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

jimstock...

when I say ransom...I do not mean paying with money...I mean demands...The terrorists could demand we get out of the middle east, that we pay exhorbitant amount for oil, and that we tell all Israeli citizens to leave ME (but the most probable thing is that they had dnuked it already if they got nukes and were holding us ransom)---

and with these demands...we would have to choose to do them, or to retaliate and engage in nuclear war (we blow up iran, they blow up our cities).

secret negotiations would most prob be the first way of handling things.

Eric....

You seem to think more 21st century, but your logic is severly flawed.

The terrorist advantage is not 'that it cannot be traced'----for that matter, the soviets would have sneaked a submarine and fired on washington with no trace. It would be 'obvious' it was Russia....

The 'obvious' course for any nuke going off in the US....

is for the US, if not held ransom, to nuke every 'instigator country'....This would mean, Iran, North Korea, Syria would all turn to glass the next day.

So its not a problem of 'tracing' ---the terrorist doesn't ahve to even reveal his nationality in the demands....he just reveals islamic intentions...

the terrorists could be from afghanistan....but that does not reveal the the nation does it?

terrorists are not loyal to 'nations'....this is a flawed notion. Arabic culture is a different dynamic...They are loyal to sheiks and a philosophy...getting their money through sympathizers (aka, corrupt shite officials who seed oil money)

If a country gave a nuke to a terrorist (the most likely are Iran, syria and NK)...they know that if a ransom scenario does not ensue, and the terrorist blows the nuke in a
US city, they immidietly are destroyed (this is if the country is one of those three and excluding the scenario of a conspiracy such as China planting the nuke, etc).

So its in their interests (Iran, nk, syria) to do such a ransom to prevent the immidiet retaliation...

The scenario that China or Russia, Pakistan, or any other country would use a nuke in a conspiracy is highly unlikely. They would devastate the world economy for 50-60 years and it would not benefit in any way to be traced to such an act.

They do not benefit from the US going down and a nuclearization of the ME....this would jsut limit the resources they need to expand in the 21st century and cause more confrontation amogst each other. Its in their interests to keep the US on the ball...maybe allowing China to take over midcentury.

However, NK, Iran and Syria do have something to gain from such a ransom scenario....

Iran would expand its influence, humiliate the US, and allow radical islam to be a driving force around the world in the 21st century--taking their very much hated Israel off the map.

Syria would expand and gain influence just as Iran but to a lesser degree.

And kim jong ill would very much enjoy the US up for ransom because he despises in more ways than one. Not to mention the fact he has no regard for the well-being of his own people.

And even if these countries don't stand to benefit from nuclear ransom---

many a terrorist factions with nothing to lose, if get a hold of any of these weapons...could make demands on BEHALF of these countries (Iran and Syria)...just because it benefits their own extraction---namely, radical islam...spreading its influence and power in the middle east (demands such as oil prices, etc).

a bottom line...it doesn't matter if it can be traced or not...

in a nuclear war scenario as it stands today ensues with ransom or not...if a nuke is exploded in a major city with no claim or not....the three countries to get nuked the next day are NK, Syria and Iran. This is as a natural outcome from optimum strategies. Therefore, its in the interests of the terrorist faction to demand, even if their not from those countries, just to prevent retalation of the US to those countries (nk, syria and Iran). Because those are the countries that benefit and harbour terrorists. Without them, terrorists don't have many save havens. Its in their interests (terrorists) to prevent a retaliation from the USA on the nations that support them.

I did not mention Egypt because although its 'ok' with terrorists, it doesn't 'harbour' them. I assure you that after such a nuclear holocaust, the Egyptian goverment would slaughter any terrorists left.

The terrorists know they need to

defend their defendor countries (Syria, Iran)
--

It has nothing to do with tracing--the terrorists we are dealing with serve an ideology, and their central havens of support (money) are in those countries mentioned. It is the natural optimum strategy to nuke such countries. And therefore, it is in the optimum strategy of the terrorists, if they wage nuclear war on USA, to hold cities ransom.

*to hold cities ransom in the US.

Answer 1

Anything is possible and has been since the beginning of time. Even the biblical story of Cain and Able show that brothers can commit the act to end all acts.

My advice is to keep a clear and positive focus into the collective of the universal consciousness.

Call it prayer, call it what you want. My point is to avoid validating global annihilation at all cost. Whether it be in thought or action.

Lets think about service and doing good rather than complete obliteration and surviving such an outcome.

Some say be careful in what you pray for, I say thoughts and words carry great power so be very responsible in the positive with what you think and say.

Answer 2

I agree a terrorist (smuggled in bomb) nuclear attack is more likely than a "conventional" (cold war style, using missiles) nuclear attack A conventional attack exposes someone to retaliation, a terrorist attack would not be so easy to trace. The problem with "ransom" is that making a demand exposes the bomber. Of course, the demand could be a red herring. North Korea could nuke San Diego to reduce US forces, and post an Islamic demand to deflect blame. For sure, any country that gave terrorists a nuke would keep some for themselves (they would not give away their first/only one) so retaliating against an "instigator country" would get further retaliation back.

Answer 3

anyone organized enough to make one would have a concern for thier own territory. Even a terrorist plot wouldn't mean that muslims would take over the country. Most don't want war and aren't going to come here and try to enslave us. They're old ladies and waitresses, busboys, and salesman. or dirt poor and wouldn't know what the hell to do if some one stuck them on a plane and brought them here.

What are the terrorrist demands, if any in this scenario? or just to kill everyone because they're crazy hate filled extremeists. but occupying america is unlikely without a unified arabia dedicated to the cause, which it very much lacks. Perhaps bush's surge will unify them and create even more dislike of the US.

Good plot though.

Answer 4

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 5

I very much share your concerns. It is the reason why we must persist in Iraq -- if Taliban/al Qaeda can use dirt there with impunity, they could recover the WMD from Syria and raise all sorts of hell. It is trivially easy to build an atomic bomb if you have 30 pounds of U-235; I designed such a weapon when I was in seventh grade. And there is lots of U-235 kicking around in not very secure storage.

Answer 6

I don't think Ransom is possible as the people you mention don't want money but want us all to die. I think it's more plausible that they sneak in nukes across a border that is like swiss cheese and blow us all to kingdom come, just because they hate us.

Answer 7

Dude, we totally need to meet up and discuss theories because I always think about this. My thought was that you could mix some nuke with a 2-liter of coke and fart on someone.

Answer 8

No, it wouldn't happen. If they got ahold of the nucs, they'd just use them. In order to hold something for ransom, there has to be something the other party wants in return. They don't want anything from us but death and destruction.

Answer 9

Call Jack Bauer!

Answer 10

Well if Austin Powers taught us anything, its that YES we could be held for ransom for maybe 100 BILLION DOLLARS!!