What should we do WHEN somebody finally uses a nuke?

[Silverhair]

Nuclear bomb technology is no long cutting edge science. In 1977, John Aristotle Phillips, a Princeton junior, a C- student, in danger of flunking out, designed a working Nagasaki-class weapon the size of a beach ball. He did it as a political protest to demonstrate how easy it had become to design a bomb. In 1977, there were no personal computer like now. He got an A for the paper, and the gov't kept his paper and classified it.

That was 27 years ago. Now his feat would be even easier. The trick is getting the plutonium.

Implosion bombs are prefer by all nation because they don't take as much material, and can be made in smaller sizes. But if you can make about 60Kg of Highly Enriched Uranium, you can make the far, far simpler Hiroshima class gun-type bomb. That design was so simple and reliable that it wasn't even tested before it was dropped.

The point is that aquiring a nuke is now withing the ability of almost any nation that really wants to do it.

While it is certainly true, that possesion of a nuke does tend to have a stabilizing effect on the country that has it, it is also true that as more countries get nukes, the probability that one will get used goes up.

So if the spread of nukes continues, sooner or later, somebody is going to use one.
-------
You are POTUS, date is sometime in the near, but not immediate future. Despite the best your teams best diplomacy, and everything the UN can do, and other concerned countries, tensions between the countries of Asshole & Butthole continued to increase, and war broke out two days ago. (Cause of war is religious & ethnic hatred, centuries old. They fight each other every chance they get.) Both have crazy dictators for leaders. The US is neutral but very concerned. (Invent your own reason why we are concerned.) Now one of them has used a nuke. The other country doesn't have nukes.

Now what do you do?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. I Wonder How Bush Got Elected In Another Country n/t

[SmokingJacket]

2. It's a good question. However, I strongly suspect

we'll be the first to use them.

Just a gut feeling. We're among the few (the only?) countries who are cocky enough to think we could do it and escape total obliteration.

[Swamp Rat]

38. We already are/were the first to use nukes.

August 6th, 1945

And we already got away with it.

[tridim]

3. Anyone know if they based "The Manhattan Project" on that story?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091472/

I guarantee you one thing, if it happens during King Bush's reign the entire planet will be glass within days.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Let them use the nuke to shorten the war and save lives.... that's

what I heard was a good justification for using nukes in the past.

http://www.doug-long.com/

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED - The best book on the atomic bombings to come out in years is
"Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan" by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa.

Last updated July 25, 2005

To see an article about whether the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was necessary,

http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm
HIROSHIMA:
WAS IT NECESSARY?

[Silverhair]

7. Off-topic. If you want to rant about Hiroshima, pls start your own thread

[Junkdrawer]

11. You must admit, though, that a more accurate statement of your OP...

would be:

What should we do WHEN somebody finally uses a nuke again?

[Silverhair]

15. Technically, Yes.

I will grant a minor point of grammar. I usually write in common usage.

Here, just a little south of Dallas, we have been having a rather severe drought. When we talk about rain, we say, "When will it rain?" and it is understood that we mean, "When will it rain again?

My initial meaning was understood.

[Junkdrawer]

17. That would be a good analogy if it only ever rained once..or twice...n/t

[Silverhair]

19. I was a C student in English classes.

My major was math.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

36. I thought his reply was very apropos.

AND I'm open to the idea that Hiroshima was necessary.

(Don't get me started sbout Nagasaki, though)

[Junkdrawer]

5. The proliferation of Nuclear Power has made the job of controlling...

the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons an almost impossible task.

Plutonium comes exclusively from nuclear reactors. And were there no nuclear reactors, the mining of the vast amounts of uranium needed for a bomb would make a covert a-bomb project nearly impossible.

I often wonder if the Big Brother police state we are becoming isn't preparatory for the Post-Oil-Plutonium-Economy.

[firefox]

6. We will certainly nuke them back nt

[Silverhair]

9. Why? The didn't nuke us.

There may be a valid reason for that action, but I would like for you to please spell it out.

[firefox]

16. It is really to hypothetical to answer.

But there are related questions to Bush's choice to develop mini-nukes and the new arms race. The US pre-emptive war is just bad policy to introduce into the world and it sets up say Russia nuking Chechnya.

My guess is that all alternatives are bounced around endlessly for every situation thinkable and that all options would be presented to a President. But, I will withdrawal from this discussion.

To reduce it to if China nukes Tiawan or if India nukes Pakistan is one thing I would pass on in general discussion anyway. But your question is too broad/hypothetical to answer if I even thought I could.

But I did mistake your premise because I thought you were talking about the US being nuked. I was serious because if we are nuked, I can not imagine anything but a retaliation with nuclear weapons.

[Silverhair]

18. Thanks.

Yes, it was vague. I wanted to talk about the general case, because in my other thread about the possibility of Iran nuking Israel (If they do develop nukes) the answers got too embroiled in whether the responder thought Iran was the good guy and Irael the bad guy, or Israel/good with Iran/bad.

So I wanted to try to take specific politics out of it.

[firefox]

20. Now that I can comment on.

There was a thread today I believe that put Israel as 5th in nuclear weaponry. If Iran were to nuke Israel, we would not have to do anything.

[two gun sid]

8. Someone has used a nuke...

and that someone is us.

[Silverhair]

10. Off-topic. If you want to rant about Hiroshima, pls start own thread.

[Moochy]

34. LOL that was a one liner

A rant was your OP

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. Sorry. Thread hijacking is a fact of life in DU

and NOT against the rules.

Grin and bear it.

[Misunderestimator]

39. How exactly was that off-topic?

Seems to me that your title is begging someone to mention the most obvious nuke attack in history.

[Mossadeq]

12. I am not sure what we would do.

If I was Prez...I would tell the country that dropped the bomb that if they dropped another one it would be their last, as we would nuke them silly.

If they used another bomb, Then the gig is up, I was only bluffing, and was called on it. But it is very likely that they would not use the bomb again, and probably wouldn't have to anyway.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

13. depends somewhat on the natural resources of the nuker.

i think it would simply be a question of whether or not the offending nation had anything significant in the way of natural resources, or significant cultural contributions (read: ethnic/cultural similarity to us). but once a nation has gone to that extreme, it seems that only these mitigating factors would prevent us from intervening in like fashion. The US would not remain neutral, but side with the nation that held more sway in the grey areas of "national interest." ya know, that old chestnut.

[Just Me]

14. WE plan, together, our lives beyond the apocalyptics.

We're having discussions as these freaks continue down their paths.

We'll be just fine. I promise.

:hug: I promise.

[ThomWV]

21. We Will Be The Ones To Detonate The Next One That Goes Offr

Bet on it.

[Catherine Vincent]

22. Unfortunately, we already did.

[Silverhair]

27. OK, I was a C- minus student in English. You know what I meant. NT

[Yupster]

23. To me the most likely scenario, and the nightmare one

is that a nuke goes off, say in Tel Aviv and no one takes responsibility for it and no one can be traced to it.

The same thing could very well happen here.

I hope the government has contingency plans to put into action because right after the bomb goes off will not be the time to be thinking of what to do about it.

I think this is the most likely way the next uke will be used.

A small carried device will go off in an Israeli city or will be shot from Lebanon and there will be vague threats of dozens more to go off in Israel, but there won't be proof tracing the bomb to anywhere.

Israel's choice would be to accept the hit and expect more and more till it's destroyed, or start a general Middle-east war.

[DocSavage]

25. If a weapon is detonated

any where in Israel, the people that did it will not stay quiet. The destruction of Israel is to important for some of the groups. They would brag. That would be thier downfall. When it is over, there most likley will be no more Israel, but most of the middle east be inhabitable for a very long time.

The moment that 1 country or orgainization destroys 1 city in Israel, there will be a big pile on by other countries over there.

[Yupster]

30. The groups will brag no doubt

There will be internet ostings of responsibility from groups like the Warriors of Jihad, but Iran will deny responsibility as will every other country. Syria and Lebanon will pledge to arrest the perpetrators if found.

What is Israel to do then?

Wait for the next one or lash out at anyone in general?

I hope they have a plan because I think it's only a matter of time before it happens.

[-..__...]

42. So, if a terrorist organization does claim responsabity...

what should/should the be response against the country that supplied the device?

It sees extremely unlikely groups like Al Quieda, Warriors of Jihad, HAMAS don't have the capability or resources to construct a true nuclear device (as opposed to something like a "dirty bomb).

Obviously, the device would have either have to had been deliberately supplied to them by a government, or stolen/acquired on the black market.

Would equal retaliation be justified against the nation or government that designed and constructed the bomb?

(think back during the Cuban missile crisis when JFK declared that any nuclear attack by Cuba would be
interpreted as an attack by the USSR).

[bpilgrim]

24. wtf u mean 'finally?

hiroshima + nagasaki

what do we do?

fight like hell to make sure we do whatever it takes to prevent it happening again... i suggest we IMPEACH the neoCONs before it's too late, what say u?

peace

[Silverhair]

26. OK, I was a C- student in English. You know what I meant. NT

[bpilgrim]

33. r u channeling *

:shrug:

peace

[LisaL]

28. Since it's most likely would be us- I am not sure.

[welshTerrier2]

29. only one country has used nukes

and that country is now threatening to use them in Iran ...

the mission should be to educate Americans and people all over the world about the dangers of nuclear weapons and push for their immediate dismantling ...

[the_spectator]

31. "John Aristotle Phillips, a Princeton junior..."

Was he by any chance a member of CAP? Maybe we can get Alito with this! He was a member of an organization that was BOTH racist AND in support of willy-nilly nuclear proliferation! Oh, but Lindsey Graham will just get Mrs. Alito to cry again and we still lose. Nevermind.

[Silverhair]

35. What does that have to do with the topic?

Are you upset that I am talking about something other than what appears to be your favorite topic?

[hunter]

32. The odds are very good we will be "Asshole" or "Butthole."

We will be backed into some awful corner of our own making, unable to muster sufficient "conventional" forces and international support, so we will come out nukes blazing, certainly against some nation that doesn't have them.

The world will not retaliate with nukes. Instead we will become an instant pariah state, and the civilised nations will cut us off at the knees economically. Perhaps thirty percent of our population will die within a year of the subsequent economic collapse.

If you are the POTUS who got us into this mess, your lifeless body will be thrown into the street by the treachery your own bodyguards where it will be abused by angry mobs until no recognizable body parts remain. Bits off you scraped up off the street will be auctioned off in foreign lands for hard currency. Dollars will be worthless. Third world peasants will shred dollars and use them as cellulose insulation in their attics, or as packing material for little handmade glass trinkets.

That part where you say "The US is neutral but very concerned" is of course, baloney. The United States has never been neutral in modern times; we are simply covert or overt.

Was that the kind of answer you were looking for? :sarcasm:

[0007]

40. Conceivably the born again route?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. That drawing style screams "70s".

Could've been one of the Buscema brothers. Shame good comicbook drawing was being used for a shitty purpose. Unless that was satire.

Gotta link for the entire comic, if there is such a thing?

[0007]

43. I agree! Wish I did have the entire comic script. I don't know where

it was taken from, sorry! If I find something I'll let you know.

[Silverhair]

44. No, it was not satire. It was a comic book meant to evangelize.

I remember seeing it. It think it was in the early 80's. Not sure, but I think it was done by the same guy that did the "Archie" comics.

[G_j]

45. absolutely

& Bush is more capable of pulling a first strike than any other world leader. Newly revised nuclear strike policies make it all that more possible.