Worst Case Scenario: Nuke goes off

[Exarch]

back in the cold war, it seemed pretty simply, someone launches nukes at us, we counterattack and everyone gets to become mad max in some post-apocalyptic world.

but now, let's say a nuke goes off in a major western city, worst case scenario, let's say that tom clancy's wet dream becomes reality and a soviet era antique SS-20 or variant goes missing and goes off in a european city-say lisbon o marseille, rather than a major US city, or if you're inclined, it goes off in jerusalem.

my question is, in such an event would a counter-nuking be expected as it would be during the cold war?who would be the target if the perpetrators were a mixed bag of nationalities?
speculate what the ramifications would be....
and would responses be the same throughout the world depending on the targets? would the world react the same if the nuke went off in the Congo or if it went off in Poland?

[hellheaven1987]

1. It is not easy to transport a nuke around without people notice it.

2. Even some people did get a hand on nukes, it is not easy to demolish those fancy toys without proper tools.

We can safely assume that Taliban would not know or having enough equipments to demolish a nuke; I am rather more worrying about what if Taliban demolish a nuclear reactor and purposely play world-wide fallout scenario.

[Poach]

If a Terrorist group set off a nuclear weapon in any city, I wouldn't expect a nuclear war to start over it.

The only reason we went to war with Afghanistan was because we were so much stronger than them. If, for example, Russia harboured the terrorists and wouldn't hand them over, we wouldn't have gone to war with Russia to get AQ.

So no, I do not expect that a nuclear strike in retaliation would take place, and depending on the country the terrorists hide in, there may be no retaliation in military terms.

[Phier]

If it could be linked to Islamic terrorism we would be occupying a few more countries shortly.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if it couldn't be linked to anyone.

[Poach]

Spin an atlas and occupy the country your finger lands on?

"Cooooooooome on Canada!"

[hellheaven1987]

Canada actually worth to be annexed as it has one of largest water reservoir in the world.

[Col. Tartleton]

Nukes are big bombs. People get more worried then they need to. Small nukes are practically harmless (in a global sense at least, the target's pretty ing dead) the only thing we need to be afraid of is the large scale use of massive atomic weapons. That would only occur in an all out (basically uncontrolled) Nuclear War between two major Nuclear powers. We could use small weapons in small uses. Its mainly a psychologically fear. Also we could get away with using Tsar Bomba type weapons as they're almost fallout free (and I'm sure we can continue to reduce it in the future.)

We nuked Japan with two pretty good sized ones and we tested all kinds of crazy nukes during the cold war.

Its not really as big a deal as we make it. Its something to go to war over. Its not something to cling to your bible about.

[Jingles]

You really can't compare Tsar Bomba with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. That's ridiculous.

[Col. Tartleton]

You really can't compare Tsar Bomba with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. That's ridiculous.

The Tsar Bomba was much larger, but it released a hell of a lot less fallout. It was almost as clean as a Fusion Bomb. The bigger the bomb the less dirty it is if you add more thermonuclear stages. On the plus side they're almost fallout free. On the negative they're retardedly powerful.

[Holger Danske]

The Tsar Bomba was much larger, but it released a hell of a lot less fallout. It was almost as clean as a Fusion Bomb. The bigger the bomb the less dirty it is if you add more thermonuclear stages. On the plus side they're almost fallout free. On the negative they're retardedly powerful.

No. It depends on if the bomb is fusion or fission based...

[Col. Tartleton]

No. It depends on if the bomb is fusion or fission based...

If we were smart we'd switch over to plasma and rail cannons. Nukes are unwieldy and stigmatized (perhaps for good reasons.)

A plasma cannon's got all the "Thunder***ery" of an Atomic Bomb, but its a star (flame) thrower.

[Exarch]

If we were smart we'd switch over to plasma and rail cannons. Nukes are unwieldy and stigmatized (perhaps for good reasons.)

A plasma cannon's got all the "Thunder***ery" of an Atomic Bomb, but its a star (flame) thrower.

i dont think we have the technology for that yet

besides, i think there're conventional bombs like MOAB and the russian FOAB rivalling the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Jingles]

Exactly. 20kt > 57mt

There is essentially no scenario outside of thermonuclear war where that kind of tonnage is remotely feasible.

edit: In fact, to put that in perspective, if you detonated Tsar Bomba over London, the blast would be powerful enough to shatter every single glass window in the United Kingdom.

[Col. Tartleton]

Exactly. 20kt > 57mt

There is essentially no scenario outside of thermonuclear war where that kind of tonnage is remotely feasible.

Zombie Apoc?

There's no reasonable scenario outside of a thermonuclear war with that kind of tonnage being remotely feasible. I'd still prefer that the US upgrade our missiles to that status. What if we need to fight the Aliens?

40,000,000 pounds of TNT < 114,000,000,000 pounds of TNT

[Visna]

back in the cold war, it seemed pretty simply, someone launches nukes at us, we counterattack and everyone gets to become mad max in some post-apocalyptic world.

but now, let's say a nuke goes off in a major western city, worst case scenario, let's say that tom clancy's wet dream becomes reality and a soviet era antique SS-20 or variant goes missing and goes off in a european city-say lisbon o marseille, rather than a major US city, or if you're inclined, it goes off in jerusalem.

my question is, in such an event would a counter-nuking be expected as it would be during the cold war?who would be the target if the perpetrators were a mixed bag of nationalities?
speculate what the ramifications would be....
and would responses be the same throughout the world depending on the targets? would the world react the same if the nuke went off in the Congo or if it went off in Poland?

Chirac actually threatened to use nuclear weapons in retaliation in the event of a terrorist attack.

[Exarch]

Chirac actually threatened to use nuclear weapons in retaliation in the event of a terrorist attack.

interesting
nukes against whom?
a south pacific atoll?

[Visna]

interesting
nukes against whom?
a south pacific atoll?

States harboring, supporting and/or enabling the terrorists who performed the deed. I'm not even joking.

[Exarch]

States harboring, supporting and/or enabling the terrorists who performed the deed. I'm not even joking.

wow, that is harsh; in some cases some governments wouldnt even have been privy to what these supposed terrorists were up to.

[Sphere]

Nuclear bombs have no purpose other than deterrence. The US gave up on the idea of limited/tactical nuclear war under the Eisenhower administration. If a nuclear bomb is detonated in one of your cities it means your nuclear arsenal has already failed in its primary task. Any target related to terrorism would be much better dealt with using conventional munitions which are more accurate, easier to deliver and far cheaper.

And really, a nuclear retaliation against a city in Pakistan/Somalia/Yemen etc. would probably be exactly what a terrorist group would like to see happen as nothing would cause more international uproar.

[Corvis]

A rogue nuclear warhead going off is probably a lot better than the worst case scenario during the Cold War when our nuclear stockpiles peaked: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nucl...clearwar1.html.

Very cheery reading. Especially with Australia becoming a major power in the aftermath.