Nuclear Weapons

[SoyLeche]

I don't believe a country has anything to gain by launching a nuclear weapon. They would be utterly destroyed in retaliation, likely with more nuclear weapons. However, a terrorist organization cannot be effectively targeted by nuclear weaponry, and thus would not feel threatened by retaliation by the same. Terrorist organizations are a much bigger threat, in that regard.

I agree with this statement. The chances that a government will use a nuclear weapon are very small. The chances that a terrorist orgainization would use one are much greater.

 

[SoyLeche]

ah i see but if we are dealing with a country or countries that do not have nuclear capability the argument against having say 250,000 casualties on your own side and using "the bomb" still stands today doesnt it?

You've still got surrounding countries that have them. It really isn't a viable option for a government.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree with this statement. The chances that a government will use a nuclear weapon are very small. The chances that a terrorist orgainization would use one are much greater.

IF a terrorist organization can find one and has the know-how to set it off and get the bomb to its target without being caught.

It's an irrational fear in my opinion. If a government were to provide nukes to a terrorist organization, which would be the only way that they could get one, then that government signed their death warrant just as if they set it off themselves.

 

[SoyLeche]

IF a terrorist organization can find one and has the know-how to set it off and get the bomb to its target without being caught.

It's an irrational fear in my opinion. If a government were to provide nukes to a terrorist organization, which would be the only way that they could get one, then that government signed their death warrant just as if they set it off themselves.

The possibility isn't keeping my up at nights if that's what you are saying. If a bomb were to be used, however, it would most likely be done by a terrorist orgainization. I'm not anticipating it happening any time soon.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The possibility isn't keeping my up at nights if that's what you are saying. If a bomb were to be used, however, it would most likely be done by a terrorist orgainization. I'm not anticipating it happening any time soon.

I hear ya on that one.

However, I don't see any nuclear power in the world being bombed without a nuclear retaliation - no matter where it comes from.

 

[SoyLeche]

I hear ya on that one.

However, I don't see any nuclear power in the world being bombed without a nuclear retaliation - no matter where it comes from.

I don't disagree.

 

[kai]

You've still got surrounding countries that have them. It really isn't a viable option for a government.

my original scenario was an iranian invasion of Iraq there are no neighbouring countries with nuclear weapons

 

[Scuba Pete]

i have to ask the question what would america do if faced with a full scale invasion by iran into iraq and a defeat was likely, could they conventionaly save their troops or would a low yield strike into iran be on the options board

Why would this happen? We have enough conventional smart bombs to wipe out any army in the Middle East, the Israelis included.

We were completely IGNORANT of the devastation when we bombed Japan. Any additional use would be unconscionable by ANY free country.

However, given this Administration's proclivity to declare war, I would not be surprised is they did something as heinous as drop a nuke somewhere.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

However, given this Administration's proclivity to declare war, I would not be surprised is they did something as heinous as drop a nuke somewhere.

Tactical nukes will be used forced. But once the terrorists explode a nuke in America, we'll drop the real deal on Iran. Unless we get a real international leader in the White House.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Tactical nukes will be used forced. But once the terrorists explode a nuke in America, we'll drop the real deal on Iran. Unless we get a real international leader in the White House.

Nuclear retaliation to nuclear terrorism is a given no matter who is in the white house.

 

[kai]

are we inluding the so called "dirty bombs" in our scenarios

 

[Booko]

i have to ask the question what would america do if faced with a full scale invasion by iran into iraq and a defeat was likely, could they conventionaly save their troops or would a low yield strike into iran be on the options board

The short answer:

Yes, they would be able to save themselves conventionally.

No, a low yield strike would not be on the options board.

The only slightly longer answer: It takes time to mass an army for invasion. We don't have all those satellites for nothing. We would see the Iranians massing and would be redeploying to counter before they even knew we knew what we knew.

(I loved writing that last bit. )

 

[Booko]

I hope you are right. but the brits would probably not be in such a strong position i think we have about 7000 in the south

We are currently building bases in Iraq and doing so speedily.

They are NOT in the Anbar province, but close to the Iranian border.

That suggests the US military has already considered the scenario you suggested, and planned for it.

The Brits in Basra would not be so trapped as you might thing, considering you're on the coast. You have many options for either extraction or resupply. You can head south through Kuwait if need be, and there are options by sea, though those might possibly be interdicted by use of Iranian rockets on naval vessels.

 

[Booko]

ah i see but if we are dealing with a country or countries that do not have nuclear capability the argument against having say 250,000 casualties on your own side and using "the bomb" still stands today doesnt it?

I don't see any country that currently has a bomb having any advantage in actually using it.

And yes, that applies to N. Korea too.

If the Iranian gov't got one, that might change the calculus.

 

[kai]

thank you booko thats very reassuring

 

[Booko]

IF a terrorist organization can find one and has the know-how to set it off and get the bomb to its target without being caught.

It's an irrational fear in my opinion. If a government were to provide nukes to a terrorist organization, which would be the only way that they could get one, then that government signed their death warrant just as if they set it off themselves.

The "dirty bomb" scenario is more feasible for a terrorist organization. It would be more possible to get radioactive material, put it in a conventional bomb, and pollute an area with radiation.

I'd be more worried about the chemical weapons, though. We've already seen that happen in Japan. It's much easier and cheaper.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We are currently building bases in Iraq and doing so speedily.

They are NOT in the Anbar province, but close to the Iranian border.

That suggests the US military has already considered the scenario you suggested, and planned for it.

The Brits in Basra would not be so trapped as you might thing, considering you're on the coast. You have many options for either extraction or resupply. You can head south through Kuwait if need be, and there are options by sea, though those might possibly be interdicted by use of Iranian rockets on naval vessels.

Plus I would swallow my bubble gum if the US didn't allow Brits to use their bases and other resources. :faint:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The "dirty bomb" scenario is more feasible for a terrorist organization. It would be more possible to get radioactive material, put it in a conventional bomb, and pollute an area with radiation.

I'd be more worried about the chemical weapons, though. We've already seen that happen in Japan. It's much easier and cheaper.

Quite right. In that case, retaliation would not be nuclear.

 

[Booko]

I hear ya on that one.

However, I don't see any nuclear power in the world being bombed without a nuclear retaliation - no matter where it comes from.

Oh, I think there are scenarios that don't result in nuclear retaliation. If N. Korea actually launched a nuke, we would reduce their country to ashes with just conventional force, and if we decided to do that, it would certainly be preferable to adding any more radiation to the area.

It certainly wouldn't take a lot of conventional bombing just to bring down Kim Jong Il's gov't. His dictatorship can't survive much disruption or contact with the outside world. But he's not likely to launch any nukes if he isn't backed into a wall. It would ruin his ability to shake down the rest of the world for "aid."

 

[Booko]

Tactical nukes will be used forced. But once the terrorists explode a nuke in America, we'll drop the real deal on Iran. Unless we get a real international leader in the White House.

I still think that unlikely. The world needs oil too much.

If we dropped a nuke on Iran, what would that do to world oil supply?

And what, in turn, would the world do to US? We might well be looking down the gunbarrel of a world united against us for doing such a thing. Even Tony...uh... "lap dog" Blair would not stand for such a thing. Who else would be left that would back up us?

Never underestimate the power of economics. It almost always trumps military action, and is frequently the cause of military actions that do occur.