If terrorists aquired nukes would they use them?
 

yes

No, it would be just for show. Like a guy with a corvette.

Spec.

There is an interesting article in Spoektrum der wissenschaft (the german edition of scientific american)
where it is said that a wise move would be (if the terrorists have a rocket as a carrier system for the weapon) to detonate the weapon in orbit, thereby eleminating a lot of the satellites in Orbit as well as computer on the ground via EMP, and also making replacing the satellites hard or even impossible for about one year because of the high amount of radiation that will only slowly disappear.

As the western civilization is very dependant on satellites this would have a much greater effect than "just" detonating the bomb in some american city.

I think it depends on the particular group. A-Q would certainly try. But what if a group like Hezbollah (terror org but also political party, militia... a quasi-state entity in a way) got one? I think they might try the blackmail route rather than just using it.

-Arrian

Getting it in might not be as hard as some here think. Just shipping it in via container would likely do the trick.

Do nuke weapons emit radiation detectable by a device? Could their radioactivity reveal their existance right through a shipping container?

If Hezbollah nuked us that's the same as getting nuked by Iran, yes?

True, other terrorist groups would be more difficult to pin down with a state to hold responsible. If one of them got us we would have to pull a name out of a hat and nuke them. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/cute.gif

Ecthy, I'll have you know I recieved a brain at birth and yes I do use it, as a counterbalance to my ass. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/stunned.gif

how likely is it to get an intact bomb over here? id guess that any nuke made would not be of the highest quality and has a great chance of malfunction

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
There is an interesting article in Spoektrum der wissenschaft (the german edition of scientific american)
where it is said that a wise move would be (if the terrorists have a rocket as a carrier system for the weapon) to detonate the weapon in orbit, thereby eleminating a lot of the satellites in Orbit as well as computer on the ground via EMP, and also making replacing the satellites hard or even impossible for about one year because of the high amount of radiation that will only slowly disappear.

As the western civilization is very dependant on satellites this would have a much greater effect than "just" detonating the bomb in some american city. though it'd probably be a little easier for terrorists to get the weapon in through mexico than get it into orbit. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif

There was an article in Newsweek a while back (I was reading when getting my oil changed http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.gif) that discussed the difficulty of tracing radioactive materials. I think we'd have a hell of a time figuring out who detonated the bomb. I believe the example they used was trying to trace the uranium that Pakistan used. They still aren't completely sure of the origin.

Originally posted by Dis
I believe the example they used was trying to trace the uranium that Pakistan used. They still aren't completely sure of the origin. It came from China, as did the blueprints http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/nod.gif

Originally posted by Monk


Well, I guess it's possible to argue that any would-be terrorist might think twice before taking out New York if it would happen at the expense of his people.

The main problem is though, and this is completely disregarding the moral issue, if some Saudi that isn't easily discouraged goes ahead anyway, you have to obliterate Mecca, and good luck on fighting terrorism after that happens.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo.../dizzyanim.gif
"Jeezus, these guys are serious! And Allah didn't stop the nuking, so I quess our nuking was bad, too... http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/scared.gif "

Though, if that's muslim terrorist person, I wonder if he'd use Jeezus... http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...smilies/hm.gif

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/idea.gif

the americans could nuke one of their own cities and say the middle east did it as an excuse to nuke the middle east (or worse)

Yes, terrorists would use a nuke if they had one. Good luck figuring out who detonated it after it goes off. Retaliation would be pointless after the attack, but this President would do it anyway against North Korea, Iran, or both.

The world would be forever altered in ways we only dimly comprehend. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/frown.gif

I don't see why any dictator would give WMDs to terrorists who were not completely loyal to him or his faction. Dictators don't stay in power by being trusting with munitions like that. Especially not when said terrorists would probably be going underground with them, leaving said weapons untrackable.

Originally posted by Diadem
Those are non-muslim terrorist groups though. Most muslim terrorist groups (and that's the majority, I fear) would immidiately use one. They are just too fanatical to be rational. They aren't even fighting for a rationally defined goal anyway. MOst are. You have Kashmir joining Pakistan, Independence for the Muslim sections of the phillipinnes, the creation of lslamists governments. Actually, most Muslim terrorist groups have rationally defined goals.


Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have, on several occasions, started terrorist campaigns that clearly hurt their own people more than it did the Israeli's. This does not concern them. They simply don't care about it. One might even argue that they do it on purpose. Their popularity only grows by it. For terrorist using nukes it'll be the same, only bigger. Much bigger.

And yet Hamas won an election, and Hezbullah's political position is stronger than ever. It seems both groups have acted quite rationally to increase their influence and importance, and even if Lebanse and Palestinians, being weaker, suffer more from confrontation, these groups clearly behave "rationally."

Originally posted by Lancer
I believe nukes will be used extensively once they are used again. Feelings are running high, the terrorists are insane and the US could win this holy war in an hour. No one wins if you are right about the extensive use.

You freak me out Lancer. I can't believe anyone would think nuclear genocide is a valid option. Even if you ignore all moral entanglements, it's a cluster-**** of epic proportions. The impact on world climate, economies, possible 3rd party involvements...

If I'm just reading you wrong, and you think we can force the entire Islamic world to submit, pull your head out of the sand and look at what's happening in Iraq. And that's before we unite a billion Muslims against the great Satan that just glassed over hundreds of thousands of their faith. It won't be just one city of ours that gets hit. It will be the occasional mushroom cloud from here on out.

I'd much rather face a reconstituted USSR in another cold war than have us do what you suggest.

Originally posted by Aeson
You freak me out Lancer. I can't believe anyone would think nuclear genocide is a valid option. Even if you ignore all moral entanglements, it's a cluster-**** of epic proportions. The impact on world climate, economies, possible 3rd party involvements... That's of course all right, but the point is also what the right reaction to a nuclear attack would be and if that's realistically the reaction we can expect, because in the aftermath of a nuclear attack several factors may drive US policy into a very strong, possibly nuclear counter reaction.

Nuclear non-proliferation is a joke as it is- how long can they keep a technology from 1945 a secret. As technology progresses it will get easier and easier for country’s or even groups to develop nuclear weapons. And since more countries will get them, they will be easier to steal or buy as well.

I suppose that nobody here knows that out of the 100 Russian suitcase nuclear bombs (developed during the cold war) at least 19 are not accounted for. I can’t imagine some employ losing one; I suspect they were sold on the open market to the highest bidder. If America is lucky that was either the CIA or Israel, if not it could have been China, NK or even Iran (if terrorists would have bought them they would have used them by now).

there are no syrian terrorists http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/mad.gif

Originally posted by Dis
I don't think the U.S. would act irrationally. I think we kept our cool pretty good after 9/11. Though a nuke attack is completely different, I know.

So what would we do? forensic evidence would be very hard to come by (though not impossible). We'd have to go off of intelligence. I really don't think the U.S. would nuke anyone if we only got nuked once (very likely it will be a small tactical nuke that won't even come close to destroying a downtown district). Instead I think we'd convene full scale conventional bombing on any country that is harboring these terrorists (and don't hand them all over). Depends on who is at power during the time of attack I think.
If for example the neocons are at power I don´t expect a rational answer to the situation.

Although I think even these would only start a nuclear attack if there are strong evidences which tie the bomb to be from the arsenal of one of the countries on the expanded axis of evil (cuba, iran, north korea or france [germany can be omitted as we don´t possess any nukes])

But most likely they will implement some paranoid response like kind of patriot act III (putting all muslims within the country on surveillance and giving the governmental agencies the right to record phone calls, eMails and the like without being accountable to anyone)