nuclear war a possibility in 21st century, yes, what is your scenario now that cold war is over?

Question

obvcourse...even more than in the cold war...people who do the statistics of probable scenarios have known for some time, that as we progress through the 21s century, the likelihood of a nuclear weapon falling in the hands of a terrorist, or anybody really, a black market operative---simply the wrong people, increases exponentially.

Not only are there 20 or more unacounted for nukes in russia...some of the largest nukes ever created, the tzars....but icnreasingly unstable countries like north korea, iran, and in general, asia and countries in ME are getting a hold of nukes.

The term 'nuclear war' doesn't only apply to big countries with missiles. It applies to any country, factions or entities engaged in nuclear retaliation games of strategy. This means simply one entity, one person even---someone holding a city hostage to prevent retaliation from an entity such as the US, for example.

These countries do not have the same moral values or culture than the USA and they may or may not sell them with time. The risk just increases as time goes by.

The likeliest seller of nukes at this moment seems to be Kim Jong Ill...Not only because he despises the US in more ways than one, but he would be the least troubled by the mass killing of all his own people. Therefore, he is the likeliest candidate and the one with MOST nukes of the 'troubled countries.' Which may or may not be named 'instigators' with time.

Not only that, Iran and the ME has gotten heated with Israel lately, and nuclear war with Israel and muslim nations is as likely as ever. India and Pakistan have their own nukes.

It doesn't matter. If a terrorist gets a hold of 3 or 4 nukes, from any of these candidates and those lost in Russia. The terrorists can wage nuclear war with the US.

A ransom scenario, where they nuke one city and then try to prevent retaliation by either nuking washington and holding cities or ransom or just holding some cities ransom---seems the likeliest candidate as a scenario for a nuclear war.

The nuclear suicide bombers do not even have to be inside the US or have a rocket...all they need to do is smuggle it in a container off-shore, then wait until the carrier is a few miles off shore from the target city in the US, and then blow it up.

With virtually millions of carriers, small and big corssing the US...it would be virtually impossible to stop them all in an isolationist move---if a nuking policy of all ships ensued...the US would end up having fallout on all its coastal cities...

Therefore, such a nuclear ransom scenario is indeed scary, and not accounted for in strategies because most of the strategies developed were done explicitly under cold war scenarios. Therefore, right now, we are kind of in the void on this issue. But it is a very real possibility as we progress as a nation through the 21st century.

Answer 1

It's pretty sad that we're prob going to end up killing our selves. what a waste

Answer 2

Yes, however now not on account that of strategic explanations. The bloodless battle was once utterly situated off of stereotypes. The west made the Russians out to be monsters, and the Russians made the west out to be heartless. What humans dont fully grasp is that the Russians had been slaughtered in WWII, and the entire leaders for the following forty years had noticeable that. They had been frightened of battle, and so desired to be so enormous and unhealthy that all people might be too intimidated to battle them. It labored, no person fought them straight. The US felt the identical means, we didnt desire to be attacked once more, and so constructed up our army for the identical motive the Russians did. This triggered an fingers race, one part might try to intimidate the opposite, and the opposite might reply within the identical technique. BTW, nuclear guns arent fairly as strong as you had been considering. They most often kill by means of the flash of warmth. 60% of the humans killed by means of atomic bombs in WWII had been killed immediately by means of the flash. Only approximately 30% had been killed by means of the blast knocking matters onto them. A ultra-modern man or woman spends a great deal of time within concrete or metal constructions and might now not be area to the flash. Most humans dont also have home windows of their paintings area. The constructions additionally face up to blasts a lot more comfortably. You are customarily considering that ultra-modern nukes are a lot more strong, however in actual fact that they're handiest relatively extra strong. The bombs dropped in WWII had been approximately 15 kilotons. Modern guns are within the one hundred-250 kiloton variety. Sounds drastically extra strong, however the drive of the blast decreases by means of the dice root of the broaden in measurement of the weapon. This implies that a 100kt bomb will probably be approximately a million.eight occasions extra harmful than a 15kt bomb. What approximately the ones tremendous nukes? They not ever fairly stuck on. They had been most often utilized in plane, however subs and missiles have most likely used a couple of smaller warheads. When it involves procedures, each side discovered very speedily that killing the civilians at the different part wouldnt do whatever. Therefore, they switched to a top quantity of small warheads that they used to assault army objectives. For illustration, the Norfolk discipline is stuffed with army bases. If you hit the town with a tremendous 30mt weapon, you might definite kill plenty of civlians, however you wouldnt even come nearly destroying the army bases. The weapon simply wouldnt be competent to end result the entire bases with one blast. Therefore, missiles have constantly carried a quantity of small nukes that they may be able to hearth at a few army objectives. This means, they may be able to warranty larger outcome towards army objectives and not more civilian deaths.

Answer 3

the liklies scenario would be a terrorist group smuggling one into our country or another and detonating it. However, to start an all out nuclear war, they'd have to do that, but make it look like it was done by someone else. Like a terrorist group attacking us but making it look like Russia did it.

Answer 4

it is sad. no one could disagree with what you say, although I fail to see a question.
the sad part is, if the u.s. or any developed country with nuclear arms is attacked with nuclear arms, they are almost mandated to respond. if they respond, their allies go on alert, if someone does respond, who they attack will also have allies who will come to their defence [with weapons, bombs, etc.]. the result, a firestorm the world hasn't seen since it became planet earth.
armaggeden, if you have a bent in that direction.
their are no winners in a nuclear war, no matter who 'starts' it.
one of the scariest statements I ever heard was from an american president who said that he saw a 10% survival after a nuclear war as a victory. how many of us billions believe that they will be 'in' that 10%. if you said you, haha. well, fantacies are nice.

Answer 5

Quite a question here, lots of info. we could have are own Broken Arrow here in this country, i do disagree thou that this country has more morals, we do not, your scenario is quite possible.