Future Nuclear Incidents

[Woolygimp]

As more and more countries are able to produce nuclear stockpiles, the risk of nuclear incident rises. Whether that incident be a nuclear war, or a bomb on a ship entering a metropolitan port it really doesn't make a difference. In the long scheme of things eventually almost every country in the world will have the ability to make, deliver, and use these weapons. I really don't have to explain nuclear proliferation because it's been heard before. However all it's going to take is ONE governing body with acess to nuclear arms to sell to terrorists, or maybe even use them in an act of idealogical fundamental revenge such as Islamics destroying Israel for us to have a major loss of life.

How can we reasonably expect another 30 years to go by without something happening?

[jman220]

The U.S. and other western countries need a policy similar to MAD that averted nuclear war during the cold war. Something like, we state officially that if we are nuked by islamic extremists, we will nuke mecca. Mind you, I'm not saying that, if push comes to shove, we actually nuke Mecca, I'm just saying that be our stated policy to act as a deterrent factor.

[Woolygimp]

Jman aren't you worried that eventually a suicidal leader will get his hands on one of these weapons and his actions will lead to war, be damned with the consequences? Similiar to Hitler at the end of WWII.

Just one man, one wrong decision and hundreds of millions die.

Furthmore if states like Iran eventually do get weapons, I see them selling them the first chance they get to extremists who have nothing on their mind other than revenge and the eventual murder of everybody who does not share their beliefs.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. and other western countries need a policy similar to MAD that averted nuclear war during the cold war. Something like, we state officially that if we are nuked by islamic extremists, we will nuke mecca. Mind you, I'm not saying that, if push comes to shove, we actually nuke Mecca, I'm just saying that be our stated policy to act as a deterrent factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

now that would be a reasonable answer... think about it again. consequences? IMO that would be the worst possible solution. not to mention there really could be some nonmuslim lunatics or suiciders that could use this threat as a proxy.

i would support use of nukes as the appropriate answer only in case any country (and here i really mean ANY country) use it first in case of open war conflict. but in case there is just some terrorist group, then appropriate answer would be to make a revenge to that group other than innocent people? ok, demolish their camps, bases, soldiers.
after all, most of terrorists of 9/11 were saudis, but SA is still one of the closest friends. i guess you wouldn't say a better answer would be to occupy riad or nuke it, right? i finally support W in one case (N korea).

after all, if there is somebody i'm afraid of in the neighbourhood walking around with a gun and playing a big guy demanding this and that from everybody around, i'd like to get a gun for myself too for my protection. and nukes are the best defensive weapon (if not the only good one at all).

what about an idea of world without nukes - any single country that have a nuke is under economic sanctions of the other world. and economic sanctions against any rule breaker. of course the biggest players should agree about that, which is very unlikely.

people (at least civilised) should be aware that their land is borrowed from their grandchildren not inheritated from their ancestors and world would be much better.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthmore if states like Iran eventually do get weapons, I see them selling them the first chance they get to extremists who have nothing on their mind other than revenge and the eventual murder of everybody who does not share their beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, common sense (although we're talking about iran here). just to make it sure, i'm not supporting nukes in any country and especially for iran. but, why the xxck so many educated (i guess) people think iran would use or sell those nukes to extremists? i don't know the current price of a nuke but anyway - let's say it's one billion USD. let's say they could make up to 10 nukes and would be willing to sell 5 of them. 5 billion USD. ok, but now compare this number with iran's oil export (which would be nulled in case of a bad decision). add that country would be demolished, put about 30 years behind, probably divided as iraq will be, would immidiately loose a big boss of a region status, maybe forever, poverty, and - leaders wouldn't be leaders anymore.
so i think it is very very very unlikely they would use it or sell it, yet not impossible. still, IMO much better decision than nuking them. just imagine the consequences.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
Iran's conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesday that Israel must be "wiped off the map" and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, the ISNA press agency reported.

[/ QUOTE ]

[John21]

The one positive thing about not finding the WMDs in Iraq, is sending the message that if your regime is even casually linked to any large scale terrorist attack - your regime is over.

Ironically, the rogue nations own self-interest would provide a huge incentive for not allowing nukes to fall into the hands of extremists.