A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

Palomar · 2003-02-07 10:32:35

*I hate to bring this subject up. After 9/11 and last summer's near nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, and now with North Korea trying out for World Drama Queen, I've become convinced I'll see a nuclear event/exchange in my lifetime. I hope this isn't so, OF COURSE. The Cuban Missile Crisis of the early 1960s (shortly before my birth) has been brought up quite a few times recently in the media; video footage, articles, etc. Yes, we avoided nuclear war at that time...and yes, things might not always be as bad as they appear. But I'm thinking our luck is going to run out sooner or later; just because we've avoided/averted nuclear war type incidents in the last 40 years is certainly no guarantee the trend will continue.

What do you think?

1. Yes, you're very certain there will be a nuclear event in your lifetime.

2. Probability is moderate.

3. Nuclear exchanges will be avoided indefinitely, and people will continue to use these weapons "just to" scare each other into submission and/or cooperation.

Sorry, but this has been gnawing on me for some time now.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 11:20:33

I would go with 3, unless by 1, you mean accidental, and not related to nuclear weapons specifically. I mean, once the nuclear space program does go off, there will evenutally be an accident.

Cuban Missile Crisis was probably the closest humans have ever come to blowing themselves to bits... but I'd say right now, world tension is actually remarkably calm, considering the whole warmongering by the US against Iraq.

The only threat is North Korea, who will probably be taken care of without issues in the coming years (via inspections, hopefully, and diplomacy).

But yeah, I'd say the outlook is fairly good.

soph · 2003-02-07 11:25:56

I would go with 3. The chances of a nuclear accident from the space program are virtually nill. NASA will be forced to adhere to the strictest safety policies to quell any opposition, and they know a single accident on the spacecraft would trigger huge reaction. So I wouldnt bet on a nuclear space-related accident.

Palomar · 2003-02-07 11:28:29

I would go with 3, unless by 1, you mean accidental,

*No, I mean deliberate use of nuclear weapons.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 11:40:42

soph, that's what they said about the Shuttle, too. Space isn't safe, you know. Once private corporations start using nuclear propulsion, it's only a matter of time before someone screws up somewhere.

Perhaps it may never occur, I probably should have stated that, but the possiblity is stull there. But since Cindy clarfied, I guess the point is null...

3 then is my answer. I'm optimistic. The UN actually seems to actually becoming, well, valid in the international community. I don't know if this is due to the information age, or, well, the international community as a whole, but it's clear.

Number04 · 2003-02-07 15:49:04

You are right, the world is calm at the moment. That's what is scary. I don't think it will be some country using it's weapons, but it will be some guy who hates the world. That could be a trigger for bigger things.

if the US goes to war, what is going to stop Saddam from using his weapons just before he loses?

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-07 18:38:46

I'll go with 1. My reasons are as follows:
first, all the old rules are eroding. When nuclear weapons were solely in the hands of fairly rational nation-states, use of those weapons was virtually outside the realm of possibility. MAD as it was, it worked. That world is quickly fading into one where any stateless madman with enough money or supporters can get one. The Soviet Union can no longer be our model. We're up against "super-villains" now, just like in the comic books.

Second and more difficult to explain, it seems (to me at least) that history works in loose cycles. We're overdue for a major league turd. Given the aforementioned shift, I expect it to involve a nuclear incident.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-02-07 18:51:41

Call me a coward and a fence-sitter, but I think there are too many unknowns in the equation and I go for option #2!
The world community's response to the deliberate detonation of a nuclear device in a first-world city would probably be harsh beyond belief. Maybe even the 'loonies' have some vague grasp of how terrible the retribution would be, and might think twice before embarking on such a scheme(?)
We can only hope.

Palomar · 2003-02-07 21:55:00

*About 1-1/2 weeks ago I had a nightmare about 2 nukes being dropped on the U.S.; in fact, just a few miles from my home. It seemed real, and I woke up nearly hyperventilating, with mild chest pain, and felt beat and tired all the rest of the day. I'm not prone to nightmares and the like, so I know it's getting to me. Thanks, North Korea.

I agree with Cobra Commander's view.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-07 22:42:19

I am not afraid.

Flat Tharsis · 2003-02-07 22:55:01

I am sure I will see the use of nuclear weapons in anger in my life time, but in a limited sense, not end of the world, third global war sense. I hope I am wrong, but that's just the fealing I get. I think the most likley event will be that Iraq attacks Isreal with NBC and the Isrealis retaliate against Baghdad and possibly the Palestinian Refuge camps with thermonuclear devices. I could also see us using tactical or limited stratigic devices against North Korea and or China in a premeptive capacity if the worlds political climate stays the way it is.

Again I hope I am wrong

CalTech2010 · 2003-02-14 18:56:47

*If we don't disarm Iraq and North Korea, #1 is my sure bet.

*If we disarm both and move onto Syria, Iran, and Libya, #3 is my sure bet.

*If we spend years and years tied up in battle with the UN over disarmament, then #1 is my sure bet.

My biggest fear is that terrorists detonate a nuclear bomb or biological weapon in New York Harbor, in downtown Los Angeles, on the Potomac in Washington, or near any number of landmarks in San Francisco, Chicago, Seattle, Boston, Atlanta, Houston, **Denver**, etc.

Euler · 2003-02-14 19:28:41

It looks like the US might use tactical nuclear weapons against Iraq. These would be small nukes launched against military targets rather then large bombs targeted at cities, so they would not create as much devastation as people would expect from a "nuclear event". I think that a giant "destruction of the world" type of nuclear exchange is unlikely. The only use of nukes against civilians that I think is likely would be in an India-Pakistan war. I don't think that it is very likely that terrorist will acquire nukes any time soon, though it is likely that they will use chemical and biological weapons.

Cobra Commander · 2003-02-14 19:49:18

It looks like the US might use tactical nuclear weapons against Iraq. These would be small nukes launched against military targets rather then large bombs targeted at cities, so they would not create as much devastation as people would expect from a "nuclear event".

US use of those tactical nukes, barring some seriously odd event, is unlikely for two reasons:

First, politically it would be disastrous. Using nuclear weapons in a first-strike on a third world nation? Not happening.

Second, these weapons have a very small and localized blast making them ideal for bunker-busting operations, hitting armored columns and the like. They are unlike any previous type of nuclear weapon and not to be confused with the so-called "tactical nukes" of the Cold War era. Unfortunately, they haven't been properly tested(according to everything I've ever seen on the subject). This is important because these "mini-nukes" artificially induce the chain reaction, they DO NOT CONTAIN A CRITICAL MASS - this is how the yield is kept so low. How precisely does this work? Classified, of course Basically, this means that if we use them, they might not go off.

Dropping a nuke on Iraq that fails to detonate is the same as just giving them one. Two or three and they can combine the fissile material, making a critical mass for a bomb that will work.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-14 23:40:31

What kind of world is it where people equate diplomacy with suicide or war itself? Man, maybe I should switch my choice...

soph · 2003-02-15 08:07:49

This whole "US might use nuclear weapons" was overblown by the media, who needed a story. We've always considered this option, but it has always been a risk vs. reward equation. This is no different.

dickbill · 2003-02-15 11:17:15

my answer:

1. Yes, you're very certain there will be a nuclear event in your lifetime.

because I am 39, chances are that in 20 /30 years some criminal or terrorist organizations, not necesseraly countries, will use a nuclear device like a dirty bomb.

For a classical nuclear conflict I am less sure, but as the world get older, chances increase. Like a radioactive element, the nuclear equilibrium is unstable. soon or later, it has to desintegrate. I don't believe in this equilibrium by terror.
In 20 years we've got North Corea, India, Pakistan, China, that's a lot of unstable elements.
I just hope that this possible nuclear conflict will stay local and limited, being instantly reproved by the UN, no, not by G.W.Bush III (third king of the american hereditary monarchy).

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-15 11:31:58

I'm evermore confident that as the US loses its world hegemony, peace will be much more easier to maintain. One world superpower is no different from a dictatorship when you think about it. You need more than one. Perferrably more than two!

Ranger_2833 · 2003-02-15 11:52:56

I say: Next Tuesday...

But seriously, my best bet is on China in the next 15 years. They've stated outright that they intend to recover Taiwan, and that they aren't afriad to use tactical nukes to keep America away. Defense experts expect them to have built up a military comparable to our own (both in capability and technology) by the 2015-20 time period. Given their government's extreme dislike of the US and their constant, public statements regarding their intentions; my bets are on a scenario similar to this.

dicktice · 2003-02-15 12:14:16

A word of caution: If you substitute the name "Saddam Hussain" for "Iraq" in those of the above Posts that recommend some form of nuclear attack to eliminate him from the picture...don't they sound foolish?
It's only one man...not the (mostly captive) population of Iraq you want to eliminate! Once he's gone, you can bet he will have left no one capable of taking his place.
Ditto, Hitler (in hindsight) because either of them could have been eliminated, or sent into exile, without destroying populations. The regimes they set up to protect their asses, tend to whither away without them to inspire and/or terrorize in order to stay in power.
How you ensure how/where/when you've got the real Saddam, requires spying and covert intelligence inside Iraq-- James Bond type stuff--tweezers instead of a club, in other words.
Either that, or induce Saddam et al to abdicate into luxurious exile, like others of his ilk, who are presently living out their lives at the expense of the countries they ruined.
What, you say? Let him get away with it? Well, he's just like any other crook who's been allowed to become too big and threatening to arrest and put in jail. Kim, of North Korea, is another of these. You have to make it worth their while to leave, or they'll take their entire nation down with them. That's what happened with Hitler. That's my opinion, anyway.
I thank you for your kind attention.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-15 12:25:35

China will most likely take Taiwan back via economic assimilation. Many of their industries are already moving to China. Give it time.

dickbill · 2003-02-15 16:10:35

China will most likely take Taiwan back via economic assimilation. Many of their industries are already moving to China. Give it time.

yes, that the least worst situation. When China get rich and prosperous, which I hope because those guys had some really bad time in the past, they are not anymore gonna think about war. Call me naive if you want.

AltToWar · 2003-02-21 05:57:05

I would go with 3, unless by 1, you mean accidental, and not related to nuclear weapons specifically. I mean, once the nuclear space program does go off, there will evenutally be an accident.
Cuban Missile Crisis was probably the closest humans have ever come to blowing themselves to bits... but I'd say right now, world tension is actually remarkably calm, considering the whole warmongering by the US against Iraq.
The only threat is North Korea, who will probably be taken care of without issues in the coming years (via inspections, hopefully, and diplomacy).
But yeah, I'd say the outlook is fairly good.

I would hardly call the current situation calm.

Turkey and Iran are both poised to embark on a land grab as soon as the Iraq war starts. Kurdish nothern alliances have publicly stated that they will treat US forces as friends and Turkey forces as invaders.

Turky has been on a course towards genocide towards the kurds in their souther regions. A war with Iraw could erupt a new civil war.

Iran has already moved troops into nothern Iraq.

The US and Israel are both threatening saddam with Nuclear strikes.

Saudi Arabia is a heartbeat away from a revolt. Should the war with Iraq take place Saudi Arabia will most definately be forced into a corner between appeasing it's people and taking a strong anti-american stand or face a revolution.

Warlords in Afghanistan are quickly gaining power. There is some concern that warlords may retake Kabul.

India and Pakistan are still pointing nukes at eachother.

North Korea is being generally ignored by the us dispite the credible nuke threat it openly proclaims it has. The world is learning an important lesson, if you wish to remian in power as a tyrannical dictator in this century you must get nukes and a large military and fast.

Nato is divided. America is masking it's own lack of credibility by attacking the credibilty of the UN and Nato. Appeasement of the US will be the signal to the world that these organizations have no more relevance.

The israel palistinian conflict will most likely flare up in the days durring the war. as soon as the war is over, Israel will no longer be bound to the agreement it made with the US for money and will take the gloves off and start rolling tankes over palistinian territories.

America, the strongest nation in the world, has placed on top of it's economic impirilism a new military impirialist policy.

The new bush doctrine of preemption will be used by many other countries after america makes the precedent. Expect to see many other nations annex it's neighbors and point to us as a reference as to why they feel justified.

I think we are in more danger of the world getting into one hell of a furball then ever before in history.

AltToWar · 2003-02-21 06:01:37

*I hate to bring this subject up. After 9/11 and last summer's near nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, and now with North Korea trying out for World Drama Queen, I've become convinced I'll see a nuclear event/exchange in my lifetime. I hope this isn't so, OF COURSE. The Cuban Missile Crisis of the early 1960s (shortly before my birth) has been brought up quite a few times recently in the media; video footage, articles, etc. Yes, we avoided nuclear war at that time...and yes, things might not always be as bad as they appear. But I'm thinking our luck is going to run out sooner or later; just because we've avoided/averted nuclear war type incidents in the last 40 years is certainly no guarantee the trend will continue.
What do you think?
1. Yes, you're very certain there will be a nuclear event in your lifetime.
2. Probability is moderate.
3. Nuclear exchanges will be avoided indefinitely, and people will continue to use these weapons "just to" scare each other into submission and/or cooperation.
Sorry, but this has been gnawing on me for some time now.
--Cindy

Both the Gulf war of the 90s and the War in afghanistan were radiological wars.

Gulf war veterans now have radioactive uranium in their semen.

13 yr old girs in Iraq have breast cancer. the lukimia rates for children in the heavily shelled areas of iraq is 14 times the pre war rate.

The congenital defects in children in iraq has quadrupled. Children are being born with missing limbs, spinabifida, etc.

the reason?

Depleted uranium.

dickbill · 2003-02-21 08:50:33

How you ensure how/where/when you've got the real Saddam, requires spying and covert intelligence inside Iraq-- James Bond type stuff--tweezers instead of a club, in other words.

I am sure there is plenty of upset people in Saddam's entourage. Potential treators which could make possible a commnando operation "a la James Bond". I thought about other means to go to Bagdad than by helicopters or planes: "free fall" from high altitude stealth aircraft, tunnel undergound, submarines, etc.
But I am afraid the " prehistoric club" tactic will prevail. This primitive tactic can be pretty efficient: look at the russian invasion of Berlin in 1945. Just 200000 civilian casualaties, pfew, nothing...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-02-07 10:32:35

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#2 2003-02-07 11:20:33

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#3 2003-02-07 11:25:56

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#4 2003-02-07 11:28:29

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#5 2003-02-07 11:40:42

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#6 2003-02-07 15:49:04

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#7 2003-02-07 18:38:46

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#8 2003-02-07 18:51:41

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#9 2003-02-07 21:55:00

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#10 2003-02-07 22:42:19

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#11 2003-02-07 22:55:01

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#12 2003-02-14 18:56:47

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#13 2003-02-14 19:28:41

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#14 2003-02-14 19:49:18

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#15 2003-02-14 23:40:31

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#16 2003-02-15 08:07:49

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#17 2003-02-15 11:17:15

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#18 2003-02-15 11:31:58

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#19 2003-02-15 11:52:56

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#20 2003-02-15 12:14:16

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#21 2003-02-15 12:25:35

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#22 2003-02-15 16:10:35

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#23 2003-02-21 05:57:05

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#24 2003-02-21 06:01:37

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

#25 2003-02-21 08:50:33

Re: A nuclear event - Do you expect one in your lifetime?

Board footer