Nuclear retaliation

[timmy222]

Under the current goverment we would more likely have a radiation clean up tax put on us.
As to the original question,nuke them to hell and back we might get some respect for a change other then being seen as a 2 bit slack jawed faggot country that labour has made us.
Also lets not forget NATO policy, an attack on a nato allied country would be seen as an attack on every nato member.

 

[K1LLSW1TCH]

Under the current goverment we would more likely have a radiation clean up tax put on us.

LOL!


What if it was Iran that launched the nuke?

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Respect for annihilating another country with massice collateral damage ?

 

[gord]

Thing is, rogue nations arnt exactly rogues are they. NK likes to be the rogue but as soon as they do anything Japan and the US come down on them like a tonne of bricks.

 

[Duff-Man]

Do nuclear weapons with an equivalent force of 50 kilotons that can be detonated at ground level actually exist?

Of course

All sophisticated weapons (like nukes) will have a programmable trigger.

Modern nuclear weapons are sophisticated pieces of kit so one wouldn't simply be able to borrow a warhead throw it in a suitcase with some dynamite and detonate it. If countries such as Iran and Iraq have struggled to obtain nuclear weapons how is a group of Islamic extremists going to do it?

The most "difficult" part of producing a nuclear weapon is the enrichment of the fissile material (Uranium / Plutonium). If you buy / steal an existing nuclear weapon then it's a different story, as the fissile core and detonator etc will all be assembed and "ready to blow". Obviously obtaining a nuclear weapon on the black market isn't going to be easy, but there are hundreds of soviet-era nukes which are still unaccounted for, so it's certainly not inconcievable.

The main difference between a state and a small organisation is that a state would require a large supply of nuclear weapons in order to become a true nuclear power and have an effective deterent, hence they need to manufacture them. A terrorist organisation needs only detonate a single nuclear weapon in order to further their agenda, so obtaining an existing bomb would be the way to go.

I agree that if a terrorist organisation got hold of a nuke it would be unlikely to be small in size. Most likely it would weigh several tons, and need to be transported by shipping container. Since only a very small percentage of shipping containers are actually inspected by customs, this would be an attractive way in (using established smuggling routes). Whether they would decide to detonate the thing right there in the port, or put it onto a truck for use in a city centre, would be anyone's guess.

 

[Stretch]

Scratch China from that; NATO is strictly European theatre of War when we want it to be

Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all.

It makes no mention of geography.

 

[meghatronic]

Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all.

It makes no mention of geography.

Falklands.. cough cough Falklands...

"the article limits the organization's scope to Europe and North America, which explains why the invasion of the British Falkland Islands did not result in NATO involvement."

 

[Stretch]

Falklands.. cough cough Falklands...

"the article limits the organization's scope to Europe and North America, which explains why the invasion of the British Falkland Islands did not result in NATO involvement."

If they bombed a UK city would that not be an attack in Europe?

 

[wozencl]

I am still not convinced, though I do appreciate the imagination required for the creation of such scenarios.

Of course

All sophisticated weapons (like nukes) will have a programmable trigger.

I don't doubt that they are able to be used with programmable timers, however, I do doubt that weapons would be stored with them already attached (unless they were in the process of being armed or in training exercises) and ready to be used.

The most "difficult" part of producing a nuclear weapon is the enrichment of the fissile material (Uranium / Plutonium). If you buy / steal an existing nuclear weapon then it's a different story, as the fissile core and detonator etc will all be assembed and "ready to blow". Obviously obtaining a nuclear weapon on the black market isn't going to be easy, but there are hundreds of soviet-era nukes which are still unaccounted for, so it's certainly not inconcievable.

If it was easy to obtain fully operational nuclear weapons on the black market then surely a country such as Iran would be running head over heels to get one? Even one weapon would be useful as bargaining tool or at least enough of a deterrent to the wider world. I understand there are tens or perhaps even a hundred or so nuclear weapons unaccounted for but you are assuming that they are fully activated, ready to be launched as well as in a useable state. To me this seems incredibly unlikely.

A terrorist organisation needs only detonate a single nuclear weapon in order to further their agenda, so obtaining an existing bomb would be the way to go.

Of course but that doesn't make it any more likely. In my opinion a country with all it's resources is going to be able to offer a lot more for these supposedly extant missing, fully-armed, ready to go nuclear weapons than a terrorist group.

If it was as simple technologically and easy logistically to obtain and detonate a weapon as people here are imagining then there would be far more countries and organisations in possession of such weapons.

 

[Tefal]

Falklands.. cough cough Falklands...

"the article limits the organization's scope to Europe and North America, which explains why the invasion of the British Falkland Islands did not result in NATO involvement."

pretty sure the uk is in Europe.

 

[peetee]

indeed.

Seriously doubt a rogue state would be nuked if it was only rogue due to a handful of fanatics and a rogue regime.
We'd go and steamroller said country to topple the regime by conventional warfare inevitably.

 

[Duff-Man]

If it was as simple technologically and easy logistically to obtain and launch a weapon as people here are imagining then there would be far more countries and organisations in possession of such weapons.

I'm certainly not saying it would be easy to get hold of... But those unaccounted weapons are "out there". Check out this paper, for example:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...=5939061&md5=83905a1e7163cc4b9cb3bd2bed21a499

Nuclear leakage from the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union is an ongoing national security concern of the United States. While little weapons-usable material and no nuclear warheads have surfaced in international smuggling channels, observed data from seizures and arrests are not necessarily representative of the wider universe of illegal nuclear deals. Political and economic upheavals and associated nuclear security problems in Russia in the 1990s accentuated the risk of serious proliferation episodes. Adversaries such as Iran and Al Qaeda have tried to exploit these vulnerabilities to further their nuclear ambitions, although with uncertain results.

When you have thousands of Jihadists whose ultimate ambition is to get access to an atomic bomb, a wealth of nuclear experience in Pakistan (Islamic country with growing sympathy to Jihadists), and plenty of weapons grade fissile material out there, it's not an unrealistic threat. Creating a crude detonator, particularly with a manual trigger, is many orders of magnnitude simpler than enriching uranium.

As for the "if terrorists could possible get hold of a device then some nation already would have" argument, well, we really don't know whether this has happened or not. It may well have happened already. Suppose a nation like Iran or North Korea has obtained a working (or partially working) bomb via the black market; it would be foolish of them to announce it publically - it would almost demand a response from the West. A better strategy would be to quietly reverse-engineer it to become a 'true' nuclear power. Once a nation has the ability to produce as many weapons as it likes, they immediately strengthen their position. You can bomb their factories and invade their country, but you can never be sure you have found / destroyed all their weapons. The threat of atomic retailation will always remain. This wouldn't be the case if they only have access to a single weapon (via the black market).

Like I said before, a terrorist organisation would not face this dilemma. You can't "invade" a group which has no national affiliation and only wishes to cause death and destruction among their enemies.

Also consider the political ramifications of a nation-state being "caught" seeking out black-market nuclear weapons. It's an extreme risk, and would seriously hamper any future nuclear ambitions. A terrorist organisation has much less to lose from being caught - the west is already on a mission to destroy them.

 

[meghatronic]

pretty sure the uk is in Europe.

If they bombed a UK city would that not be an attack in Europe?

So what? I was merely pointing out NATO IS bound by geography. Despite what others have said.

 

[Tefal]

Creating a crude detonator, particularly with a manual trigger, is many orders of magnnitude simpler than enriching uranium.

But creating new cast explosives to initiate the reaction is incredibly difficult it's not something a terrorist organisation can do it requires a state and large industry to create the necessary purity and correct shapes, sizes and placements.


It's not a case of just wrapping a ball of uranium in explosives.

 

[Bluraybunny]

Yes, I've played Fallout 3 twice now so this can only be fun .

 

[Tefal]

So what? I was merely pointing out NATO IS bound by geography. Despite what others have said.

Then by your definition if Russia attacked nato it wouldn't be in their remit as Russia is not part of Europe despite that being the reason for it existing.

 

[Duff-Man]

But creating new cast explosives to initiate the reaction is incredibly difficult it's not something a terrorist organisation can do it requires a state and large industry to create the necessary purity and correct shapes, sizes and placements.


It's not a case of just wrapping a ball of uranium in explosives.

Yeah I guess I was trying to link to the point about Pakistan being a nuclear power with growing sympathies to Jihadists.

I'm not suggesting the Jihadis could just knock up a detonator in a cave using camel-dung and a Burka, but it would be a lot easier for a rogue Pakistani engineer to fashion a crude detonator without being discovered than it would be to enrich some Uranium on the sly.

 

[Rroff]

A real dammned either way scenario. If we did retaliate with nuclear weapons then no doubt we would end up social pariahs on the International scene and yes if we didn't then would be labeled soft.

MAD relies on the world pretty much ending, the point is nuclear war should not be 'winnable'

No one is going to **** with us after that tho

Our nuclear arsenal tho is for the "enemy at the gates" scenario as a deterrent against our country being over-run by enemy forces, not for tit-for-tat purposes as some mistakenly believe.

 

[meghatronic]

Then by your definition if Russia attacked nato it wouldn't be in their remit as Russia is not part of Europe despite that being the reason for it existing.

I worry about people here. Either I'm unclear or people are retarded.

If Russia attacked Bermuda (a British territory outside Europe) then NATO wouldn't give a sausage. It's quite, quite simple.

 

[Stretch]

Could you imagine if Russia/China was found to be involved :/


What would we do?

If Russia/China were found to be involved it would be an act of war and as a member of NATO would lead to the outbreak of WW3.

Scratch China from that; NATO is strictly European theatre of War when we want it to be

Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all.

It makes no mention of Geography.

My point being that it doesn't matter who attacks the UK, if we're attacked NATO is signed up to help. Whether it be Russia, China or anyone else for that matter.