Nuclear detonation

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 14 May 2004 12:19

By detonation, I mean a real mushroom cloud, a "dirty" bomb doesn't count.

Testing a nuclear device underground doesnt count either.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 14 May 2004 12:27

I think North Korea, being the most isolated and secretive nation on the planet, could and would be the first to blow another nation to kingdom come. That nation might as well be the US.

So long California!

Matt · Post by **Matt** » 14 May 2004 14:33

soviet union?

mmm communism soup

cd · Post by cd » 14 May 2004 14:39

hm, that's a tough question. The dynamics between all these countries can change a lot in 50 years. Hell, the US was Hussein's best buddy two decades ago. Anyway, I don't think it will be India or Pakistan. They were within weeks of going to war, then they became atomic powers and both backed off real quick. N Korea is also using the threat of nuclear war to keep the US from going after them, and probably won't use it unless they're in danger of being wiped out. I'm confident that the US will think twice before even making threats to them.

The regimes/groups I don't trust with nukes are the religious ones. If al Quaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. get one then they'll almost certainly use it on Israel. And if things get a lot worse in the Middle East (as destabilization from the Iraq war almost guarantees), then a scenario where Israel detonates one isn't hard to imagine.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 14 May 2004 14:46

The only reason why I didn't pick Al Queda is that nuclear weaponry is very sophisticated. So much in fact, that if I were to hand Bin Laden a nuclear device, he could not detonate it. It will not explode unless conditions are perfect. Impact is not the thing that makes it go boom.

Killing yourself and using century old weaponry shows us just how behind the enemy is in terms of technology, so I am not at all worried about them.

North Korea on the other hand, is the leader in rocket propulsion and warhead technology (other than the underground United States of America, aka the CIA and such). They are also the major exporter of missle technology. While their threats may be just threats, we have fought on Korean soil before and we have hand our asses blow to shit too.

So it wouldn't surprise me to see the North take the first step.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 15 May 2004 18:04

duh, I can't believe I left out Russia!

I was going to include an option for a Russian accident also,....accidental blow up somebody else, not themselves.

I guess this poll wont be very useful, besides the discussion it may generate.

edit: I wouldnt pick them anyway.

-n

SpaceMonkey · Post by **SpaceMonkey** » 16 May 2004 13:16

My vote is for Isreal. They just seem to trigger happy. Whenever anything happens to them they let the F-18 (which we sold to them) fly. They are too quick to judge.

India or Pakistan are a close second. They have been at war for a very long time and they have no indication of stopping. They did back off quickly when they first obtained nuclear power but a new ruler could change all that real fast.

SeRiAl ThIlLa~ · Post by **SeRiAl ThIlLa~** » 16 May 2004 19:04

Im gonna say United States. And i dont mean that in a negative thing if you know what i mean (althought it emplys a negative). I just think that when war does happen and if the states get in a bind that they will through the first nuke out.

I was kinda un decided at first because i was like.. " Well people in the eastern part of the world are kind of getting out of hand and really hate the states (some of course). " Anyways... I think the states.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 18 May 2004 05:02

SpaceMonkey wrote:My vote is for Isreal. They just seem to trigger happy. Whenever anything happens to them they let the F-18 (which we sold to them) fly. They are too quick to judge.
India or Pakistan are a close second. They have been at war for a very long time and they have no indication of stopping. They did back off quickly when they first obtained nuclear power but a new ruler could change all that real fast.

They aren't trigger happy, they are just sick and tired of constantly having some man, woman, child or country come in and blow up their buses, malls, and coffee shops.
I don't think that Israel is all right, but they aren't all wrong either.
Several years ago there was a peace accord negotiated and everything was beginning to go smoothly then, BLAMO, the Palestinians started killing innocent people again. So Israel returned in kind and yada yada yada you've got the typical middle east scenario for the past 5,000 years.
However, I do think that Israel, under it's current leadership, would launch a nuclear weapon if they were backed into a corner as in the Six Day War, but they would have to be losing... which they didn't and probably wouldn't.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 18 May 2004 09:52

I voted North Korea.

Israel, as opposed to N. Korea, is a democracy, with a court system that has and does prosecute its own soldiers and politician, and often rules in favor of Israeli arabs and also Palestinians in cases against Israeli jews. Israel also has a free and independant press(which is almost like another court, in a sense), and allows far greater access to the international press than N. Korea. These institutions hold the powers-that-be in Israel accountable for their actions.

North Korea has no similar institutions, and its leaders are not held accountable to their people of the rest of the world.

Spacemonkey pointed out:

Whenever anything happens to them they let the F-18 (which we sold to them) fly.

Israel has also bough arms from Germany and France, amongst others, and also builds their own hardware, which they sometimes export. So what? France exported nuclear reactors to Iraq.

Splint wrote:

However, I do think that Israel, under it's current leadership, would launch a nuclear weapon if they were backed into a corner as in the Six Day War, but they would have to be losing... which they didn't and probably wouldn't.

This is the whole point of a nuclear deterent. "Don't back us into a corner, or else..." This sort of deterent depends on a credible threat. None-the-less, I think it was a poor analogy, as Israel struck first in the Six Day War (in response to a very obvious agressive build-up of Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, Lebanese, and Iraqi troops and equipment). It was a bold counter-strike that saved the country and probably prevented a much larger war involving the super-powers of the day and other allies of both sides. A better analogy would be the Yom Kippur War of 1973, when Israel was caught by surprise when invaded by several neighboring countries on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. The situation was very bad, far worse than during the Six Day War of 1967, yet Israel did not use its nuclear deterent (though its probable that they had them by '73, and quite certain that they did not in '67). North Korea, on the other hand, has not come under attack from any other country since they acquired the bomb. I have no doubt how they would react if they were to be. They've also test-fired long range missiles directly over (and past, obviously) Japan. Thats a pretty hostile move against a nation they haven't fought with in fifty years. What were they trying to say?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 18 May 2004 18:21

I voted for the US - mainly just to annoy Splint

- I know what a patriotic person he is

But to be honest, I am very sceptical that a nuclear bomb will ever be detonated in anger again - The only situtation I can see it occuring in is if a world war breaks out and continues for some time (over two years).

I think it's safe to say that most countries have learnt from the experiences of the first and second world war, and those events will not be repeated. While it is clear that there are the odd rogue leaders that either failed history or didn't do it - but the rest seem not to want to start wars - especially wars that will carry on and get bigger.

India/Pakistan is a good example - even though they are both nuclear powers, and both involved in much agression between each other - they have avoided all out war - and have shown that neither side has any wish to start one. The recent elections in India suggest that to some level the people of India agree this (although certainly domestic concerns were a major factor in the election)

North Korea is another good example. Apart from the fact that like Israel - there is no actual proof that they have nuclear weapons (although the fact that the US had been so confident that Israel does would suggest that they sold the nukes to Israel - or else it is a complicated conspiracy - in any event I am confident both do have nuclear weapons) they have had the opportunity to go to war many times since the end of conflict with South Korea - but have not. One would suggest that since they are such a poor nation with virtually no allies - going to war will ultimatly lead to their defeat.
Lets imagine that they do nuke a country (or countries) - which country would it be? Despite their recent agression towards Japan - that would be a grevious error - Japan has a large number of Allies, no nuclear weapons and the international outrage would result in other nations invading North Korea - over throwing the government and attempt to replace it with a democracy - or the US would respond with nuke of their own. Should the second event occur - I very much doubt that China would get involved - getting yourself involved in a nuclear war for the sake of an ally that has already been defeated is not something intelligent people do. The same kind of thing would happen if North Korea nuked any country - the possible exception is the US - but I doubt they have enough nukes to wipe out the US - if they could China may then support them - but last I heard, North Korea's ballistic missle range was only great enough to reach Hawaii and maybe Alaska, and I doubt that they have over 10 nuclear warheads.

If a nuclear weapon is detonated this centuary, it will either be a test - perhaps North Korea - since they haven't tested their weapons, the other nuclear powers all have - and I doubt they would do it again. Or it will be an accident - probably one of the old soviet nukes malfunctioning - although considering how a nuclear bomb works - this is pretty unlikely (I think most physists would say impossible)

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 18 May 2004 18:28

Outsider wrote:... None-the-less, I think it was a poor analogy, as Israel struck first in the Six Day War (in response to a very obvious agressive build-up of Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, Lebanese, and Iraqi troops and equipment). It was a bold counter-strike that saved the country and probably prevented a much larger war involving the super-powers of the day and other allies of both sides.

My analogy was fine except that you didn't get it Yonatonn! The point was that Israel would have to be at war with several countries at once and losing. The Six Day War was Six Days of War and Israel won. In a similar situation where Israel was losing I could see them going Nuclear.
It's like a joke...it's not funny when you have to explain it. Maybe it was a bad analogy

Johnny · Post by **Johnny** » 18 May 2004 18:30

What's the blast radius on a nuke anyway?

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 18 May 2004 18:40

That's a question I was wondering so I just Googled it and found this site that calculates the blast based on how many megatons the nuke is. It is approximate yield.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html

By the way...anyone else notice that only the jews on the forum seem to stand up and speak for Israel?

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 18 May 2004 21:16

Well, Splint, its not surprising that we have a different perspective on the situation, and a better informed one, I'm pretty sure. I've read alot of wide-spread mis-information on this forum regarding Israel, and its usually a wonderfully simple mis-interpretation of the facts. Even you don't have all the right info on Sharon, Splint, and you've swallowed the simple mis-statements about him too easily.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 18 May 2004 22:12

I'm not Jewish, but I speak up .

Israel, although dependent on the U.S., is a shining jewel compared to the shit-hole of the rest of the middle east, even without their own oil.

Their neighbors are just to bigoted and jealous because they can't create anything in a 1000 years, so they want to steal or burn what they can never achieve.

Israel is the undeserved scapegoat for worldwide Muslim conflict.

The argument just doesn't wash:

Churches burn, and thousands of Christians and Muslims are slaughtered in Indonesia......blame Israel.

Chechen rebels and the Russians engage in endless bloody civil war....blame Israel.

Kosovars burn dozens of churches and homes, kill hundreds of Christians in Serbia...blame Israel.

Pakistan and India on the brink of nuclear war....blame Israel.

Genocide and civil war RIGHT NOW in the Sudan....blame Israel.

When the next nuke finally does goes off, who will get blamed?
You probably guessed right.

-n

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 18 May 2004 22:24

I'm curious to know who blames israel for those things?

Not only do I notice that only jews on this forum defend Israel (with the odd exception) - it seems like the only people in the world who defend Israel are Jews. Whenever the Israeli government assassinates people or destroys houses (like it's doing at the moment) and get condemmed by the international community - including the US this time - which is excellent - there are always letters in the newspaper the next day from jewish people reminding everybody of how "evil" the palestinians are and how they kill hundreds of people and want to completely destroy all jews around the world etc.

Going by recent demonstrations in Israel, it is clear that the majority there disagree with these letters and I also know a number of Jews who are also very critical of the Israeli government - but I know very few non Jews (only one person - not counting people on forums) who make any effort to defend Israel for its actions.

I have always believed that two wrongs don't make a right.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 19 May 2004 07:16

You have to understand Jeremy that the Jews were handed a bad wrap even after the holocaust. Just in the US alone, Jews were unable to receive employment, rediculed by the masses, and basically segregated.

Today however the Jews are free (as they can be at this time) to enjoy all the benefits of being an American. But when things weren't so good, they banded together in support of one another and still do to this day.

So it is not surprising that the Jews would say such things and keep the flame burning.

Although I do not agree with what Ariel Sharon is doing in Isreal, they have just as much right to defend themselves, especially while surrounded constantly by people who want them dead.

Did I say enough Brad? I'm not a Jew and cannot accurately speak for them, but my wife and her family are all Jews from Europe and I will side with and defend them.

---North Korea has the bomb---

Bijan · Post by **Bijan** » 19 May 2004 11:24

"Israel, although dependent on the U.S., is a shining jewel compared to the shit-hole of the rest of the middle east, even without their own oil.

Their neighbors are just to bigoted and jealous because they can't create anything in a 1000 years, so they want to steal or burn what they can never achieve. "

Specifically which parts of the middle east are shit holes? And what do you mean by shithole? I'm assuming you have been there, or caryy a good understanding of the place past what you've heard on the evening news, so please enlighten me.

Also specify what you mean by can't create anything. That seemed a little vague. Did you mean a stable economy, democracy? Please make clear.

thank you

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 24 May 2004 12:54

Jeremy: I was using those conflicts to prove a point. Israel can't be responsible for those conflicts across the globe.

Although George Soros did destroy the Indonesian(or was it Malaysian?) currency . So when the outgoing president went on a "Hitler-like, blame the Jews rant" , I guess he was correctly assigning blame to a single Jew. But Soros doesn't support Israel.

Bijan:

By creation, I mean invention and technilogical advancement, religious freedom, equality for women, and a successful economy. No Islamic ruled state has created a modern economy. All they have is oil, and they had to be taught to drill it.

By shithole, I mean starvation, epidemics, female genital mutilation, death for homosexuals, death for infidels. lack of clean water.

Unless, of course you are wealthy enough to have several wives and "contribute" to the local police and military.

I don't mean democracy, that is not a realistic expectation of some places.

Democracy in the MiddleEast is a pipe dream that is not worth out soldiers lives. I don't care how Iraqis run Iraq now.

Keep that oil pumping cheap and don't have nuclear tipped ballistic missles flying around, and you'll get no complaints from me.

-n

Nuclear detonation

Which nation/organization will be the first in 50+ years to detonate a nuclear device in war?

Nuclear detonation