Nuclear Destruction!

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by barkomatic, Feb 1, 2010.

  1. barkomatic macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #1
    In honor of the first live televised atomic bomb detonation on February 1st, 1951 I thought I would pose the question: What do you think are the chances that at least one nuclear weapon will be detonated over a city somewhere in the world in the next 50 years? Are we safer now that the cold war is over?

    Below is a link to the story. It's amazing to me that atomic bombs were actually exploded in the open at one time.


    http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2010/02/0201KTLA-atomic-test
     
  2. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #2
    99% chance that a Nuke will be detonated in the next 50 years. And I would bet money it is the U.S. that does it first.
     
  3. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #3
    100% detonated in the next year

    Now if its for aggression purposes against another nation, that is another question and I doubt it happens
     
  4. nick1516 macrumors 6502a

    nick1516

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    #4
    I doubt we will see a nuclear launch(aggressive) for a long time, we are long past the point of using them as a weapon and they are currently for a more, if you attack me I can attack you threat.:rolleyes:
     
  5. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #5
    The next aggressive (non-test) explosion of a nuclear device will probably be a snuke. Low-yield but very dirty.
     
  6. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #6
    Lets hope Mrs. Clinton's not hiding any snukes in her snizz.
     
  7. JNB macrumors 604

    JNB

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    In a Hell predominately of my own making
    #7
    And most likely by a terrorist organization or rogue state. Or Israel. :p

    However, I predict this thread will be nuked into PRSI before the day's out. :rolleyes:
     
  8. barkomatic thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #8
    Why do you say 100% -- and in the next year? I was thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% in the next 50 years--which is still concerning. My basis for my admittedly arbitrary figure is the possibility that a nation with nuclear weapons might become politically or economically unstable and could be more willing to either launch a weapon or lose track of a few. However, this has happened in the past (the break up of the USSR) and the world community has worked hard to help secure these weapons and their components.
     
  9. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #9
    we (world) test nuclear weapons

    I thought that point was clear with my second sentence, saying nearly no chance in the event of aggression purposes

    not 100% but not uncomon at all. Last was done by N. Korea
     
  10. Mintin8 macrumors 6502a

    Mintin8

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #10
    In the next 80+ years, I personally think that the only nuclear devices that will maybe be used are small devices in the hands of terrorists. (Probably not, but I guess these terrorist groups would be the most likely to use them if they got their hands on the resources, compared to fully grown countries).

    Even countries which have nukes at the moment, I think that it is unlikely that any will use them. Although, there may be threats.
     
  11. Decrepit macrumors 65816

    Decrepit

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Location:
    Foothills to the Rocky Mountains
    #11

    Unless things get extra hairy in India/Pakistan, I do not foresee a weapon detonation over a city. The North Koreans haven't been able to get a proper weapon built and tested. Furthermore, once they do, who are they going to hit with it? They know that their country will cease to exist if they were to launch a weapon at Japan, China or the USA.

    The requirements to develop, engineer, manufacture, test, and then deploy a weapon are staggering.

    That really limits the user base. There are threats about rogue weapons, but the likelihood of a non-state entity gaining access to a weapon of any yield, and then being able to move it into position and properly detonate it is very low.

    I'm not saying it wouldn't create mass panic from the people who don't understand how dirty nukes or fallout works. Just that I can't see anybody getting access to a real weapon AND being able to do something with it.
     
  12. King Mook Mook macrumors 6502

    #12
    A very high percentage that it's done just as a test, but as a test on another city.... Well, I think that's very unlikely, but if it was done, it would probably be done by Iran (but that's for PRSI :p).

    King Mook Mook
     
  13. Decrepit macrumors 65816

    Decrepit

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Location:
    Foothills to the Rocky Mountains
    #13
    There is so much work that has to happen for somebody to put one together, the last thing they'd want is to launch their one untested weapon and have only the high explosives go off.

    If that were to happen...
    1. It was tracked.
    2. Nuclear material was detected.
    3. The launching site will be obliterated as well as any production facilities, and every country on earth would sanction the launching country.

    No, I think the days of state launched/deployed nuclear weapons is over, unless India/Pakistan escalate again.
     
  14. iLina macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2009
    #14
    80% chance...and and i agree the US will be the one!
     
  15. barkomatic thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #15
    "Launching" a nuclear weapon is not the only option. They can also be transported over land or water via train or boat. Many are small enough to fit into a van, and some kiloton sized weapons can be carried by a person in a large backpack. It would be difficult to track a weapon detonated in this fashion and it may not be a nation that is directly involved -- but stateless individuals. Who do you retaliate against then?
     
  16. mstrze macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    #16
    I am shocked that at least two of us think that the US will be the one to detonate. I think the US would be the least likely country to use a nuke in a tactical or battle situation.

    I lean toward the rogue country/group sometime in the next 20 years.
     
  17. Decrepit macrumors 65816

    Decrepit

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Location:
    Foothills to the Rocky Mountains
    #17
    On delivery, you're of course completely correct. A ship container based weapon would be nearly impossible to track. Even if you used X-ray scanning on every container, it wouldn't likely find a weapon stashed in a container of machinery parts.

    But you still need to get the weapon. Move it to a ship container. Get that container onto the boat in a non-suspicious manner. And then you have to have set it to be remotely detonated. Possible? Totally. But the organizational skills that would be required for those kinds of logistics aren't in ready supply.

    And yes, if a terrorist organization pulled all of that off, we'd retaliate against the wrong country again most likely. People would want an immediate response. The investigation could take ages.

    There are divisions of the CIA and other organizations whose only job is to try to buy weapons of all kinds. That way they can identify who is selling, what's possible, and track down the supply lines.

    In December, an aircraft carrying 35 tons of weapons from North Korea to Iran was seized. It had piles of shoulder fired missile weapons. The interesting part is this: Let's say they were model A. Iran already makes model C. Why would Iran buy model A's? To resell them and create plausible denial. "How could we have been involved in that attack. We make model C..." So there is definitely a lot of misdirection going on.

    But with nuclear weapons, the community is very tight. The requirements are extraordinary. I think that the threat is so big, that the USA, the Russians and other key players are all cooperating to make sure nuclear materials and weapons are better tracked, accounted for, and are more difficult to detonate without the proper equipment. So even if somebody lifted a weapon off of a B-52, the worst we'd get is a somewhat dirty high explosive explosion. But no nuclear yield.

    And to mstrze, a lot of people believe the USA will do it is that we've done it before. We've shown that like all other countries, we're willing to lash out at somebody even if it's not the right one.

    We're using unmanned drones to kill people from a distance. They're controlled by some 24 year old in Nevada as an example. Has this airman positively identified somebody? Or did he kill the guy with a beard that is 6'2" tall? How much of a reach is it for us to say that we've found a facility building chemical weapons and that we want it permanently incinerated? A conventional weapon might not burn up the contents. A nuclear one most certainly would.

    Since we are perceived to have no respect for getting the right guy, a lot of people are concerned that we would indeed unleash a nuclear weapon if we felt justified. I don't think we would. I know people in that industry, and I know how seriously it's all taken. But it's still a concern for a lot of people.
     
  18. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
  19. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #19
    LOL thats the funniest sounding sentence...
     

Share This Page