Next hostile use of nuclear weapons?

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-11-13 01:37pm

Where do you think it will occur, and who do you think will be pulling the trigger?

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2002-11-13 01:40pm

None of the developed countries would use nukes, simply because they have too much to lose. It would be some "rogue state", probably Iraq. That, or the Taliban gets their hands on some. Then it's BIG trouble time.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-11-13 01:41pm

Probably India/Pakistan.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-11-13 01:42pm

Probably India/Pakistan

Indeed I nail that at a 57.4% Probability within the next twenty years that they Nuke Each Other

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-11-13 01:43pm

irishmick79 wrote:Where do you think it will occur, and who do you think will be pulling the trigger?

I don't think it will, the results of such an attack would be MAD. If and when a SDI or other such system is devised to protect against MAD then the balance will change and the ability to deploy nuke's without commiting suicide could become an option.

As for a terrorist type action, I don't really know. Any one selling fissable material to a terrorist has got to know that we or someone else could figure out where the material came from and retaliate against them, so I don't know if that is enough to deter the problem.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-11-13 01:46pm

My personal bet is they will be used by Russians, in Russia. They obviously don't seem that concerned about gassing their own people, and the Chechens continue to cause significant problems in their own backyard. What will stop them from taking the next step if they feel threatened enough?

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-11-13 01:48pm

irishmick79 wrote:My personal bet is they will be used by Russians, in Russia. They obviously don't seem that concerned about gassing people, and the Chechens continue to cause significant problems in their own backyard.

I seriously doubt they'll graduate from the surgical use of gas to a sudden nuclear drop.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-11-13 02:41pm

Pakistan. India has too much conventional strength and too much to lose. However I believe in Pakistan's case its morel likely we'd see a singular usage by rouges within the armed forces or against a minor target in a wider war as opposed to an all out strike.

StimNeuro · Post by **StimNeuro** » 2002-11-13 02:46pm

A rogue state such as Iraq or North Korea(yes, I know they don't have any yet) are most likely w/ Pakistan/India in second, and Isreal a distant third.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2002-11-13 03:13pm

If the Arabs ever manage to put together a fighting force worth a damn and pull off a successful invasion of Israel, the nukes will fly. That should happen around the same time as heat death of the universe. If Pakistan falls apart, a bomb might be used against India, after which India will slag half of Pakistan and colonize the rest.

ElBlanco · Post by **ElBlanco** » 2002-11-13 03:21pm

India and Pakistan are in conflict over the Kashmir region. A nuke is a bad idea for anyone who actually wants to occupy the other side's territory. North Korea? No, they just want to be able to play with the Big Boys. They will build them, but not fire them. Israel? Not unless they think the radiaton will be good for tourism.

The best way is to look at what some of these "rogue nations" want. Anybody in a land or resource conflict isn't about to use nukes. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the conflict? And remember, launching nukes is a Pandora's Box. Why do you think The US and USSR Bought into deterence for so long?

In my opinion, Iraq is the wild card. If Hussien gets them, what is the protocol for using them? Does he alone have The Button? Will he need several keys from certain personell? And there is one little known fact that I think totally fucks up the equation: He is dying of cancer. I heard estimates that place him dead inside a year from now. Can he order a launch on his deathbed? He has nothing to lose. What about his sons and generals? So many, many variables.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-11-13 05:04pm

North Korea(yes, I know they don't have any yet)

Acutal they have eleven at last count, only three afixable to missles however those missles can Hit Hawaii at last check and the ones they never tested can reach as far as New-Mexico

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2002-11-13 05:23pm

irishmick79 wrote:My personal bet is they will be used by Russians, in Russia. They obviously don't seem that concerned about gassing their own people, and the Chechens continue to cause significant problems in their own backyard. What will stop them from taking the next step if they feel threatened enough?

*sigh* You obviously are an idiot.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-11-13 05:39pm

irishmick79 wrote:My personal bet is they will be used by Russians, in Russia. They obviously don't seem that concerned about gassing their own people, and the Chechens continue to cause significant problems in their own backyard. What will stop them from taking the next step if they feel threatened enough?

Well that was, quite stupid. Little does your brain understand Russian Intelligence and something tells me Americanism Bullshit has been drilled into your brain. Not only have you jumped from a surgical expertly conducted gas strike too nuclear warfare. Also this idea is so stupid the Russians you describe deserve too get nuked! Anyway, Russia wouldn't use nukes, and don't mention Chernrobyl it was a damn accident.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2002-11-13 05:56pm

Aren't Chechens technically still Russians? They sure wouldn't have any qualms about using a dirty bomb or two in Russia. And besides, it's just speculation. Never did I say the russians using the nuclear weapon had to specifically be the Russian government. On the flip side, American radicals in the US could get their hands on a bomb and set one off in the US. Unlikely, but still a possibility. Everybody knows that russian nuclear safeguards aren't exactly top of the line, either.

Besides, when have Russian leaders ever demonstrated trust and loyalty in their own people? Aside from maybe Yeltsin and Gorbachev, have russian leaders really been that interested in giving democratic power to the russian people? I'm not saying that they're despots, I'm just saying most russian leaders have historically shown little interest in the general welfare of the russian people. Look at the experience under the Czars, look at the experiences with Lenin and Stalin.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-14 01:24am

and the ones they never tested can reach as far as New-Mexico

Well since California is closer to North Korea than New Mexico, I find that somewhat unsettling.

Anywhoo, my personal opinion is that Pakistan/India are the most likely use of a nuke. Perhaps a destabilized Pakistan could lose control of one which would be then used by terrorists.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-14 01:26am

Mr Bean wrote:
North Korea(yes, I know they don't have any yet)
Acutal they have eleven at last count, only three afixable to missles however those missles can Hit Hawaii at last check and the ones they never tested can reach as far as New-Mexico

Damn. I'm screwed.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2002-11-14 01:52am

I have yet to see evidence that Iraq has any nukes, or the material to make one. Certainly Hussain has tried, and I do not deny the possibility. For a country as expansionist and territorial as Iraq, it makes sense to have some nukes in hand, if only to 'play with the big boys', like North Korea. That is, to regain the prestige lost in 1991. Secondly, if not every country in the middle east wants nukes to take the balance of power away from Israel, then I think peace may be possible in the middle east. Clearly, however, there shall be no peace there for quite some time (think in geological terms). Does anyone here have any reason to believe Iraq will actually use the Bomb? Saddam is a politican, and no politician is going to ruin his career by getting his country turned into a pile of nuclear waste after a nuclear counter-attack. That is not to say that Iraq should be ignored or is not dangerous. I simply don't view it as a nuclear threat, except in the one minor possiblity that near the end of a victorious US offensive Saddam manages to blow up a good part of Israel because he knows he's dead anyway. And that's if he has a nuke.
I haven't payed nearly enough attention to the India/Pakistan thing. But unless a random element like terrorists get hold of a nuke, the next big boom is either going to be a forced hand or temporary insanity in the middle east, or the beginning of a real war in India. Anyone know what the alliances there would lead to?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-14 02:01am

Does anyone here have any reason to believe Iraq will actually use the Bomb?

I only think he would use one if he was backed into a corner and thought he had no choice. He has made some really stupid mistakes, but I dont think he is suicidal.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-11-14 02:10am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Does anyone here have any reason to believe Iraq will actually use the Bomb?
I only think he would use one if he was backed into a corner and thought he had no choice. He has made some really stupid mistakes, but I dont think he is suicidal.

Saddam would not use a bomb, however if he had several I belive it would not take much to get him to use a single one as a demonstration.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-14 02:24am

Saddam would not use a bomb, however if he had several I belive it would not take much to get him to use a single one as a demonstration.

Do you mean a demo at a test site just for the world to see ?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-11-14 02:28am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Saddam would not use a bomb, however if he had several I belive it would not take much to get him to use a single one as a demonstration.
Do you mean a demo at a test site just for the world to see ?

I would say so. He would also have to be able to deliver it to targets within the ME at least. If he used one against someone he would have his nation invaded and him removed PDQ.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2002-11-14 02:29am

I would rate it a good chance that *someone* will pop off a firecracker soon; when(if) it does happen, there will be hell to pay.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-11-14 03:28am

Unlike most of the rest of the world, the Americans are the only country with an on-going program to make nukes small enough and limited enough to be politically acceptable in ordinary wars. If the White House takes particular exception to any particularly hardened NBC facilities that crop up in the next decade or so the next use of nuclear weapons in anger might very well be by the Americans.

The next powers on the rogue list--after the Americans-- who seem most inclined to throw nukes would be Pakistan and North Korea. Pakistan is loaded with religious extremeists who worship death and can't be deterred by MAD. North Korea has never been all that predictable at the best of times.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-11-14 03:43am

True, but Pakistan is a country of contradictions. For example for the developments of Nuclear Weapons and their delivery systems it takes a highly intelligent work force and speciallist/educated participants. But the bulk of it's population is poor, and a religious base for fundamentalism Now I know people are gonna say; but polititians aren't intelligent! And I agree, however they are self-serving. Meaning they have no problem sending in young men to die, but they themselves would do no such thing!

Also the next cry would be; but and Islamic fundamentalist would come in and take power! Well that is always a possability in any country, but we forget one thing; the military. Pakistan has shown that it's military is headed by educated indaviduals who for the most part are not fundamentalists and are willing to take control of the government if it serves it's interests. So therefore the Pakistani General is also a politician at the same time. Very scary.

My point being I don't see a possability of and India/Pakistan conflict rising to a nuclear conflict. Kashmir has been in debate for a very long time, if either side thought that they could gain some kind of advantage from using the Nukes they would have by now.

North Korea. Nope not a threat. For the same reasons, the reigem there want to preserve their reign, not end it in a mushroom cloud.

Iraq, don't have any, and again Suddam is not a religious fundamentalist, he is a facist dictactor. He will use religion to stir up the population, but at the end of the day that would not be a factor to attack someone.

My biggest concern is Israel. Why? Well because it has a highly religious fundamentalist population. It has proven by history to be a military aggressive power, that would undoubtably will do anything to see its 'states' survival.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Next hostile use of nuclear weapons?

Next hostile use of nuclear weapons?

Re: Next hostile use of nuclear weapons?