Next time - nuclear war?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Post 9/11 and America has bombed and changed regimes in two countries and threatened several others with serious consequences?

Blair - "It's not a matter of if (we are attacked by terrorists) it's just a matter of when." So we can presume it will happen again.

What happens next time there's an attack on American soil (as opposed to attacks on US targets abroad which don't carry the same gravitas)? More regime change by force? Or does America have to step up the retaliation, meaining nuclear carnage rained down on some nation? And is this the very reason mini nukes are being development?

Any alternatives?

I dont think any western nation will ever use powerfull nukes to attack a foreign country; especially USA with it's military power - all of it's tomahawks, GPS missiles, F-fighters, airplane carriers, and so on. Mini nukes are something to be concerned about - sounds like new cold war. Mini nukes cause damage that can be equaled to 100,000 tonns of trotyl, which is more than 1,000 times weaker than bombs used on Hirosima and Nahasaki 50 years ago. Mini nukes are considered to be a more realistic threat than regular nuclear or hydrogen bombs because they dont cause destruction of a whole city and it's suburban regions ranges starting with 20-30 miles and more, but spot-by-spot launches to take out important targets such as bunkers, military bases, objects like anti-air or anti-missile defense, and so on. Together with the new technologies, they will be capable of going under ground thru hundreds of meters of sand and concrete, making underground nuclear protection bunkers a la Hussein's almost useless.
(above is brief quote of what i've read in a science magazine)
That's why in MY opinion, ALL nuclear weapons in the world, owned by any government or regime, should be destroyed under international commission's strict supervision, all natural uranium sources should be secured and it's traffic controlled, other measures should be implemented as soon as possible. Lately, i've read about a research that was conducted about 40 years ago by american agencies and scientific centres: group of 3 young physics, just graduated students, were given ample time and ability to develop a nuclear weapon using ONLY materials that were published in open press. That means, no secret documents from Manhattan project or analogs, no prior knowledge of nuclear reactions - all of the 3 students were studying in other fields, not related to nuclear reactions. After only 6 months - and that was in 60s - they came up with a scheme of a bomb with all the credentials: charts, graphs, descriptions, and so on. All of that was passed to top level american scientists from research centers close to government, who having analyzed the results, came to the conclusion that this bomb would certainly explode and take out a town with population of 100,000. One of the documents of this research contained list of all sources from public press that the students used while making the bomb. That document is still rated top secret - no wonder why. Their bomb in it's final design was too big to be carried by a missile, but a bomber could easily accomodate it. Scientists also estimated that to establish production of such bombs is very easy if you have a team of scientists specializing chemistry, physics, electronics, math; plant that can handle production of components for bombs, uranium enrichment reactors, and enough money to pay for production.
Now imagine yourself how easily can it be achieved in NKorea, pre-war Iraq or Afghanistan, or any other country harbouring terrorists like OBL with his billions of oil dollars. When GWB talks about danger of WMDs coming from Iraq, i believe him.

P.S. Another estimate from that research: from beginning of the process to a ready bomb, it takes 2 to 3 years, but can be squeezed in less than 1 year with adequate financing.

That's why in MY opinion, ALL nuclear weapons in the world, owned by any government or regime, should be destroyed under international commission's strict supervision, all natural uranium sources should be secured and it's traffic controlled, other measures should be implemented as soon as possible.

It's a noble opinion Mr. Jukovette, but completely absurd in the face of human nature!

The world doesn't share our values of protecting life. To some, strapping children with bombs to blow up school buses is a holy calling that earns eternity in bliss.

There is NO WAY that the evil-minded are going to comply with or adhere to such a noble or courageous stand. If we destroyed our arsenals, the evil-minded or power-hungry would secretly hide, or develop their own nukes in secret, there is NO WAY we could ensure via inspections that the world was in complete compliance, we couldn't even do that in Iraq. Those that coverty obtain or hold such weapons in a disarmed world, would become the only entity to posess them, they could conceivably blackmail and take over the entire planet.

Look at the 6000 span of written history man! You cannot erase the reality of wicked ambition by those hungry for power and control.

To do so by destroying our arms would be suicide. You would be condemning us to extortion and slavery.

Look at places where firearms are banned - do the criminals abide by the laws? Do they have any fear of those whom they target as prey? Is there any deterrence to such criminals from commiting a crime on the unarmed? The answers are no. It makes their crimes easier to commit, and such a scenario with nukes in an unarmed nuclear world is a frighteneing prospect on the innocent.

The only thing the world respects and responds to is brute force and power.

Those states (like my own) that have Carry Conceal firearms, have little in the way of violent crimes perpetrated on the law-abiding because the criminal element understand the risk they face of death if they dare commit an act on one so armed.

Human nature, and this is also the way the world operates.

Originally posted by INVAR

That's why in MY opinion, ALL nuclear weapons in the world, owned by any government or regime, should be destroyed under international commission's strict supervision, all natural uranium sources should be secured and it's traffic controlled, other measures should be implemented as soon as possible.

It's a noble opinion Mr. Jukovette, but completely absurd in the face of human nature!

The world doesn't share our values of protecting life. To some, strapping children with bombs to blow up school buses is a holy calling that earns eternity in bliss.

Yes, but we have to find a way to change the situation - until it worsens.

There is NO WAY that the evil-minded are going to comply with or adhere to such a noble or courageous stand. If we destroyed our arsenals,

You - the USA - dont have to destroy our arsenals - because USA is not going to attack foreign countries with nukes. Neither is EU or Russia. China is not trustworthy, India and Pakistan have to be disarmed.

the evil-minded or power-hungry would secretly hide, or develop their own nukes in secret, there is NO WAY we could ensure via inspections that the world was in complete compliance, we couldn't even do that in Iraq.

Not only inspections but strong enforcements using military forces and so on.

Those that coverty obtain or hold such weapons in a disarmed world, would become the only entity to posess them, they could conceivably blackmail and take over the entire planet.

Until west holds some amount of nuclear bombs - no country would try to attack first, except for international terrorist groups like Al Qaida or Hesbolla. As i have stated before, those groups can obtain such weapons in 6 mo. to 1-2 yr. period, which is considered very quick comparing to others.

Look at the 6000 span of written history man! You cannot erase the reality of wicked ambition by those hungry for power and control.

We have somewhere to start with - west, including EU and US, is not power hungry as it was before. If people changed west, why same people in Asia or other places can not change their beliefs, their way of thinking?

Look at places where firearms are banned - do the criminals abide by the laws? Do they have any fear of those whom they target as prey? Is there any deterrence to such criminals from commiting a crime on the unarmed? The answers are no.

However in a society where EVERYBODY is allowed to have and carry a gun for self defence criminals can get such guns much easier. And as i said before, i dont suppose disarming the whole world but making sure that nuclear materials including natural uranium dont go to wrong hands, and if they did, immediate action should be taken WITHOUT years of sanctions, inspections, etc.

The only thing the world respects and responds to is brute force and power.

Those states (like my own) that have Carry Conceal firearms, have little in the way of violent crimes perpetrated on the law-abiding because the criminal element understand the risk they face of death if they dare commit an act on one so armed.

Also criminal element understands the risk of being executed by-law - that most of the times stops men from committing a crime. That's what i mean by enforcement.