The world's first nuclear exchange

[latent aaaack]

I know little about the extent to which people believe there will be a nuclear war and when it will happen, so I'm curious. Obviously popular beliefs change with changing international political landscapes, reaching a low right after the fall of the USSR, but this poll is meant to be taken from the standpoint of your best guess given what you know now.

 

[Overman]

My first vote. It will probably be after that...but I got a hunch!

I got $1,000,000 on it as well if there are any takers!

 

[Crazycowbob]

I was going to shoot for 2012-2017, but my plans are progressing far slower than I had hoped.

 

[Piscivore]

IMO there is absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose for any country from a first strike. I can see an extreme remote possibility that a terrorist group or a really bat-s[rule 8]t loco dictator might have a slim chance of getting hold of one, but them getting a chance to use it would be even slimmer, and there would be absolutly no reason at all for the victim country in those cases to respond in kind. IMO.

 

[Merko]

There's already been a first strike.

As for an exchange, I won't tell who I think is most likely to initiate it, but I have a clear feeling that the return strike will come by exploding a nuke that has previously been installed by clandestine delivery.

 

[Tricky]

There's already been a first strike.

As for an exchange, I won't tell who I think is most likely to initiate it, but I have a clear feeling that the return strike will come by exploding a nuke that has previously been installed by clandestine delivery.

If you're talking "dirty bombs", you may be right, but I seem to recall that conventional nuclear bombs require the incredible potential energy of being dropped from great heights in order to start the nuclear reaction.

 

[gumboot]

I said never.

I believe large scale state-based warfare is probably a thing of the past. Guerilla/Clandestine/Terrorist type warfare seems far more likely.

I find it pretty likely that some sort of terrorist-type organisation will use a nuclear weapon at some point in the future, especially with states like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and so forth. However, as already pointed out, I fail to see how any victim state would respond with nuclear weapons.

Of course, in time, civilisations will change and we might again experience large-scale warfare between powerful states, but I predict that by then nuclear weapons will be obsolete.

-Gumboot

 

[President Bush]

Oceania is at war with the Shiites. Oceania has always been at war with the Shiites.

 

[WildCat]

If you're talking "dirty bombs", you may be right, but I seem to recall that conventional nuclear bombs require the incredible potential energy of being dropped from great heights in order to start the nuclear reaction.

They don't have to be dropped from great heights to start the nuclear reaction, but a bomb exploded high off the ground makes full use of its blast potential to obliterate a wider area.

 

[WildCat]

I find it pretty likely that some sort of terrorist-type organisation will use a nuclear weapon at some point in the future, especially with states like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and so forth. However, as already pointed out, I fail to see how any victim state would respond with nuclear weapons.

I disagree. Take that off the table and there's no incentive for a rogue state not to arm a terrorist group w/ nukes if it so wishes.

Kennedy said in his Presidency that a nuclear attack on the US by any ally of the USSR would be responded to w/ a full retaliatory strike on the USSR. That was good enough for the USSR to not arm Castro w/ nukes, I think a similar policy would go a long way to keep NK and Iran in check.

 

[Hamradioguy]

This sould be an interesting poll/thread. Back in the 1980s I did nuclear attack preparedness training for our state's emergency management (civil defense) office. Jack Greene, a fellow health physicist (and author of "Will The Insects Inherit The Earth?") conducted a similar poll among the health physics community.

I modified his poll and did my own polling among the students I taught. The question was something like, "What are the chances that there will be a nuclear/thermonuclear explosion done in anger somewhere in the world in the next ten years?". Choices ranged from 1:1 to 1:10,000. Remember that this was at the height of the "Cold War" with president Reagan pushing his "Star Wars" program, the MX missile, Soviet military posturing, and "Crisis Relocation" plans for evacuating people from nuclear target areas. I don't recall the specific results but do remember that most of the responses were at either the 1:1 end or the 1:10,000 end.

Interestingly, even though those polled were emergency responders taking a nuclear preparedness course, a high percentage picked the 1:10,000 answer. It was a nice surprise to see such optimism.

 

[Dave1001]

I know little about the extent to which people believe there will be a nuclear war and when it will happen, so I'm curious. Obviously popular beliefs change with changing international political landscapes, reaching a low right after the fall of the USSR, but this poll is meant to be taken from the standpoint of your best guess given what you know now.

My vote is never. Looks like global civilization is beyond inter-state warfare at the nuclear power level. Human beings are moving too freely and making too many connections, inluding through the internet.

 

[Piscivore]

There's already been a first strike.

Point taken.

Although, If Japan had had the capacity to respond in kind, it wouldn't have happened.

 

[Tony]

and there would be absolutly no reason at all for the victim country in those cases to respond in kind. IMO.

There wouldn't?

 

[Lonewulf]

Point taken.

Although, If Japan had had the capacity to respond in kind, it wouldn't have happened.

I dunno about that.

You ARE talking about a post-WWI mindset here, especially for the Japanese. The Japanese were, quite frankly, ruthless; if America wouldn't have been able to bomb the Japanese with an atomic weapon, or if Japan could respond in kind, then quite frankly things would have definitely escalated in far worse ways than they did. The Japanese were... fervent, to say the least. They were training their children to fight as soldiers, and were willing to fight to the last man, practically.

The atomic bombs just made that will futile.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I said never.

I believe large scale state-based warfare is probably a thing of the past. Guerilla/Clandestine/Terrorist type warfare seems far more likely.

I find it pretty likely that some sort of terrorist-type organisation will use a nuclear weapon at some point in the future, especially with states like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and so forth. However, as already pointed out, I fail to see how any victim state would respond with nuclear weapons.

Of course, in time, civilisations will change and we might again experience large-scale warfare between powerful states, but I predict that by then nuclear weapons will be obsolete.

-Gumboot

So, Gumboot, the Cold War was the war to end all "big" wars?

I don't share your optimism. China is just now waking up.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

My vote is never. Looks like global civilization is beyond inter-state warfare at the nuclear power level. Human beings are moving too freely and making too many connections, inluding through the internet.

So, if I understand you correctly, the internet Flame Wars represent the war to end all nuclear wars.

Yay us, you *&^% little *&&^%%$V ing (**&^!!.

DR

 

[Piscivore]

I disagree. Take that off the table and there's no incentive for a rogue state not to arm a terrorist group w/ nukes if it so wishes.

Kennedy said in his Presidency that a nuclear attack on the US by any ally of the USSR would be responded to w/ a full retaliatory strike on the USSR. That was good enough for the USSR to not arm Castro w/ nukes, I think a similar policy would go a long way to keep NK and Iran in check.

A very good point. I said before in another thread that the guys in the missle tubes prevented WWIII and that is why.

 

[Lonewulf]

So, Gumboot, the Cold War was the war to end all "big" wars?

I don't share your optimism. China is just now waking up.

China has more to gain from dominating the economic market as opposed to dominating with military might, though.

 

[Tony]

I disagree. Take that off the table and there's no incentive for a rogue state not to arm a terrorist group w/ nukes if it so wishes.

Kennedy said in his Presidency that a nuclear attack on the US by any ally of the USSR would be responded to w/ a full retaliatory strike on the USSR. That was good enough for the USSR to not arm Castro w/ nukes, I think a similar policy would go a long way to keep NK and Iran in check.

I completely agree. It doesn't make sense that a victim nation wouldn't be able to respond to an attack by a rouge group. If a nuclear attack were to happen, it would most likely be from a North Korean or Middle Eastern enemy. Naturally, a target for a counter attack would be predicated on who made the attack. In the case of a middle eastern/islamic source, a counter attack could be made on Mecca or Iran, if it were North Korean, attack Pyongyang. I see no reason why a future president couldn't announce a policy similar to that of Kennedy.