North Korea has the bomb and is working on long range missiles, Iran will soon have it which in turn will launch a nuclear race in the middle east. To many rogue nations, with fanatical citizens and leaders, are obtaining nuclear technology to think that a nuclear attack isn't in the foreseeable future. My best guess is 15 to 20 years.
How long before a nuclear attack occurs?
- Thread starter BigSexyCat
- Start date
Yeah that dooms day clock is closer than ever. I think the most likely scenario for an attack will occur with someone sneaking in a bomb on a van into a U.S. city and detonating it.
Keep this in the Paddock, but it's 1 year, 3 months, 17 days and about five hours. Make your peace.
If you tell, it will be sooner.
If you tell, it will be sooner.
a non-test nuke will be set off with the intent to kill/destroy somewhere in the world within the next 15-20 years
It is 1940's technology, it is gonna be obtained by those who truely want it. and so many conflicts firing up across the planet the chances if someone putting it to use are just too great.
It is 1940's technology, it is gonna be obtained by those who truely want it. and so many conflicts firing up across the planet the chances if someone putting it to use are just too great.
I'd say within 20 years an American city will go up . We had better find an effective way to curtail terrorist attacks because one of their factions will eventually obtain the materials and expertise to make a suitcase type nuclear device . Look for a coastal city to be hit if it happens , trying to move it into the interior of the country is an unnecessary risk . It's more dangerous now than when only the superpowers had it .
This post was edited on 3/16 10:03 PM by Xception
This post was edited on 3/16 10:03 PM by Xception
It's been nice knowing funKY, but I'm fairly sure he knows the location of the Fulcrum. He will be eliminated by the time I hit submit.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Too much of this earth will be covered in cameras, thankfully. What is it, the average American is on camera 11 times a day or something? Security measures, tied with biometrics and other tech, are growing fast. The window for a "sneak attack" is closing.
Not only that, but software and technological advancements will negate a nuke, at some point.. the problem is A. will these advancements get here in time or B. will they prove to be an entirely new threat.
So is Iran really getting it this time? I mean they've been saying they were getting it since the late 60's. Laughable
North Korea is no joke though.
North Korea is no joke though.
People in the Cold War thought it'd be any day and it never happened. With that said, we now live in the reality of terrorism, so it's *possible* that it could happen soonish, but with increased intelligence operations I'd be surprised if a terrorist operation let one loose. Much more likely it would be done by N Korea, but even then I'm not sure Un is that stupid.
^^ Can you do that next weekend? I'm just a minor prophet, but I could probably call in some favors.
I am by no means educated on the whole nuclear subject, but I have felt for awhile now that it is coming mainly due to the intense terrorist activity that is going on now. I am not sold Iran, N Korea, others will do it anytime soon, but I can definitely see someone like ISIS getting their hands on one and making it happen.
So what happens if an American city did get hit with a suitcase nuke by terrorists and nobody took credit for it , what should the response be and against whom . That's what makes this much more threatening than the Cold War , in that situation there was a static target (Russia) in place that knew a counter strike would come . Even if you knew which terrorist cell did it what is the response and what dominoes get set off by that response ?
Who is "they've" sparky, the mouse in your pocket? Because I'm pretty sure noone else on this planet was claiming Iran was trying to get nukes in the 1960's. Up until 1979 Iran was a pro-western great friend of the USA.
The discovery of them pursuing nukes and being highly advanced in doing so in the early 2000's was a worldwide shock, not a "ho hum, this has been going on since the 60's!!"
How long has Iran, Syria, etc. had chemicals weapons?
How many times have they used those on us?
They can get nukes. How many are missing from the old Soviet republics? The question is, will they be able to get them into the US and or Israel and set them off?
Some terrorist will set one of somewhere in the next 15 years, but it will likely be a Western friendly target in the middle east.
How many times have they used those on us?
They can get nukes. How many are missing from the old Soviet republics? The question is, will they be able to get them into the US and or Israel and set them off?
Some terrorist will set one of somewhere in the next 15 years, but it will likely be a Western friendly target in the middle east.
I think it could happen at any moment. This stuff isn't limited to other nations. Now it includes fanatical religious organizations, and even splinter cells made up of Americans scattered throughout the nation.
Ya biometrics, etc may catch them. But the two boston marathon bombers still pulled off their attack, despite one being on the watch list.
Too much accessibility. Too much to monitor. Especially given the new enemies within.
Ya biometrics, etc may catch them. But the two boston marathon bombers still pulled off their attack, despite one being on the watch list.
Too much accessibility. Too much to monitor. Especially given the new enemies within.
Pakistan gets them to ISIS launch attack in Europe or Mossad false flag causing WW3. Both within 3 years
Nuclear terrorism is inevitable. Following the trends in miniaturization and cheapening costs of technology, a nuclear terrorism even will occur within the next 30-40 years. There isn't anything we can do.
This right here is exactly what makes the possibily so frightening. If there is no target for a response, it would make this the most sought after method for mass destruction with little loss to the terrorist.
That is actually a very good question. How would the U.S. respond to a undisclosed nuclear attack? You can't let that type of attack go and not retaliate but then if you retaliate against another nuclear power then a nuclear war begins. So its within reason to believe that a single radicalized terrorist cell could end the world.
Even if no group took credit, I would think that forensics could determine the characteristics of the weapon and, along with intelligence sources, it could be dtermined who exploded the weapon.
Wouldn't all forensics be incinerated in the explosion? Intelligence may or may not lead you to the culprit. I'm guessing the US has a very large number of threats at any given time that could be theorized as being the trigger man.
Actually no, the forensics would not be completed incinerated in the explosion. There is a lot that could be learned about the weapon while sifting throu the rubble. The destruction is never 100% complete. With a terrorist bomb, we're not talking about a 1000 megaton H-bomb.
Pakistan already has nukes which worries much about as much as Iran getting one if not more. If a country like that or N. Korea were ever stupid enough to detonate one of these weapons the response from the West would be overwhelming. They are not stupid or suicidal. At any rate, my biggest concerns is with counties like this joining the nuclear club is security of the materials. In the case of Iran how easy would it be for Hezbollah or some outfit like that to get enough materials to manufacture a suit case nuke put it on a Cessna Citation and aim it at a Western target or Israel. That's the big concern IMO.
I think a bigger concern would be a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility such as Oak Ridge. In just the past year a nun breached the security of the Oak Ridge Y12 facility. Luckily she was only an eco-terrorist and merely splattered blood on the walls rather than planting an explosive device. Other facilities such as the Savannah River Site in South Carolina may be even less protected, and are closer to the coast. Not sure that we can really measure the effects if there was a successful attack on one of those facilities.
If there was... the problem for the US, other than cleanup, would be the response. A nuclear attack on a terrorist cell would not be an appropriate retaliation because there wouldn't be a place to target just the terrorists. We'd be nuking an entire city and country just because it might have some terrorists. We could do as we've done with the response to 9/11 but that would be a rather long and drawn out response rather than a massive show of force. I'm not entirely sure that there would be an appropriate response that would be able to intimidate and show our might as well as target just those that are the aggressors. Hopefully it is a problem we don't have to face anytime soon.
If there was... the problem for the US, other than cleanup, would be the response. A nuclear attack on a terrorist cell would not be an appropriate retaliation because there wouldn't be a place to target just the terrorists. We'd be nuking an entire city and country just because it might have some terrorists. We could do as we've done with the response to 9/11 but that would be a rather long and drawn out response rather than a massive show of force. I'm not entirely sure that there would be an appropriate response that would be able to intimidate and show our might as well as target just those that are the aggressors. Hopefully it is a problem we don't have to face anytime soon.
I think the main reason some of these third world countries want these weapons has more to do with regime survival than a threat to use them against neighbors. You would think twice about invading a country if it has nukes and a leader crazy enough to use them.
I think forensics and intelligence could trace the materials back to Iran if Hezbolla or any Iranian sponsored group got the materials and targeted Israel or the West. I don't think Iran doesn't want that to happen.