Terror attack with a Nuclear Device in the Next 50 Years

Post Reply New Topic

In another thread it was being discussed what changes we might see in the world in the next 50 years as opposed to the last 50 years. My question in this poll is what do you think the chances of a Terror attack with a Nuclear Device in the next 50 years within or outside of the US. And, if you care to, please elaborate on your opinion on this subject.

I am particularly interested on how you feel this would change the US if it were to happen here, if you care to share an opinion on that.

My opinion, is that it is possible for this to happen in the US. And my opinion based on the aftermath of 9/11, is that the country would never be the same. I think many of the division we see today in politics would be broken and the country would come together as a nation, for a much longer period that after 9/11. I think, though, it would be devastating to our economy, and the cultural values of excess that we see everywhere, would be dampened by the dark reality of such an event.

I think it is just a matter of time.

In addition to nuclear attacks there are also chemical and biological attacks. For example what if Achmed, Faisal, Ibrihim and Abdul poison the New York City water supply..

ruveyn

Given, a scenario that noone takes responsibility and we are not able to trace the origin, what do you think our military response would be? One of defense obviously, but do you think an offensive measure would be taken, with no evidence of origin? Given a scenario that a nuclear device killed thousands of people and resulted in billions in property damage, and given a second scenario where thousands of people where killed by a biological attack on the New York Water Supply, but in neither case, definitive evidence of responsibility for the attacks.

where large scale WMD's used then there would be little resources to do anything but rebuild.
even if only a single city were involved it would prove disastrous to any country.

i havent voted as it is such a complex issue but i would say it is definately possible that a nuclear or biological attack could happen, a dirty bomb however is much more likely.

I am not going do detonate a nuclear advice in the foreseeable future.

I have been waiting for a nuclear attack since about 1960. Yes, we did the drills in school and heard about bomb shelters before then, but I did not start expecting it till about '60.

I think so. Pakistan is very unstable, is making nuclear weapons at an incredible rate, will soon have an arsenal the size of the UK or France, and the founder of their program has already been linked to terrorists. It's a disaster waiting to happen.

I was concerned about the possibility of a nuclear attack until the threat of the Soviet Union was dissolved with "Tear Down These Walls Mr. Gorbechov" by Reagan. I quit concerning myself about it until 9/11, and it became relevant again. A terrorist attack with a Nuclear device has never instilled those same fears from my youth over an attack from the Soviet Union. Although, in reality it is probably more likely, while not as devastating as mutual destruction.

Interesting article I read in this link on the perceived danger of Pakistan losing control of some of their Nuclear arsenal to Terrorists, from a Think Tank Organization. I believe the information was released today.

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_pak-may-lose-some-nuclear-weapons-to-terrorists-think-tank_1552307

I realized they had nuclear weapons, but didn't know they had close to as many as India, the UK, or France. I assumed they only had a few.

There is almost 0 chance this ever happens. We're much much more likely to be nuked deliberately or accidently by another country than by terrorists. Terrorists can not acquire the materials, the know how, or the delivery system to ever build a nuclear weapon. Crude IEDs are about the extent of their ability. It is just fear mongering to say otherwise.

a gun type nuke is not at all that hard to design or build, the only problem is getting fissionable material, though i wouldnt be surprised if there is some on the black market somewhere.

biological and chemical weapons can be as or more destructive than a nuke as well.

Of course it's a real threat. THe idea is they would be handed intact bombs not build them in caves. Pakistan has jihadist sympathizers in the military, intelligence and even among their nuclear scientists.

You can't count on fanatics to make rational choices. So it's a risk. If the government falls, you can bet they'll be sweating in DC.

I'm not really afraid of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. They don't currently have a delivery system to hit the US or Europe even in the unlikely event they were to become compromised. They're not going to fly a bomber over the pacific to drop it on us. If Pakistan's nukes fell into the wrong hands, I'd be a lot more worried about India.

Investing in missile defense is a smart plan for to protect against foreign countries or rogue terrorists. We should be able to defend against 1 missile easily.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI, is a very reputable organization that has been around since 1966. I doubt they are fear mongering, in stating that there is a danger that Pakistan may lose some of their nuclear arms to terrorists. This report was released today, so it is the most current information available. This as been seen as a threat in the past, but it is seen as more dangerous one at this point by the SIPRI.

Of course there are security measures that prevent the detonation of the bombs if they are stolen, but part of the concern is one of collusion between elements of the Pakistan Government and Terrorist organizations.

A Dirty Bomb is considered a Nuclear Device because it releases radiation, although it is based on conventional bomb technology for delivery. I intentionally, used that terminology, instead of Nuclear Weapon, so Dirty Bombs would be inclusive of the category of Nuclear Device. It is by far the most likely Nuclear Device to be possibly used by a terrorist.

I agree that the risk of a terrorist building an actual nuclear weapon is extremely low; however the possibility of them acquiring a nuclear weapon, is a danger seen from Pakistan, as reported by the Think Tank Group.

War with Pakistan is not the issue. So delivery systems don't matter.

This isn't a news item manufactured on this forum. It's been a US concern for a decade. It's an unstable third world nation filled with jihadists (and friends) who hate the US. And they are on track to have a nuclear arsenal the size of France. It may not worry you but it worries a lot of other people.

Just last month they fought a day long gun battle with militants on one of their "secure" bases.



Missile defense stops terrorists? That makes my brain hurt to read.

They would ship them in, not fly them on ICBMs.

the issue with a dirty bomb is that if they really have access to a few good engineers building a gun type bomb out of the materials really isnt that hard, if you can run a cnc machine shop and create a circuit for the detonation then you are basically good to go, safety is another concern but maybe that will be the engineers jihad?, the materials will always be the limiting factor, though i suppose unrefined materials could be used for a dirty bomb, making the previous argument mute.

this method could also be used to circumvent the detonation circuit in a (semi)modern nuclear weapons and use the fissionable materials from that, (i know u-238 can be used in gun type, dunno about plutonium)

I said to protect from foreign countries and terrorists who may take control of those nukes. I think we're a lot more likely to be nuked by Russia, China, or Iran once they acquire nukes than any terrorist. Don't see what is confusing about that.

While it may be slightly concerning, there is a big difference between concerning and people declaring that nuclear terrorism is inevitable. I'll start being afraid once these guys start using anything besides crude IEDs made from household items.