Does a nuclear ransom scenario seem feasable to you?

Question

With North Korea having a nuke, Iran on the way to get one, information about how to make a nuke all over the place (especially the internet), and 20 unacounted for nukes in the former soviet union, it seems plausible to wonder if nuclear ransom is possible--what would happen if terrorists got hold of not 1, but 20 or 4 of small nukes, etc, and then blew up one in the US in the name of Allah, and then held other cities ransom as a deterrent so the US would not retaliate with nukes at an ‘instigator country’? Islam taking over?

This to me, is the real scenario of the nuclear war.

Not the soviet vs US and firing missiles and lasers.

Its a terrorist getting a nuke and exploding it far away from inspections in the harbour of New york (making the inspections useless)—and holding others hostage---the US cannot inspect all over Earth.

these are suicide bombers, so all they have to do is smuggle it in a container until the carrier is a couple miles away from shore and explode it.

This seems to me like the real scenario of a nuclear war.

I wonder how the US would react in such a scenario. Would it nuke Iran anyway, even though at risk of losing 2, or 3 cities of its own?

What if a terrorist group nuked Israel first, would the US do anything?

These scenarios seem like, looking into the future, the probable nuclear war.

Either way, nuclear ransom is what NORAD and the RAND Corporation should be looking at as the most possible nuclear scenario, and developed accordingly with strategies that follow such a scenario. No scenarios have been developed as of yet taking into account such a situation (all the data generated by Rand was based on cold war). So that if it were to happen right now, we would be caught surprised, just like 911, but on a different scale (I don’t think that needs explaining).

RAND corporation, was one that developed nuclear optimum stategies in the event of a nuclear war between russia and the US.

Answer 1

somehow i doubt there will be a ransom. maybe a removal of us forces in countries would be possible. and usa is too proud to negotiate with terrorists. terrorists fightin in the name of allah dont need money, theyve got almost all of the oil in the world.
a similar scenario is extreemly possible though

Answer 2

This scenario has been the subject of a good deal of attention from every intelligence and military agency on the planet. Also private think tanks such as Rand have been working on this since the 1960's. Obviously there have been books, movies and TV shows which have explored the possibility. It is scary. So far, no one has developed a practical defense against this. The classic story has been transporting the components of a A-bomb into downtown Manhattan assembling it there, and using it for blackmail, or actually setting it off. Good luck to all of us...

Answer 3

I believe that most other countries are deathly afraid of what the United States with their 10,000 nuclear missiles would do to them. Especially after their unprovoked attacks on Iraq, Panama and Vietnam.

To many countries in the world, America is a reckless cowboy with many loaded nuclear weapons. How can you blame other countries for getting guns to defend themselves. America has invaded more countries than North Korea ever has.

Remember, America is the only country to have used a nuclear device.

Answer 4

I agree a terrorist (smuggled in bomb) nuclear attack is better likely than a "nicely-known" (chilly warfare type, making use of missiles) nuclear attack a nicely-known attack exposes someone to retaliation, a terrorist attack would not be really uncomplicated to song. the mission with "ransom" is that making a call for exposes the bomber. obviously, the decision for will be a pink herring. North Korea might want to nuke San Diego to reduce US forces, and submit an Islamic call for to deflect blame. for particular, any u . s . a . that gave terrorists a nuke might want to save some for themselves (they would not supply away their first/purely one) so retaliating hostile to an "instigator u . s . a ." might want to get further retaliation decrease back.

Answer 5

i like the first answerers reply. besides, we would taunt them and say our nukes are bigger than yours and can go further!

Answer 6

and it may not be to long before your scenario comes to pass.