3.) Can we stop them before they do it again?

Burning Question No. 1, we can answer quite easily, within a few
hours of initation, due to fissile traces allowing us to track down exactly
where it came from.

Burning Question No 2., will take a day to answer, as we shake down
everyone we can possibly think of to find out who did it; most likely
we'll simply have to decide which one of the 3,001 terrorist proclamations
of having done this is real, and which 3,000 are bullshit.

Burning Question No 3: Well, there's no easy way to put it; other than
microchipping everyone in the USA, repealing the bill of rights, and
tracking every person with GPS, no. Sure, we can nuke whoever supplied
them with the materials, but will that stop their reasons for wanting to
nuke us in the first place?

I believe that the National Command Authority (e.g. whoever is still in charge
if DC is attacked) will eventually decide that the costs of fighting terror and
accepting several more cities attacked with devices before we can defeat
Islamic Terrorism once and for all, simply isn't worth it; and will simply say
"Fuck it", and proceed to go:

"They want Total War? OK, they can have it. Take them out. All of them."

(A nod of the hat to the Seer, who started me thinking down this road, and
for the final line of this essay)

Opinions?

Spice Runner · Post by **Spice Runner** » 2004-08-02 01:54pm

I'd assume there would be a world wide investigation to find and capture/kill whoever did this.

I'm sure most of the rest of the world would sympathise with the U.S. and aid in the hunt.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-08-02 02:32pm

You seem to have put a lot of thought into a supposed "academic discussion" Citizen, which suggests you might be planning a nuclear attack and want to gather intelligence on possible reactions. Sounds like another terrorist ploy.

*Homeland Security deports Shep to Alaskan Re-education Faccilities.* Next time try to be more subtle, terrrorist scum.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-08-02 02:53pm

I see this as going MUCH further. If the USA was attacked with a nuke by terrorists, not only would we get those responsible, those direclty helping them, but:

A new policy for the world.

If you are not an ally of the USA, and you can't retaliate, (like China, India, Russia, Pkaistan, England, France, ect...)) you are now forbidden to have, aquire, or use nuclear tech. Those with it, like North Korea, Iran, ect... will have a set amount of time to satisfy OUR beliefs that you don't have this tech, (intrusive no knock inspections, and don't even think of DELAYING entry much less telling us no!) or be obliterated.
No games,Iraqi style, no brinksmanship.
Say the word "NO" to the wrong question, and you are glass!
Say again, NO NUKES for anyone we don't trust and like.
The punishment for disobeying this ulimatum is complete destruction of your country, glass style. We will NOT be patient, and to delay is to defy!

I see this being used as the "crazy bastard" strategy of rapid disarament and denuclearisation of the world.

I can see 90 days later the world isn't the same place.
No Iranaian, North Korean nukes tech. After nuking North Korea just to show the world we are serious, I am not sure Iran would cave in, but there are plenty of nukes in our arsenal, and one more example would scare the rest into the "yellow underware" style of compliance.

There would be a firestorm of international outrage and protests, but not as much as most people think. Seeing some one next to you get their face shot off tends to shut people up, lest the shooter aim at you.
More to the point, we in the USA simply wouldn't CARE! If you think we over reacted to 9 11, just think what we would do if nuked. Lefties wouldn't DARE protest this policy in the USA, because the protesters would be beaten and shot by angry common folk. (like what happened after 9 11, only a millionfold more.)
I also see a limited suspention of certain civil rights, martial law, and one hell of a lot of parnoid searches. Massive deportations, and perhaps even new laws reguarding non citizens and deportations.

If you think "you are with us or against us" was bad after 9 11, just wait until two or more countrys have been glassed, and a hostile demand for intrusive inspections prior to decommisioning a nuclear facility is made.
Refusal to compliy would be proof of collusion, in the minds of the US government. So will delay. This issue isn't for discusion. We will be at ________ at the time and date of ________ or you get nuked.
Anything less than full ACTIVE cooperation will be considered and act of war.

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2004-08-02 03:38pm

Ha. Victim of a nuclear attack or no, you go around glassing countries and they'll find a way to glass you.
Nuclear armageddon for all!

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-08-02 04:38pm

Cao Cao.
You sir are an idiot.
"If you are not an ally of the USA, and you can't retaliate, (like China, India, Russia, Pkaistan, England, France, ect...)) you are now forbidden to have, aquire, or use nuclear tech. Those with it, like North Korea, Iran, ect... will have a set amount of time to satisfy OUR beliefs that you don't have this tech, (intrusive no knock inspections, and don't even think of DELAYING entry much less telling us no!) or be obliterated.
No games,Iraqi style, no brinksmanship."

Did you miss the part about not being ABLE to retaliate?
Or the Ally part? No one that already has nukes except NK isn't a neutral at worst, and a military or trading partner. Under this scenareo Russia is definatly an ally, China a neutral.

NO ONE but Russia has the ABILITY to respond in kind. (China uses liquid fueled missiles that need a long prep time for launch, and are both highly visible and vulnerable during said prep for launch time.They will be destroyed on the pad if we so choose to)
Do you have any idea how expencive a hard to get nukes are? Getting fissile material is difficult, and quite expencive.
After nuking NK and Iran, those with any brains will comply. Those without will die. Most will go along for the ride.
The nuclear club is a small one for good reasons. The USA need only concern itself with it's fellow members. MOST leaders, be they dictators or elected officials do have a simple thing called self preservation.
Remember what Libia did after the invasion of Iraq? "We are scared so we are giving up chemical weapons."
How many others would cave in after the sands of Iran are glass?
How many would be willing to "full speed ahead, damn the torpeedoes" in the face of such?
How many would ACTIVLY discourage the very act you think would happen?

No one who could do anything about it would. The others can talk all they want, but better open those doors when the surprise inspection commandoe teams show up.

Just for fun, suppose there was a second nuke going off in America.
Do you have any idea of what the responce to THAT would be?
It won't be a Russian nike, that's for sure. The Ruskies don't LIKE the arabs or NKs, much less be willing to go toe to toe with the USA over a problem they see as affecting them as well. Putin would give the USA a high five for rooting out the scum, and their friends.
You think nukes not under the controle of the nuclear club aren't a threat to Russia too. COUGH*Chechnia*COUGH
Countries with nukes:
Russia, China, Pakistan, India, France, UK, USA.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7.html
Just which one of these countries are going to attack the USA on behalf of NK, Iran, Sudan, Libia, ect...?
See anyone on that list that would even seriously CONSIDERING using a nuclear attack on the USA, AFTER it has already glassed 2 others FIRST?
If you can't answer the last question, you are full of shit, because it would take a country's nuclear arenal to counterstrike the USA.
Only Russia can do a MAD to us, and being our friends would be a much better option than being our enemies, or siding with them!

North Korea gets glassed right out of the hole. This sets the tone for the rest.
Hell, if you even have Uranium ORE you will now be under the baleful eye of the USA.

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2004-08-02 05:21pm

I'm not talking about those countries, I'm talking about terrorists who would gladly do it 1000 times again, especially if the US took a stance like that.

And frankly, a LOT of countries would be nervous if the US started nuking every single country that defied it. You say they wouldn't dare. I say they may feel they have nothing to lose.
Maybe in the end the US would come out on top, but not before losing lots of lives because they'd be attacking countries because of an arbitrary policy rather than rooting out the causes of the 1st attack.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-02 05:54pm

Cao Cao wrote:I'm not talking about those countries, I'm talking about terrorists who would gladly do it 1000 times again, especially if the US took a stance like that.

That's why we destroy their whole culture in a Big One. Hell, lets
see, of the only nuclear powers who do count (Russia/China),
they're fighting their own battles against these scum, so wouldn't
be too saddened about The Big One.

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2004-08-02 05:58pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Cao Cao wrote:I'm not talking about those countries, I'm talking about terrorists who would gladly do it 1000 times again, especially if the US took a stance like that.
That's why we destroy their whole culture in a Big One. Hell, lets
see, of the only nuclear powers who do count (Russia/China),
they're fighting their own battles against these scum, so wouldn't
be too saddened about The Big One.

I doubt you can destroy a culture. Even with nukes. You just end up killing a lot of innocent people while the fanatics run, hide and eventually retaliate.
You also lose the trust of just about everybody leading to problems in the future. Not to mention the enviromental impact.
If North Korea for example is turned into a glowing crater, South Korea, China and Japan aren't going have a fun time.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2004-08-02 06:04pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:<snip>

In other words, complete and utter global terrorisation? Guess the terrorists could give themselves pats on the back now

Specially since they were smart enough not to claim ownership of the nuke

(I know I wouldn't. If I'm going all the way to detonate a nuke and wipe out an entire city, the aftereffects of the whole nuke thing would be reward enough, no need to take credit for it and make me the main target of a big retaliation)

So in other words, the entire world would be fucked except the actual responsibles.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-08-02 06:17pm

And just where are these 1000 nukes coming from?
Clue. You must first HAVE a nuke, to use it.

Nobody on the big five will be giving any to the terrorists. It is the sixth and seventh we have to worry about. NK and Iran.
Just who is going to give one over to these hypothetical terrorists/

Be specific, or shut the fuck up. Nukes don't just apear out of thin air, much less 1000 of them.

By the way, 1000 nukes is
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp
more than France, UK, and China COMBINED have!

Clue. These things are very expencive, and no one gives them away for nothing. Iran would give one away to use against the USA,(MAYBE!) without the pointing finger of blame showing who to retaliate, but they would want Isreal to get the first one, because they can't retaliate.
With no NK or Iran, who is going to have the nerve to give one more away?
Being nervous, and having the balls and/or the ability to do something about it are two different animals.

Clue. If those who would use them had them, they would have already dumbfuck!

Do you cower in fear because the Hutus or Borundi in Africa want you dead? Not if aren't in range! Ditto the rest of the lot.
It all comes down to, "What are you going to DO about it punk?"
Chad, Syrria, Sudan, and Niger ect... may scream all they want, as they are powerless.

You have no clue about how bad things will get if USA is ever nuked. A MINIMUN of 2 counties will be glassed. Anyone with any brains will give up, and those without are powerless.

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2004-08-02 06:25pm

You ASSUME that terrorists are acquiring nukes from state sponsored programs in these specific countries. That may not be the case, at which point all the US would be doing is scapegoating.
And I didn't mean they have 1000 nukes, just that they could do it 1000 times over if they could. But it only takes ONE to wipe out a major city, like I said they may not bring down the US, but many of it's citizens would have to pay in blood for such a campaign.

Clue. If those who would use them had them, they would have already dumbfuck!

No, because that would scale things up to a level nobody could control.

You have no clue about how bad things will get if USA is ever nuked. A MINIMUN of 2 counties will be glassed. Anyone with any brains will give up, and those without are powerless.

And then the US is forever known as the country that will commit genocide to solve it's problems, none of it's allies will ever trust it again, the enviroment is ruined and millions will have lost their lives for nothing.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-08-02 06:39pm

Yo, Slartibarfast.
If a nuke goes off in a American city, the world is now at war. This is bad. DUH! (How could it NOT be bad?)

It isn't a matter of things getting worse, it is a matter of HOW bad they get. They have already gotten worse. I fail to see how after we are nuked, we decide this won't ever happen again is that bad. The world would be a much better place after NK and Iran are gone. As to the suffering of the innocents, so be it! Japan has a robust nuclear program, (non weapons) and they won't fear us. (Much)

More to my point, the detonation of a nuclear device on American soil is proof that apeasment and/or containment isn't enough.
It would also completely validate the concept of preemption. We just plain aren't going to sit around, because we saw what happened when we did.
For ANY politician to say so makes them unelectable, when the bloody shirt starts getting waived around.

Americans simple will not CARE what the rest of the world thinks, after having our noses painfuly rubbed in the fact that the world won't let you alone even if you want to be left alone.
Each American life is worth 10k foreign lives, in the opinion of the post nuked America.
Pearl Harbor X one million.

We would feel real bad about it in a generation or so!

Just suppose, for the sake of arguement, America DID forbid the use of unmonitored nuclear technology, apon pain of nuking. Is this such a bad thing?
Many countries like to play a little game, where they use third party groups to further their agenda, with plausable deniability. This will no longer be an option. Glassing a few countries here and there adds a new element to trying to be sneaky.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-08-02 07:07pm

again Cao Cao, if they had them, they would USE them!
People of the mindset of suicide bombers and their ilk don't hold back because things could get worse! They WANT things to get worse!
Hammas, Al Quida and that group aren't holding back because of they are afraid of losing controle of the situation, and I am astonished at the ignorance of you stating it.
That and you don't seem to grasp that you have to HAVE a nuke to use it. To have it it must be MADE. Only a select few can make these, and they alread HAVE some. If you only have a few, you sure as shit aren't going to give them away, more like sell.

As to going down in historty as the second party to ever use nukes, SO BE IT!
You realy don't understand human nature, and American politics do you? NO American politician could hold office if they were against massive retaliation. Waiting 30 days to get the facts straight will be too long for most. The preempive group would scream "I TOLD you, I fucking TOLD YOU!"
The peacer crowd would be silent, or face the same treatment the hippies and yippies got from the hardhats in the 60s.
Then there will be friends and loved ones and family of the blasted Americans. They will want blood, and will have money, time and votes.
With a supermajority of American voters screaming for blood, the question during elections will be, "Who will be tougher," not "Who wants to get tough?."
The president would be impeached if he didn't retaliate.
I hate to quote my self, but, "the next generation will feel bad, but not this one." However savage they are.
Believe me, they would be savage. Mosques would burn, and there would be lynchings. Maybe we could pull a Japan/China thing and "forget" it ever happened.COUGH*Nanking*Cough

My personal opinion, (Below)and not a prediction of unfolding events.Above)

Nothing good would come of this. The suffering and death will be hell on earth. The loss of a complete city would be both a tragedy and a horrific crime, much less the death and suffering to follow. Very much on the level of WW2.

Cao Cao · Post by **Cao Cao** » 2004-08-02 08:32pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:again Cao Cao, if they had them, they would USE them!
People of the mindset of suicide bombers and their ilk don't hold back because things could get worse! They WANT things to get worse!
Hammas, Al Quida and that group aren't holding back because of they are afraid of losing controle of the situation, and I am astonished at the ignorance of you stating it.

If it were up to the fanatics, then certainly.
But as much as they like to act it, people like Osama Bin Laden or the leaders of Hamas are not fanatics, they're cynical opportunist fatcats sitting on top of a fanatical army of stupid followers. I doubt they truly have the desire to lose all of their support base in a retaliatory holocaust.

That and you don't seem to grasp that you have to HAVE a nuke to use it. To have it it must be MADE. Only a select few can make these, and they alread HAVE some. If you only have a few, you sure as shit aren't going to give them away, more like sell.

But this still assumes that Iran or North Korea or whatever would be stupid enough to just hand over one of their nukes to terrorists, rather than it coming from another source, such as a "misplaced" nuke from the breakup of the Soviet Union. Now I'm not saying they have gotten one that way, but that would be as much of a possibilty as would them getting it from a state nuclear program.

As to going down in historty as the second party to ever use nukes, SO BE IT!
You realy don't understand human nature, and American politics do you? NO American politician could hold office if they were against massive retaliation. Waiting 30 days to get the facts straight will be too long for most. The preempive group would scream "I TOLD you, I fucking TOLD YOU!"
:snip:

I have little doubt there would be calls for massive retaliation, and many anti-Muslim riots, anger against advocates of peace and all that as you say.
I'm just saying that a nuclear retaliation, even against a nuclear attack, especially against any country that doesn't follow a "new policy" would be foolish.
In my mind, there would no doubt be massive military retaliation on the right target or no depending on who the President is..
But the nuclear genie is still something no leader can release so readily.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-08-02 10:32pm

The question should be, strike at who?

We don't know where Osama is right now, we don't know where the terrorist groups are right now, we don't know who and where are the cabals and bomb-makers and so on and forth............

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-08-02 10:37pm

PainRack wrote:The question should be, strike at who?

We don't know where Osama is right now, we don't know where the terrorist groups are right now, we don't know who and where are the cabals and bomb-makers and so on and forth............

Since a nuclear weapon requires substantial infrastructure to design and build, the first target would be the providers of the material. There aren't that many sites capable of providing weapons-grade material, and they're easy enough to differentiate between after the blast.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-08-03 12:25am

Okay, The Big One has gone down, Osama and his pals have vaporized
a square mile or so of a major urban area, killed tens of thousands, with
hundreds of thousands more irradated.....

What happens after that?

Well, according to the head of the civil rights agency, you can "kiss your rights goodbye"

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-08-03 05:03am

Master of Ossus wrote: Since a nuclear weapon requires substantial infrastructure to design and build, the first target would be the providers of the material. There aren't that many sites capable of providing weapons-grade material, and they're easy enough to differentiate between after the blast.

What if the weapon was stolen? Anybody know what is the status of nuclear security in the old Soviet Union, or Pakistan for that matter?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-08-03 06:38am

PainRack wrote: What if the weapon was stolen? Anybody know what is the status of nuclear security in the old Soviet Union, or Pakistan for that matter?

Even the nations with the worst security like Pakistan keep there weapons more then safe enough to avoid terrorists stealing them, you only need to worry about that if part of the military basically openly sides with those terrorists. In that case we have real big problems, but also very easily noticed ones.

The claims about poor Russian security are largely bullshit, even during the breakup of the Soviet Union all warheads where firmly within Moscow's control and the nuclear forces have always had better budgeting then other services. Even if the people immediately guarding the nukes wanted to sell, it would take a pretty big conspiracy to do it (lifting the hatch off say a nuclear silo isn't something you can just go an do) and you'd still need to completely rewire the bombs and not self off possibul self-destructs in ordered for them to work.. That is not an easily or quickly accomplished thing. Anyway, nuclear material degrades rapidly with assembled bombs, those of Russia last about six years in that condition before needing remanufacturing. Unassembled bombs last longer, but the assembly process isn't something a terrorist band is going to be able to do reliably. In either case any bomb stolen in the 1991-93 timeframe, which is when most of the claims of theft are based, wouldn't work today. The conventional HE would explode and make you a very crappy dirty bomb.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-04 01:02am

Cao Cao wrote:I doubt you can destroy a culture. Even with nukes.

We can kill 95% of the Chinese population with a small fraction of our
strategic arsenal with efficient targeteering.

The US Military estimates that the GWOT will take 25-35 years to fight
to the finish.

Right now, the current cost/benefit calculation is firmly in the conventional
war camp; we haven't suffered any terrorist attacks since 9/11, so
the calculus is leaning towards the long term solutions with ground
troops; rooting out and destroying Al Qaeda from their holes.

However, if we are attacked consistently and repeatedly like on the
level Israel was before they built their wall, expect the calculus to start
swinging heavily towards "wipe them out, all of them." If it's a nuclear
initation on american soil, the calculus is going to swing so hard towards
wiping them out that the little dial metre is going to explode in a shower
of sparks.

If faced between seeing America attacked over and over by fanatics
who slaughter Americans by the score, or a nuclear initation, expect
the American leadership to simply order the nukes to start flying and
essentially say "to hell with everyone else's opinion", because in the
average american politician's mind, it's all about staying in office, not
what some foriegners think of him or us.

Put bluntly, this is what America is fighting the Global War on Terror for;
to save us from having to incinerate a huge swathe of the world's population to win the war.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2004-08-04 02:13am

Cao Cao wrote:I'm not talking about those countries, I'm talking about terrorists who would gladly do it 1000 times again, especially if the US took a stance like that.

And frankly, a LOT of countries would be nervous if the US started nuking every single country that defied it. You say they wouldn't dare. I say they may feel they have nothing to lose.
Maybe in the end the US would come out on top, but not before losing lots of lives because they'd be attacking countries because of an arbitrary policy rather than rooting out the causes of the 1st attack.

Realistically how many of our citys could "terrorists" take out? 1? 2? 3? atmost. A terrible price but in a war of Nuclear one upmanship. The US would fare alot better than anyone else except the other 4 or 5 Nuclear powers. I'm not saying it would be a moral responce or even a logical one, but it is pretty much what would happen. The US public would be in no mood to put up with ANY lip from any other nation. And we would possibly end up with internment camps for a while as well.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2004-08-04 02:16am

Cao Cao wrote:You ASSUME that terrorists are acquiring nukes from state sponsored programs in these specific countries. That may not be the case, at which point all the US would be doing is scapegoating.
And I didn't mean they have 1000 nukes, just that they could do it 1000 times over if they could. But it only takes ONE to wipe out a major city, like I said they may not bring down the US, but many of it's citizens would have to pay in blood for such a campaign.

Clue. If those who would use them had them, they would have already dumbfuck!
No, because that would scale things up to a level nobody could control.

You have no clue about how bad things will get if USA is ever nuked. A MINIMUN of 2 counties will be glassed. Anyone with any brains will give up, and those without are powerless.
And then the US is forever known as the country that will commit genocide to solve it's problems, none of it's allies will ever trust it again, the enviroment is ruined and millions will have lost their lives for nothing.

One wouldn't wipout a major city. A fission Bomb is powerful...but not that powerful. You would need Fusion weapons for that.