I'd like to hear your opinions on the possibility of nuclear terrorism in our lifetime, that is, someone with a suitcase nuke detonating it in the middle of a large city. Is this a possibility? I feel it is, but I don't fear it, because I figure mankind, being the destructive, arrogant, predators we are will eventually destroy ourselves one way or another anyway. As long as the technology exists, so does the potential for it to be used. I'd like to be more informed though, so I'm asking you guys what you think.

You should read Tom Clancy books. They seem right up your alley.

for once, I agree with nikky

Given all the alliances among superpowers, I don't think anyone is hasty about dropping nuclear weapons on each other just now. Depending on who is being targeted, it might set-off a cascade reaction of nuclear retaliation. Anyone brazen enough to go there would be doomed the moment they pushed the launch button.

My understanding of the limitations of weapons technologies is that nuclear weapons wouldn't mean mass-devastation, unless deployed in a large enough scale. I think a single nuclear missile would only be capable of taking out a city, while the fall-out would poison and irradiate the surrounding environment in such a way as to slowly exterminate all life therein. There's also the challenge of developing long-range missiles in the first place. Even if a country had nuclear technology, it may not have a suitable way to deliver it to a target. Then there's the matter of monitoring projectiles. The target country may be able to detect and disable the missile before it reaches them. At the least, they could extrapolate the missile's trajectory and attempt to evacuate the target area.

I'm mostly under the impression that nuclear capabilities are somewhat overstated. If not nuclear capabilities, then simply the capabilities of missile-delivery systems. Whether or not this will see substantial changes in my lifetime, I'm not sure. Even so, I don't think anyone *wants* a nuclear holocaust to occur. It's just ridiculous for anyone to think that they would be impervious to mutually-assured destruction if they picked a nuclear fight. Then again, I guess it's possible someone could be truly insane enough to do it.

No.

Also, dumb thread.

While the thought had crossed my mind, I wasn't talking about superpowers or even rogue states using a Nuclear weapon, but just one guy, maybe part of a terrorist organization, setting off one bomb in one major city. I'm sure the threat is overstated, I just want to know how overstated.

Seconded.

Thirded

Next troll single-word post and this topic gets locked.

Why did Nikky have to come and stink up the place?

Back on topic... I'm fairly confident we will see a nuke detonated or some type of biological agent released on our soil in our lifetime.

My gut says that too, but my gut's been wrong before, so what evidence can we use to back-up or refute that idea? I guess that's basically what I've wondering this whole time.

And where is he going to get a suitcase nuke? More importantly, where is he going to get the knowledge on how to use it?

The term "suitcase nuke" is also extremely vague. You probably think of something fairly small and inconspicuous, but the more likely scenario is something that is still larger than a person.

As far as anyone knows, only the US and Russia has ever succeeded in building a mini nuke in the first place. The public details about such weapons don't provide any evidence for the massively overblown "suitcase nuke" crap.

For example, the W54: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54
11 inches in diameter, 16 inches long - pretty darn small, right? But it weighs 50 lbs. Pretty dang heavy. Heavy enough to cause suspicion just about anywhere. It's also very, very low yield. 10-20 ton yield. The nuke you tend to think of is probably "Fat Man", the one dropped on Nagasaki. That sucker had a 21 kiloton yield. We're capable of making nukes in the 50-100 kiloton range now. Now sure, a W54 would still do quite a bit of damage, but it won't come anywhere close to leveling a city. A couple of blocks, sure, but that's probably about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

My gut says its time to go take a dump.

lol?

and Kerm, very tempted to make this thread locked

Lock the topic? We should at least give allynfolksjr a chance to deride a fellow TI community member.

If we're just talking about terrorist organizations, then there's really nothing to worry about. Terrorists have to resort to guerrilla warfare because they lack the resources or backing to do anything else. They most certainly lack the resources to get their hands on nuclear technologies; and it's not as if that's something you can just buy off of the black market.

Remember that terrorists think and operate on a pretty small scale. They have to improvise with whatever they can get their hands on. That's why they deploy IEDs, resort to suicide-bombings, hi-jack vehicles and crash them into stuff, etc. It's a crude - but effective - way of inflicting terror and destruction.

I think some people are getting ahead of themselves, and are allowing themselves to come under the impression that terrorist organizations have some substantial backing from large governments; or otherwise have the resources to inflict mass-destruction. It doesn't help that U.S. officials have played the threat up as something more substantial than it actually is. 9/11 was crude terrorist tactics at work. They hi-jacked jetliners and crashed them into buildings. That was the only way they could cause any notable damage. It's not like they have tactical missiles or wide-scale explosives at their disposal; but the lasting terror that was inflicted by the attack is the only thing that really gave the organization its power, or influence. People have to let that fear go, and see their tactics for what they really are: Crude and trivial.

U.S. intelligence has shown that Iran has been helping the resistence in Iraq with IEDs.

Sounds almost like what was attempted in the "Angels vs. Demons" movie, only they used "Dark Matter/Anti-Matter" instead, which is much more destructive supposedly.

Weren't a large number of functional nuclear warheads "misplaced" during the break-up of the Soviet Union? Or is that media sensationalism at it's worst?