Nuclear Capable Terrorists - How Would US/Others React to Detonation?

[Kellhound]

If they had a nuke they wouldn't NEED to det. Like how fucking dumb are we getting here?
Everyone knows, get a nuke, earn the right to negotiations.
Yes it is that simple.
Why negate a lifetime of being able to stand toe to toe at the negotiation tables for a moment of killing some and facing certain death?
Isn't that what stopped america from nuking russia?

About 1000 warheads is what stopped the US, not one or two.

[Nadiru]

Terrorists getting a nuclear weapon is an iffy proposition, at best. Case in point: There's been a nuclear power plant running in the Congo for 50 years and we haven't seen so much as a dirty bomb go off anywhere. And even Pakistan has better control over its nuclear arsenal than the Congolese government has over its civilian nuclear plant. All in all, it's one of those problems that's really scary if you don't do any research or think about it too hard.

- - - Updated - - -

About 1000 warheads is what stopped the US, not one or two.

One or two nukes stopped the US from invading North Korea back in the 1990s, so there's your case study. Nuclear weapons increase territorial sovereignty pretty strongly, there are a few studies to the effect.

[Kellhound]

Terrorists getting a nuclear weapon is an iffy proposition, at best. Case in point: There's been a nuclear power plant running in the Congo for 50 years and we haven't seen so much as a dirty bomb go off anywhere. And even Pakistan has better control over its nuclear arsenal than the Congolese government has over its civilian nuclear plant. All in all, it's one of those problems that's really scary if you don't do any research or think about it too hard.

- - - Updated - - -



One or two nukes stopped the US from invading North Korea back in the 1990s, so there's your case study. Nuclear weapons increase territorial sovereignty pretty strongly, there are a few studies to the effect.

There were many reasons to not invade North Korea, but their nuclear weapons were not really a major concern.

[Nadiru]

There were many reasons to not invade North Korea, but their nuclear weapons were not really a major concern.

In 1994 the US and North Korea were on the brink of war. The only reason Clinton chose to not invade was because the military advised him that US-ROK forces couldn't secure every single nuclear warhead.

[Puri]

It would be extremly shortsighted for terrorists to use a nuclear bomb, no matter where.

This is one of the very few scenarios where I can see the world unite, 9/11 would pale in comparison. Which country would want to risk being next?
You could expect the near and middle east to be under UN control after disbanding most of the governments there, following a large scale international conventional military task force that "combed" the desert for terrorists.

[Hooked]

Our government had better be on this, because if something like this happens on American soil, Obama should be impeached ASAP. Wide open borders, importing people from terrorist countries, if something bad happens Obama needs to be held accountable.

[Rhine101]

In 1994 the US and North Korea were on the brink of war. The only reason Clinton chose to not invade was because the military advised him that US-ROK forces couldn't secure every single nuclear warhead.

Aren't we still technically at war with them?

[Independent voter]

News reports say ISIS is an apocalyptic death cult. They believe that a huge battle between Islam and it's enemies with be fought at Constantinople or Istanbul as it's called today. This will lead to their version of the Rapture where the righteous are taken into Heaven and everyone else is sent to Hell.

If they manages to steal a nuke or make one themselves, a death cult will use it. They would hope it sparks a big enough reaction that it will lead to the Rapture.

[Reeve]

If they had a nuke they wouldn't NEED to det. Like how fucking dumb are we getting here?
Everyone knows, get a nuke, earn the right to negotiations.
Yes it is that simple.
Why negate a lifetime of being able to stand toe to toe at the negotiation tables for a moment of killing some and facing certain death?
Isn't that what stopped america from nuking russia?

No one negotiated with Saddam Hussein, who supposedly had a nuke. Of course he didn't, but there are regimes you negotiate with once they have a nuke, and those you don't.

Besides, ISIS is an apocalyptic death cult. They aren't looking to build a sustainable state. They just want to see the world burn.

- - - Updated - - -

News reports say ISIS is an apocalyptic death cult. They believe that a huge battle between Islam and it's enemies with be fought at Constantinople or Istanbul as it's called today. This will lead to their version of the Rapture where the righteous are taken into Heaven and everyone else is sent to Hell.

If they manages to steal a nuke or make one themselves, a death cult will use it. They would hope it sparks a big enough reaction that it will lead to the Rapture.

First they'll fight and defeat the "armies of Rome" at Dabiq in Syria, then they'll march on and capture "Constantinople" before being pushed back. Then I guess Jesus Christ comes back and kicks the asses of Islam's enemies, rules in peace for 40 years, and then end of the world happens.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I generally agree with a lot of the other people here. If terrorists or a terrorist state were to detonate a nuke in an American city, the idea of Total War would make a comeback.

[Deleted]

Why on Earth would ISIS waste time on missiles when they could just grab a bizjet belonging to some Gulf princeling and turn it into a poor man's cruise missile? The (properly filed) flight path becomes indistinguishable from a legitimate flight until its moments from the target.

- - - Updated - - -



A terrorist-built weapon, maybe. But terrorists aren't going to successfully build a working nuke anyway - ISIS is pretty much the "pinnacle" of a terror group in terms of capability, and while they're sophisticated, they're not that sophisticated. (And if they were that organized, they could do more damage with clever conventional attacks rather than blowing their wad on trying to build a crappy nuke.)

But to carry the absurd and vanishingly unlikely "terrorist nuke threat" to its pseudo-logical conclusion, if terrorists do get a nuclear weapon, it'll be either a stolen Pakistani one, or a Pakistani bomb purchased by Saudi Arabia that then ends up in terrorist hands - such weapons could be anywhere from 20 to 500 kilotons, just like the Pakistani arsenal.

If terrorist get support from nuclear capable state, you better hope the US presidents calls Moscow and India and tells them he is gonna nuke pakistan and please don't counter launch. Actually it would be better if it was a Russian nuke they got cause then the US probably won't counter launch.

but really nuclear terrorism isn't that far fetched, the only hard part is getting a bomb, smuggling it to your target is easy. Tho admittedly a dirty bomb is much more likely then even a low yield device.

[Gorgodeus]

Our government had better be on this, because if something like this happens on American soil, Obama should be impeached ASAP. Wide open borders, importing people from terrorist countries, if something bad happens Obama needs to be held accountable.

Dumbest comment ever. Last I checked, the U.S. has never had a Great Wall built around itself. If someone wanted to get something into the U.S badly enough, it could be done. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything you posted.

[Deleted]

but really nuclear terrorism isn't that far fetched, the only hard part is getting a bomb, smuggling it to your target is easy. Tho admittedly a dirty bomb is much more likely then even a low yield device.

Cargo ship container prob the best way.

Better then mexican border probably.

[Ryme]

Probably untold amount of civilian casualties as the US goes about it's business with the same finesse as Blizzard's balancing and design choices.

[Kellhound]

In 1994 the US and North Korea were on the brink of war. The only reason Clinton chose to not invade was because the military advised him that US-ROK forces couldn't secure every single nuclear warhead.

We were not about to invade NK in 1994. I was in the Pacific Fleet in 1994 stationed on the ready carrier. Yes we were keeping a close eye on them and we were looking at how to attack their nuclear infrastructure, but we were NOT looking to invade.

[Osmeric]

The US would nuke not just ISIS, but the country they got the nuke(s) from.

- - - Updated - - -

Full scale invasion against ISIS, complet and absolute deployment for complete and absolute control and guaranteed results.
Extreme measures against returning ISIS fighters, completely closed borders, extreme increase in counter-intelligence operations.

Joining ISIS becomes an act of treason, which is punishable by death. Kind of odd it isn't already.

[Deleted]

If a nuke went of anywhere in the modern world, the sheer terror of nuclear annihilation would unite everyone from the west of the Balkans and east of Hawaii to utterly decimate everyone in the region. The only reason extremist activity is tolerated is because there are quite a few people who aren't in an "US VS THEM" mindset. If anyone divides the world with an act like the nuke without having the capacity for mutually assured destruction, and they will be mowed down within a year.

Bugger conventional warfare, I'm pretty sure some radical countries would use all those wonderfully disturbing methods of murder we've developed and currently have banned, from flame-throwers to poisoning the water.

Politically, I'd assume we'd see a rather sharp right-wing turn in most countries, civil liberties would be stripped, especially if you were anything but white. Racist and xenophobic groups would gain a bunch of attention and followers, and they would go around causing all new kinds of crap that we'd need to take care of. :P