Nuclear question: what would happen?

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

But that's the whole point. Terrorists don't care how many civilians you kill in response, in their eyes they're all just martyrs whose death only furthers their cause.

I agree.

Countries, that's a different game. Even the most idiotic and genocidal governments (typically - USSR, North Korea etc.) care about themselves and their survival. They understand the language of power.

I agree.

That's right, but we're talking about keeping the psychological balance of terror. The only reason why countries don't give nukes to non-state actors fighting their enemies is the fear of being nuked themselves.

I agree.

If this balance was destroyed, for example if the nuked country didn't respond in the same manner, other could do the same, thinking they're safe from nuclear retaliation.

Here's the thing, I am arguing that the nuked country shouldn't respond just that responding with nukes isn't necessarily the best or most effective response.

Superpowers won't use nukes against each other unless they're desperate, but use of nukes is much more probable in local, regional conflicts.

I am not sure this conflicts with what I said.

 

[Izmunuti]

[..]Britain? Read this:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article423400.ece
and you'll get the idea of what their response would be.[..]

The Sun is hardly representative of anything even approaching reality.

 

[Ansar]

I'd always love to see Mecca nuked.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Says the man with the grim reaper avatar.

 

[sourboy]

Yes, but the one-eyed man would be king.

Yeah, and with all the radiation, maybe he could grow a new eye.

 

[Leonel]

Yes, but the one-eyed man would be king.

That only applies in the land of the blind.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Methinks the one-eyed man would be sent to Guantanamo bay for questioning, in the land of the free.

 

[Leonel]

Methinks the one-eyed man would be sent to Guantanamo bay for questioning, in the land of the free.

Hey! That's un-American talk! How come you aren't in Gitmo?!

 

[Ansar]

Says the man with the grim reaper avatar.

You got me!

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Hey! That's un-American talk! How come you aren't in Gitmo?!

I am 100% un-American, like many Britons. (EDIT: un-American != anti-American btw. I find you lot quaint.)

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I am 100% un-American, like many Britons. (EDIT: un-American != anti-American btw. I find you lot quaint.)

If you're not with us, you're against us.

 

[mdwh]

Those who seem eager to murder millions more people, as if that somehow makes things better, and as if somehow that makes them any different to the terrorists, should answer this:

What if the weapon was secretly built in a western nation, e.g., built in the UK and detonated in the US, or vice versa?

 

[Godwynn]

What if the weapon was secretly built in a western nation, e.g., built in the UK and detonated in the US, or vice versa?

I would emigrate, preferably to Switzerland.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

In all honesty that country would be bombed back into the stone age. Probably just with conventional weapons, but there would be a decent chance of some nuclear weapons making the scene. It doesn't matter whether its the right thing to do, time after time in history countries act irrationally in times of crisis. Politicians would have no time pushing through any extreme measure/retaliation through and there would be cheered on by the public. Right after 9/11 the entire country rallied around Bush and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's only now after the dust has settled and emotions have calmed that we see the error in our ways. With a nuclear attack, I'd say anything the politicians could dream up would be on the table ready to go. Scary, but reality.

 

[Winner]

Those who seem eager to murder millions more people, as if that somehow makes things better, and as if somehow that makes them any different to the terrorists, should answer this:

What if the weapon was secretly built in a western nation, e.g., built in the UK and detonated in the US, or vice versa?

The key question is if the government willingly handed over the nuke to the terrorists. Nothing else matters.

If it was stolen, then the country would be innocent, but if the government knowingly gave the nuke to the terrorists, it would be fully responsible for the consequences.

 

[Winner]

In all honesty that country would be bombed back into the stone age. Probably just with conventional weapons, but there would be a decent chance of some nuclear weapons making the scene. It doesn't matter whether its the right thing to do, time after time in history countries act irrationally in times of crisis. Politicians would have no time pushing through any extreme measure/retaliation through and there would be cheered on by the public. Right after 9/11 the entire country rallied around Bush and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's only now after the dust has settled and emotions have calmed that we see the error in our ways. With a nuclear attack, I'd say anything the politicians could dream up would be on the table ready to go. Scary, but reality.

Not scary, just human. When you come home and find some man raping the dead body of your beloved wife, nobody expects you to act rationally.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Which should be avoided, but we'll try our best not to hurt them in any way.

Well, the point is that a complete glassification of the other country would almost guarantee seriously f-ing up a lot of the world.

Well, actually, I guess there is a debate over that. Does anyone here have much knowledge on the theoretical consequences of nuclear weapons use on a moderate scale? Not like, every single American and Russian nuke going off... just enough to glassify Iran.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Policy dictates a nuclear response; that has been the case since the Soviet Union tested one.

Ideally, this response would be to the attacking (because if you build a nuclear weapon and give it to someone else, you are an attacker) nation's enrichment and production facilities. This will lower civilian casualties (well, when compared to Riyadh or Pyongyang), as nuke plants and centrifuges aren't in the middle of the major city, and show that a nuclear response will follow a nuclear attack.

The second point is extremely important; the world's nuclear arsenal is completely useless if its bluff has been called.

 

[Bill3000]

Nuking mecca would falsify Islam.

 

[holy king]

They have used biological weapons, chemical weapons and I guess they haven't used nuclear weapons just because they haven't had any.

We're talking about people who are firmly convinced, that they're doing the right thing and they'll go to heaven if they do it.

who are they?