Nuclear Weapons.

fisty

Just a thought,

A long time ago gunpowder was invented in Asia, but now every country knows how to make it.

How long will it be before any country can produce a nuke?

If this is the case, how long before terrorists get their hands on one?

Then what?

Who is gonna be the first country to suffer the devastation of a nuclear weapon at the hands of terrorists?

I think it will eventually happen.

How are we gonna deal with it?

Humanity is walking a tightrope, sooner or later we will have to accept that any major city could be vapourised in an instant if one headcase puts his mind to it...

This really scares me.

What can we do about it?

I'm sorry if this post seems unfocused but my thinking is that one nuke in Newyork would destroy the world economy and we're supposed to put our faith in Bush or a similar arsehole?

Bush, a gung-ho yahoo who can't see past his front door as far as foreign policy is concerned?

This guy is supposed to be the leader of the free world but all he has done so far is first lead his country down the economic sewer, then expand the economic prosperity of his own country by aggressivley invading others.

History has seen this before, and the consequences? - pain, hurt and the devastation of lives.

Your thoughts?

Fisty,
scared.

Ping Chow Chi

I think its a very large process to actually produce a nuke

I would worry about some nutcases releasing some bio-weapon more.

daveg

I believe 100% that over the next 5-10 years we will see a terrorist strike like we have never seen before.

I agree it would be very difficult for terrorists to develop and build a nuclear bomb... but they could steal/buy one. There are hand held nuclear weapons that could be smuggled. As Ping said perhaps it will be a bio chemical release... perhaps small pox.

Bush has done nothing but in flair & heed the buildup of anti-American sentiment across the globe. You can bet your ass it will be a stike against the US.

Chaos-Engine

I've no problem with any country or group have aNukes.
Just so long they all land in the USA

Hobbes

Some people don't get it.

Why go to all the bother to make and plant and explode a nuke when you can just as much terror with every day household goods.

Car Bombs were made from fertilizer bags that you could buy almost anywhere (on a farming show with John Noakes, talking about regulating selling it).

Two skyscrapers got taken down with box cutter knives.

I seriously think the threat of Nukes is just a method to help induce fear. That's not to say that terrorists will never attempt it if they could get away with it. I'm saying they can cause the same kind of effect with a lot less.

Fence

I would kindof agree with Hobbes; threatening to use weapons such as nukes does an aweful lot of damage, with no great expense.

But then again, if North Korea didn't have nukes then the US would prolly have launched air strikes against it. So the fact that nukes were a deterrant would prolly encourage other states to speed up their nuclear programmes so that what happened iraq doesn't happen them.

Personnaly I don't let it bother me, worrying about it is what they(1) want you to do, which is be so scared you will act irrationally, and stop thinking for yourself.

Cya
(1) and I am including govts alongside terrorists with that they

Sparks

Hobbes,
I don't agree - people fear airliner hijackers now, not because it's now known what they can do - in fact airline crews were predicting it for years. Books were written about the subject - in fact, I distinctly remember watching the second jet fly into the tower and thinking, in a rather surreally detached way, that someone had been reading the latest Tom Clancy novel (where a suicidal pilot flies a 747 into Capitol Hill during the state of the union speech).

But it's now been seen.

End result? Paranoid levels of security, nations sacrificing civil rights in an effort to aid those security levels (to the point where amnesty international is screaming about it) and a huge number of people terrified.

Same goes for nukes. For decades, people have been worried about them, written books about them (that Clancy bloke again - someone's gonna be having a discrete talk with him at some point, I predict, along the lines of "stop writing or else") and covertly and overtly taken action to try to keep nuclear material secure - but until it's seen in use by a terrorist... it's just not going to have the same effect.

And if I can figure that out, so can any other human, including terrorists. So frankly, I'd rather not be living within 20 miles of a port where they ship 40-foot containers right now.

Ivan

40 foot containers?
Hah.

Hows about not living within any area that accepts air mail?

Spock

Any nation can build a nuke but none of them are allowed. Only seven countries have them (or are supposed to have them) and they make sure that it stays at seven

Éomer of Rohan

I've no problem with any country or group have aNukes.
Just so long they all land in the USA

Amen to that.

Any nation can build a nuke but none of them are allowed. Only seven countries have them (or are supposed to have them) and they make sure that it stays at seven

China, Russia, Ukraine, America, Pakistan, Israel, India, North Korea, Britain and France all have nuclear weapons, no?

Éomer of Rohan

and have Taiwan not developed nuclear weapons of some sort?

Sparks

Ivan,
A robust nuclear weapon can be built to be the size of a backpack - but it's technically difficult to do so. Much easier to throw away the space limitation and just use a 40-foot container. Recall, so many get shipped daily that even in the height of the recent "Orange Alert" (This is what happens when politicians watch star trek :rolleyes: ), only one in 40 or so were being checked - in New York City.

Spock,
Then explain Israel or North Korea. Barn door open, horse rapidly disappearing over the horizon. Besides which, as North Korea has already offically stated, they now believe that possession of nuclear weapons is a vital matter for their national security - because they're afraid that the US will attack them if they don't have nukes.
(How's that for international peace and security?)

Eomar and Chaos,
I dislike bush intensely - but I have a lot of good friends and people I care about who live in the US, so I'd really rather not see them killed in a nuclear attack, you know?

kaimera

but I have a lot of good friends and people I care about who live in the US, so I'd really rather not see them killed in a nuclear attack, you know?

same here Sparks.


If one country launches, everybody else is gonna launch.

Neutrality will count for nought when the first one goes off.

Éomer of Rohan

I don't particularly want anyone to die in such a horrible way BUT as I have said before, is there an alternativr really? The Americans are not listening to rational, reasoned argument, whether within America or without (UK, France, Germany, Russia et al). Maybe a nuke up their ass would do us some good? Maybe they would realise that THEY DO NOT HAVE A MANIFEST DESTINY SO THEY SHOULD GET DOWN OF THE MORAL HIGH HORSE THEY ASSUME EVERY TIME SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH THEM.

Sparks

Dave,
Sorry, no. One friend of mine is getting married next Sunday - I can't see her life being a suitable trade-off for Bush's, or even for a change in foreign policy. Besides which, they'd probably just launch all their nukes, and we'd be looking at a death toll in the hundreds of millions (though not all would die immediately, given the nature of radiological weapons).

Éomer of Rohan

Sorry, no. One friend of mine is getting married next Sunday - I can't see her life being a suitable trade-off for Bush's, or even for a change in foreign policy. Besides which, they'd probably just launch all their nukes, and we'd be looking at a death toll in the hundreds of millions (though not all would die immediately, given the nature of radiological weapons).

At whom would they launch their nuclear missiles? This is the point; they have no state based enemy and finally the nuclear deterrent is rendered useless. So get rid of it. Apart from that, I have asked this before; what alternative is there to destroying the USA as we know it? (and by destroying I don't mean genocide or whatever, BUT the nuclear option - like one nuclear bomb in Washington or New York, which would collapse the world economy is an option - not a pleasant one albeit).

Éomer of Rohan

PS will you PLEASE stop calling me Eomar!?!? Dave or Éomer will do lol.

Sparks

At whom would they launch their nuclear missiles?

Pretty much anyone Bush wanted to. Which would probably mean North Korea or Syria or Iran or Yemen or all of the above...

As to the alternative, simply having OPEC switch from the dollar to the euro for oil sales would have the effect you're seeking with a much lower level of fatalities.

Éomer of Rohan

So to destroy the interventionist policies that existed since the formation of the United States of America and long before OPEC, all we need to do is what you suggest? America was a powerful nation, enough to rival the British Empire, long before the REAL importance of oil was discovered. I think that the currency switch would have an impact certainly but to say that it would destroy the power of the USA is too simplistic I feel.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I don't particularly want anyone to die in such a horrible way BUT as I have said before, is there an alternativr really? The Americans are not listening to rational, reasoned argument, whether within America or without (UK, France, Germany, Russia et al). Maybe a nuke up their ass would do us some good? Maybe they would realise that THEY DO NOT HAVE A MANIFEST DESTINY SO THEY SHOULD GET DOWN OF THE MORAL HIGH HORSE THEY ASSUME EVERY TIME SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH THEM.

Dave,
And I have to call you that now, as for some reason my new keyboard wont do capital Fada's:D
You do realise, you are advocating wiping out everybody that disagree's with Bush as well....
How am I supposed to take, your more reasonable arguments seriously when , you come out with stuff like this??
I have an awfull lot of friends( most of whom will be voting at the next election there) and relatives in the states and you would have them nuked???
mm

Sparks

Dave,
The reason that OPEC switching is such a big thing is that the US has an artifically inflated economy. Since the only currency the OPEC countries sell oil for is the dollar, and everyone needs to buy oil, the US gets a lot of trade designed to gain dollars for foreign nations, and they keep a lot of dollars in stock specifically to buy oil. Change that, and the dollar's value will go into frefall for a week or two, the US economy will collapse, and the $44 trillion deficet will cripple the country.

http://news.google.com/news?q=%2244+trillion%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&sa=N&tab=wn

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1051390392975&p=1012571727088

vorbis

sparks the US economy ain't no Japan. Presently its doing a lot better than many european ones. (Germany anyone). Also while such a currency change would impact on them, it would have nowhere near the effect you're predicting. The American economy is founded on the success of its companies. As we can see in Ireland, there multi nationals are still making profits.

Lemming

Originally posted by vorbis
sparks the US economy ain't no Japan. Presently its doing a lot better than many european ones. (Germany anyone). Also while such a currency change would impact on them, it would have nowhere near the effect you're predicting. The American economy is founded on the success of its companies. As we can see in Ireland, there multi nationals are still making profits.

Vorbis, sparks is actually correct. If OPEC changed it's trading currency tomorrow, the US Dollar would loose roughly 60% of it's current value in short time. 'Free-Fall' is the phrase that springs to mind.

Currently, the US is the only country that can produce US dollars. Every other country creates goods or services that can buy these dollars in order to buy oil. Essentially the US gets something for nothing.

If OPEC change currency to, say, the euro all of these countries owuld have to flush their reserves of US dollars. The metaphor of "the cheques coming home to bounce" would be apt. If a product/service is not in demand, it's value falls.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Apart from that, I have asked this before; what alternative is there to destroying the USA as we know it?

Well, gee, I dunno....

when the argument presented is "the world needs to be more in accordance with my/our vision, and we can only do that by destroying the obstacles in our way" I kinda tend to think that perhaps the US attitude of "the world needs to be more in accordance with my/our vision and we can only do that by controlling the obstacles in our way" isnt all that bad after all.

What you are proposing is ultimately no different than what you allege they are doing, and must be stopped from doing - subjugating those who will not choose to side with you/them, through force if necessary.

And when the US' back is broken, and the world is picking up the pieces, and a new superpower emerges who is also not socialistic in the vision you desire....are they next for nukage? Should it become clear that they too will not bow to your wishes of how a world should be, will they be next in line for judgement, condemnation, and glow-in-the-dark cities?

Down such paths lie Armegeddon, not salvation.

jc

Spock

seven countrie are allowed have them, others have them too but they are breaking international law, the seven are supposed to act at this point but they seem a bit on the lazy side.

Nukes are not all bad, look at the bombing of Japan, that needed to be done and had good repercussions

Sparks

Actually it didn't need to be done. Hiroshima I might agree with with a great deal of trepidation - Nagasaki was nothing more than an unwarranted slaughter, which served only as a warning to the Soviets.
Besides which, there was a peace deal on the table at the time Hiroshima was annihilated.

Éomer of Rohan

Nukes are not all bad, look at the bombing of Japan, that needed to be done and had good repercussions

Now THAT is crap. The nuclear weapons being used on Japan killed one hundred and forty thousand people - a medium range estimate. There was no necessity to drop the bomb except that America wanted to experiment with it's new toy and second, to show Soviet Russia the power of the USA. Japan had on three seperate occasions offered surrended with terms to the USA - the USA simply refused to listen and wanted unconditional surrender; something that Japanese honour would not accept - the terms that Japan offered were even more than a status quo ante bellum - they offered to surrender Manchuria and all the islands conquered from the Europeans and America and to apologise for the war. America was having none of it.

Down such paths lie Armegeddon, not salvation.

Yeah I know but I swear that sometimes it feels that it might be more productive to beat my head against a brick wall.

fisty

I never really meant that america is the obvious target...
It may not be, if the recent jihad demands are met it could be London or even Oslo for that matter.

They would probably be more likely to lash out at a country with less security than the US in my opinion because the military reply from being caught with a nuclear weapon (I'm sure they could identify what country it originated from if it was found intact) would be quick assuming Bush is still in the oval office.

However, some interesting points made about OPEC, I never really realised how important it is for america that OPEC trade in dollar.

However I really don't think that that will happen as now that Iraq is another US puppet they can really dominate the way oil is distributed.

In reply to Hobbes earlier post, it really doesn't matter if you can cause a few thousand deaths by flying a plane into a building
using boxcutters.

That just shows the will, but not emormous destructive power.

If Osama or someone like him was to successfully deploy a nuke in an american city there would be none of this:
"We'll stand together, you don't scare us!" horse****e.

Americans would **** themselves and it would throw America or any other country into disarray. Panic, Looting, Mass evacuation out of major cities, Riots... who knows what would really happen?

And maybe I'm just scaremongering but I think it's entirely possible.

Éomer of Rohan

And maybe I'm just scaremongering but I think it's entirely possible.

Hmm. What would happen I wonder? It is one thing to topple a building or two - it another to level a major city. Anyone have any relevent links on US governmental department contingency plans?

fisty

how can you have a contingency plan for something like that...
their only contingency plan will be get the army into the area to clean up and then fight fire with fire.

sam

seven countrie are allowed have them, others have them too but they are breaking international law, the seven are supposed to act at this point but they seem a bit on the lazy side.

how are they breaking international law? only the signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty could be said to be breaking international law.. not all the countries who have nukes are signatories of that treaty

Rolo Tomasi

They would probably be more likely to lash out at a country with less security than the US

I very much agree with this. The levels of paranoia and security are at fever pitch and the possibility of an attack within the continental U.S. is unlikely at the moment. More likely an ally of the US or US interests abroad. Have you heard about the Leitrim footballer who at a New York airport joked that he has a bomb in his bag and the entire place was shut down. He received some community service for this efforts. (methinks he's from the shallow end of the gene pool).

The tension between India and Pakistan is a cause for concern. Both countries have WMD (there's a word thats gone out of fashion) and if a war between the two broke out its hard to see where it would end.

fisty

well he was from leitrim after all....:rolleyes: