"Five Ways a Nuclear War Could Still Happen" Topic

"Nuclear war, the exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more states in open conflict. It's unthinkable. It can't happen.

Right?

Wrong.

Of course, nuclear war is extremely unlikely. Although the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has placed the hands of its famous clock at five minutes to midnight, that doesn't mean very much and never has. The fact of the matter is that world nuclear inventories, led by reductions in the United States and Russia, have never been lower, and none of the major powers expects a nuclear conflict in the way they did during the Cold War. To crib a line from Captain Jack Sparrow, however, nuclear war is not impossible, it's improbable, and a nuclear war could take place in more ways than you might think, sparked by any number of occurrences from a pure accident to an intentional strike…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Well written article from a well informed source, sadly some of the comments to the article on the specific website just made me want to weep as that discussion devolved into jingoism and hyperbole. If anything the article just reinforced for me that we need to continue our due diligence to prevent or at least retard nuclear proliferation. The scenarios and stratagems where the thinking of some of the smaller powers was/is to use nukes in order to pull the United States into the conflict are particularly disturbing.

What whitemanticore said.

I'm also disturbed by the religious bent of some of the comments. The fact that there hasn't been a full-scale nuclear war "is undeniable proof of Divine Providence"? And this: "Incidentally we refuse to accept this basic fact: that the previous world wars were implemented and initiated by Satan himself…..and he gave us atomic weapons for a strategic reason!"

Those commenters can't imagine *men* (and women) choosing to make these weapons – and also choosing *not* to use them. They have to believe that some supernatural force must be at work. When you do that, you start removing yourself from the equation. "What will be, will be." Pathetic, and dangerous.

Like you said, it makes me want to weep.

IMO … most likely chance of Nucs being used will be after some islamic fanatics get a hold of one and use it … then all bets might be off …

Remembering back to a lot of the "turn Iran into radioactive glass" ahd thoughts on nuking Afghanistan that were prevalent in sone parts of the US media not many years ago its not just Islamic fanatics who give cause to worry…..

It wasn't just the US media that was discussing turning Iran/Afghanistan into glass self-lighting parking lots 13 years ago.

Agree with our friend whitemanticore.

Amicalement
Armand

The author is correct. Nuclear war is unlikely, but not impossible. All those ideas about the start of a nuclear war or launch of a nuclear weapon, intentionally or accidently, give one pause. The bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were small and primitive compared to the megatons of destruction unleashed now by one bomb, yet they killed and poisoned hundreds of thousands of people. Most of whom were women, children, elderly people and non-combatant civilians (and some Allied prisoners of war). The horror of one bomb launch is almost beyond people's normal imagining. Let's all work for disarmament and reduction of proliferation of nuclear weapons. I agree with whitemanticore and Tango01 on this issue.

How many times has the US almost nuked itself? If by divine providence they mean faculty wiring then I am all for it.

I believe that there are a sect of nutters who welcome nuclear annihilation as a prelude to being raptured into heaven. Hope there is a question about this on any application for strategic forces.

"The scenarios and stratagems where the thinking of some of the smaller powers was/is to use nukes in order to pull the United States into the conflict are particularly disturbing."

Something I have often wondered about, and have as yet seen no answers to, is the question, "If an atomic weapon was detonated by surprise within a country, and no one claimed responsibility, would it be possible to identify its origins?"

I.e., is it possible to launch a false-flag nuclear attack?

Did not read the whole thing, just the "headings" that gave the reasons, and thought to myself,

"OK, so NOTHING has changed, really, it's the same reasons there have always been – must be a slow news day."

If an atomic weapon was detonated by surprise within a country, and no one claimed responsibility, would it be possible to identify its origins?

Yes: link

detailed analysis puts together the unique ‘nuclear fingerprints' that tell how big the explosion was, the kind of bomb it was, and the materials it was made of . . . important clues about where the materials could have come from and who could have built the bomb.

Then you just need to figure out who actually planted the bomb. More detective work.

My money is still on the Iranians or Jihadis stealing, developing, or being given a nuke, and detonating it in a Western city/port, or against Israel.

Sadly, almost 13 years later, after 9/11, our Southern border is still wide open (even more so of late).

After that, all bets are off, and the retribution will, and should be severe.

Yes, supposedly, as mentioned, they should be able to figure out where the bomb(s) came from. Of course, who actually detonated them is a bit more problematical, since some countries have pondered attacks against one, or more enemies, hoping they'll take each other out.

Chortle, about nearly nuking ourselves- we nearly had a Gulf of North Carolina back in 1961 with a rather very faulty Mk 39.

I do see it as divine providence that none of the numerous incidents over the past fifty years resulted in a nuclear exchange. The decision to press, or not to press, the button is in man's hands however.

Russians are the biggest threat, the sore looser concept is very real and a very russian thing.

I have alot of bad things to say about China, but they are probebly the least likely country to use Nukes. They might loose small scale conflicts but they are going through an economic boom(that is destorying their cities and eviorment)

So even if a small scale conflict happens between NATO and China, I doubt nukes will fly.
Also as the US and china are so interconected economicly even small scale conflict would big about a world wide great depression. And I think Both China and US are smart enough to not get into a armed conflict because of the concequenses even with out nukes.

Russia on the other hand is Crazy ivans.

Fear not Chortle, there were very, very, very few times the US almost had a Nuc accident. Like in NC as noted by Southern Phantom. And rapture nutters don't make it to the place of having control of Nucs … at least in the US …

Actually no.

ISIS now has the material for one, or more dirty bombs, and supposedly Syrians, Yemenis, and others are crossing our Southern border, though that is pretty much being ignored by all.

I have no doubt they will attempt to use the material they possess, in short order, once their plans are set.

Hope not!!

Amicalement
Armand

In the comments, this is funny: heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm ….

ISIS now has the material for one, or more dirty bombs, and supposedly Syrians, Yemenis, and others are crossing our Southern border, though that is pretty much being ignored by all.

I have no doubt they will attempt to use the material they possess, in short order, once their plans are set.

Given that we're talking about 40kg of power-plant level uranium, it's more likely that the bomb-makers will irradiate and/or poison themselves before getting one dirty bomb built.

Then you'd need to get said dirty bomb into the US (or Israel). Given the sensitivity of modern radiation detectors, that is a much larger challenge than you'd think.

The problem is that once they got one dirty bomb to detonate ANYWHERE, the West is going to lose their collective minds. I was in the Navy when the ricin/anthrax scares were going on, and that was bad enough.

Cleaning up after a dirty bomb is going to be a nightmare. First responders are going to get horrible amounts of radiation exposure from breathing the uranium dust, and that is ignoring the toxic effects of the metal itself (outside radioactive effects, uranium is a metabolic poison). Freaking horrible stuff. I'd rather face a lovecraftian horror than dirty-bomb cleanup!

More: YouTube link ….

"Given the sensitivity of modern radiation detectors, that is a much larger challenge than you'd think".

Granted, perhaps at US ports, and airports, etc.

However, I suspect that much of the wide-open, Southern border, and/or Pacific Ocean/Carribean Sea is wide open, especially if they encase the stuff in a lead-lined container, or in a large water tank.

There are probably hundreds of drug smuggling tunnels we've yet to discover as well, in the region too. They occasionally run across them in urban areas of San Diego, when the local police, etc. get lucky, but that is pretty rare compared to how many probably really exist.

"The problem is that once they got one dirty bomb to detonate ANYWHERE, the West is going to lose their collective minds".

I concur, and we should, since nothing has been done since 9/11 by our current leadership to really address the situation.

I think a larger worry is if they contaminate the local water reservoirs with the stuff, since the region has so little fresh water for such a large population, already.

That will cause a real crisis, and economic/humanitarian disaster on a monumental scale.

I'd need to look at the numbers again, but I don't think spiking, say, the LA water supply with 40kg of uranium would produce any significant effects. Too much water, not enough uranium. How many tons of chlorine and fluoride does the LA Water Works go through every day?

I've heard rumors of radiation monitors so sensitive that they can spot a 'hot' ship from orbit, and the detectors we had in the shipyard would show a sunny-side concrete wall as being more radioactive than the wall on the north side of the building.

VERY sensitive indeed.

Agee with Mako11. Intent of Jihadi terrorists is to destroy the West. They say it in their own publications and they encourage all anti-West pro-Islamic extremists to carry out attacks.
It has been said by Al-Qaida in writing that "they desire to nuke US cities" – I take the say what you mean, mean what you say thesis that this is in fact their true desire.
-as said the southern border is porous – BUT – there is a lot of scrutiny, especially now.
- if you smuggle one or make it in Canada, too easy to come into US almost all year round. (Akwesane Indians were busted in a long-term narcotics and arms smuggling case earlier this year)
- But the crux of the matter is the device does not have to enter the U.S. to destroy a U.S. city.
one placed in Juarez – goodbye to El Paso, one placed outside Seattle on Canadian border…not even to say anywhere along the northeastern border.
The US politicians and intelligence community IC should stop politicizing and start getting the border security right.

- But the crux of the matter is the device does not have to enter the U.S. to destroy a U.S. city.
one placed in Juarez – goodbye to El Paso, one placed outside Seattle on Canadian border

Seattle is about 60 miles from the Canadian border. You couldn't turn 40kg of Uranium into anywhere NEAR enough boom.

Let's see here. 40kg of 5% enriched is 2kg of pure U235. That's far below a critical mass (you need ~50kg or so without an implosion lens), so you'd need to use an implosion lens to make it go boom. And implosion lenses are hideously complex to make and they must be made perfectly or no nuclear-big boom.

Thanks Lion! – It sure would make a mess even 60 miles from the border – but theoretically speaking – anywhere along the great lakes and all the way up to Maine along the border would be a mess too.

The chance of any state using a nuclear weapon in anger is virtually zero.

As far as smuggling a weapon, it's evidently a lot harder than people want to think.

Yes, any state using a nuc is pretty much 0-1% at best … However, regardless if ISIS considers itself a "state", groups like that, AQ, etc. are not states. But islamic fanatics who mostly likely if they could get their hands on a real nuc would use it. On the US and Israel, plus possibly others … Of course with this type of equation, it may be a 0 – Sum game. By the time you know about it, it may be to late …

I'm getting really tempted to demonstrate the difference between 'stomping terrorists' and 'full industrialized warfare' on the Islamic State.

I have this terrifying thought that as soon as they figure out how to use that 40kg of uranium, they will be formally declared a nation the US and others are at war with. Assuming that the US doesn't simply open with Trident IIs.