Will nuclear weapons . . .

[Pistol Shooter]

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

I have been avoiding this topic, but have finally allowed myself to get dragged in.

Well, it took you long enough! I was just about to post a horrible pun about Washingtonians or Paul Bunyan just to get your attention.

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

I don't think the terrorists will attack with a nuclear fission weapon. I think they will use conventional explosives in a dirty bomb. Much easier to transport, to obtain material on site and easier technology.

Certainly a distinct possibility, Pops. A so-called dirty bomb can be constructed from relatively low-grade radioactive materials, the most likely would be Cobalt 60, which is commonly used in technological devices such as medical equipment. On the other hand, I would not so blithely rule out the possibility of a small fission bomb either. The reality is that our borders are by no means secure, despite the drivel the government peddles to the contrary. Only a small fraction of the ship containers, for example, that come into our harbors are actually inspected. A well-shielded bomb in any one of them stands a very good chance of going undetected until it is remotely detonated. I do believe that if a terrorist group gets its hands on one, it likely would be used.

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

I also think that any non-state group which takes credit for such will result in the country from which they report being the target of retaliation.

Now there I rather agree with you, Pops, which is why a nuclear attack against us directly by a sovereign state in unlikely. Any state making such an attack would simply be turned into radioactive glass a short time after it was launched, assuming we had a real president making the decisions. Wait a minute! We don't have one of those!

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

I think the term "terrorists" is a misnomer. If the object is to terrify, then pick a small city and completely destroy it, killing every man, woman and child in that city. That would be terrifying to our populace. That would probably be more easily carried out with bio or chem than with nuclear.

If there is to be a nuclear device detonated on Western civilization, it will be perpetrated by a nation state, not a gaggle of extremists.

Now, I have not the experience in military strategy, tactics, nor state level diplomacy, but those are my thoughts based on my thinking on the matter. My experience is in covert operations in foreign enemy territory and against our own nasties. Thus, I don't have the background nor the training to put these thoughts up as valid. Only that they are my thoughts and my concerns.

We could always call them something else, Pops. I could think of several nouns and adjectives that would apply, none of which are suitable for polite company. Yet what they are called does not change who and what they are: fanatics, not rational men. Pops, no offense to anyone here, but when religion, any religion, gets blended with politics, the result is the Devil's own brew.

To be honest, I doubt any nation state would directly attack us using a nuclear option, but I do fear that such weapons might be employed elsewhere, most likely the Middle Ease, and subsequently involve us in a nuclear exchange. Remember the guns of August, 1914, Pops. History has a habit of repeating itself.

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

I will add this, however. I pun only in retaliation.

Pops, does that mean you will only take "pun"itive action if provoked? :innocent:

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by Pistol Shooter

which is why a nuclear attack against us directly by a sovereign state in unlikely.

So far every nation with nukes has shown great restraint.

You know, when General MacArthur was relieved for insubordination during the Korean War....the Congressional hearing later noted that one of President Truman's deciding points had been that...

...Gen MacArthur was pushing to hit China along Manchuria with upwards of 50 nuclear weapons to make the border impossible to safely move more Chinese troops over.

He also wanted a full scale war on China.

President Truman felt that that would likely bring the USSR into the fight, as China was as Red as they get...

It wasn't until years later that it was found out the USSR intended to let NK and China duke it out alone with the USA, and only provide material support.

Kind of ironic that a couple decades later in Europe we built in place a massive fully functional tactical nuclear defensive fires-scheme that was equal to, maybe even beyond anything MacArthur ever proposed.

But like I said, so far lots of restraint.

The guy to worry about is the one that knows he cannot meet his objectives without those weapons. NK, Iran, etc......they are like an angry 3 year old that's about to get his hands on an M67 grenade.

[Pistol Shooter]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

The guy to worry about is the one that knows he cannot meet his objectives without those weapons. NK, Iran, etc......they are like an angry 3 year old that's about to get his hands on an M67 grenade.

Well put and quite accurate, Delta.

[delta13soultaker]

It's sad but true. Sane men watch in frustration and decent women tend fine youngons while fools are entertained by their own ideas and while villains laugh at them all, and large free rifles in skillful hands are ready to smash petty aluminum and good boys are at hand to guide tritonal into deep concrete, but big mouths just keep smacking their goddamned spit.

Speaking one man to another....I'll tell you what my recce mate from West Virginia used to say redundantly, because it was true, "Expect to be on the worst side of the best possible situation." That's not good when survival is measured by radiation slant 1 SR / km, if you survive the blasts and are more than 5 miles/8kilometers downwind.

Or like the boys by Constance told us...Souris qui n'a qu'un trou est bientot prise....a mouse with only one hole gets eaten....more or less...same idea.

[LurpyGeek]

Great topic. However, I'm late to the party and most of what there is to say has already been said better than I could hope to say it.

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

I don't think the terrorists will attack with a nuclear fission weapon. I think they will use conventional explosives in a dirty bomb. Much easier to transport, to obtain material on site and easier technology.

I also think that any non-state group which takes credit for such will result in the country from which they report being the target of retaliation.

I think the term "terrorists" is a misnomer. If the object is to terrify, then pick a small city and completely destroy it, killing every man, woman and child in that city. That would be terrifying to our populace. That would probably be more easily carried out with bio or chem than with nuclear.

If there is to be a nuclear device detonated on Western civilization, it will be perpetrated by a nation state, not a gaggle of extremists.

Now, I have not the experience in military strategy, tactics, nor state level diplomacy, but those are my thoughts based on my thinking on the matter. My experience is in covert operations in foreign enemy territory and against our own nasties. Thus, I don't have the background nor the training to put these thoughts up as valid. Only that they are my thoughts and my concerns.

I will add this, however. I pun only in retaliation.

Pops

I agree with what you are saying generally Pops, but I could see extremists detonating a full fission device on U.S. soil (or many other places) as well as a dirty bomb. As others have mentioned, I think we see plenty of instances around the world where it is conceivable that a nation may even supply the device and other assistance to an extremist group to make the strike happen without its source being immediately identifiable. Thus immediate and overwhelming retaliation wouldn't be possible.

I personally have a hard time seeing a full scale nuclear war between multiple nations happening due to the host of negative implications for all involved, but I'm not dense enough to know that it is certainly closer than we realize. Time after time and war after war, people often think that they've seen things get as bad as they could and that it won't ever escalate higher than what has been seen in the past. Time and time again they are proven wrong.

Simply said, I don't see the U.S. getting directly attacked by a nuclear missile strike.

I see a detonation of a fission device or dirty bomb in a population center without warning. I don't know how far away this is, but within a few years? Seems more and more likely all the time.

[LurpyGeek]

Wasn't sure whether I should post this here or start a new thread, but just for reference...

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-gui...an-dirty-bombs

This shows how easy it is to get the kind of weapons we're talking about.

I know this isn't necessarily the most well known news organization, but I've watched quite a few of their videos and they have some very interesting footage that major organizations don't frequently show. One of the videos I watched recently was a few of these guys embedded with a group of Marines in Afghanistan. Fascinating footage and let the guys on the ground speak for themselves. Really made me think. Nothing like what the evening news shows.