Printable View
Well, go ahead.
I'm not quite an expert in the field, but I know more than enough, especially about subs and nuclear weaponry but feel free to ask anything related to tactics, weaponry, and the government's role in warfare.
So hit me with your questions!
If Israel would launch a Nuke, what are the odds of M.A.D?
Also, what are the odds of a 'terrorist group' using a nuke, and what would be the consequences, what wars would America start :)
Modern warfare turns to button-warfare, if it gets a tad big : /
The chances of MAD are relatively small. Israel would launch, but at it's current state, the Middle East is ill prepared to counter-strike. However, several countries there are beginning work on nuclear weapons programs, so within five years, nuclear war in the Middle East will be a very, very real possibility. Right now, the nuclear powers in the area are limited to Israel, Pakistan and India. Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program, but global attitude towards them is rapidly going sour, and whether they will cave to international pressure is a big question right now.
At the current state of events, however, I doubt that nuclear war there would escalate.
Further, it is extremely unlikely that Israel will fire the first shot in a nuclear war. Their government is too dependent on foreign opinion, and they can't afford the negative impact.
As for terrorists groups, it is extremely likely, and getting moreso every day. Nuclear weapons are becoming more and more within the grasp of smaller organizations. At the moment, a terrorist nuclear strike would have to be made with either direct support from a powerful government, or using a weapon stolen from a powerful government.
The most likely candidate for giving support would be in the Middle East. China doesn't want anybody but them to have possession of nuclear arms, and they've got a pretty good grip on things. The US has good records on the status and location of all of its nuclear weapons, so having one stolen is a rather minute possibility. France and the UK have similarly well-structured weapons caches.
So, the primary major nuclear power for the acquisition of nuclear arms is Russia.
Russia's infrastructure is falling apart at the seams. They're working to get things back together, but after the fall of the Soviet Union, things have been a bit messy. Still, direct sponsorship is unlikely.
Stealing nuclear supplies from Russia isn't terribly difficult though. They had over 400 KNOWN instances of nuclear materials being smuggled across their borders in 2004.
So, a terrorist strike using nuclear weapons is incredibly likely. I'd say it's more a "when" than an "if" at this point. Since the US has a MASSIVE 1,950 mile border shared with Mexico that is almost entirely unsecured.
A modern nuclear arm with a yield of under 1kt, such as those used in the W54 warheads, is small enough to be transported by two or three men. One could carry it, but it's got a weight of about 50 pounds, so carrying it over extended distances is unlikely. It's bulky, too--a little under 3 feet long and a foot wide. Which is small, don't get me wrong, but not tiny.
Now, a weapon of that size could be smuggled across the border, and could easily be detonated in public.
The effects would be far from catastrophic--1 kt is the MAXIMUM yield of a W54 weapon, and that's for the larger variants.
I'd say, the largest plausible nuke that could be smuggled into and detonated in the USA (or any other nation) would have a yield of 20 tons or less. That's not 20 kilotons, that's 20 TONS. For those unfamiliar with nuclear weapon yields, that means that the bomb would have the equivalent of 20 tons of TNT. The bomb, if detonated under ideal circumstances, including an aerial detonation, would have a lethal radius of a little over 500 feet. People within 1,300 feet or so would be at high risk of death from cancer or radiation poisoning within anywhere from a day to a week.
But that's under ideal circumstances. In a city, nearby buildings would severely inhibit the bomb's destructive power. In actual practice, a nuke would likely do significant damage to less than a single block. Especially since it would be extremely difficult to detonate at a significant altitude. Detonating at ground level has an extremely negative effect on a nuke's lethal radius.
So, I'd estimate the maximum possible casualties from a nuclear strike on US soil would be around 400 tops. There'd be a lot of lingering effects, though. With those in mind, the casualties would be a bit higher, but still no more than 1000.
In short, FAR more damage would be psychological than literal. As proved by 9/11, a non-nuclear attack can cause much more damage than a nuclear one. Still, with the increasingly available technology, a nuclear strike is more than possible.
Simultaneously, MAD is largely a thing of the past. The Middle East is the only place I would consider capable of launching a state-sponsored nuclear attack, everybody else has grown out of that phase, so to speak.
Wow, you seem to know your stuff.
You talk about 20 ton bombs, how big are the ones in US possesion normally now?
When I'm going around a corner to the right, should I switch hands so that I don't flag with my shoulder, or is it better to stay with my regular dominant hand's stance?
BIG.Quote:
You talk about 20 ton bombs, how big are the ones in US possesion normally now?[/b]
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about 14,000 tons. Those bombs are half a century old. With the improvements in technology, we've gotten much, much better at destroying pointlessly large amounts of just about anything.
The 20 ton bomb I was talking about earlier was removed from commission in '71, and the US no longer produces them. In fact, the US no longer "wastes it's time" developing nuclear weapons smaller than 5 kilotons.
As of right now, we've got a very, VERY extensive nuclear arsenal. For the most part, there's not much below 150 kiloton range. We do have some smaller, designed for special purposes, but as far as actual bombs and warheads go, they're in the range of 150 kilotons to 10 megatons. We might have developed larger than that, but if we did it's a moot point. After a certain point, bigger nukes don't do more damage. The Russians developed a 50 megaton bomb, but it was a show of strength, not a useful warhead.