By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Will a Nuclear Weapon of Mass Destruction Be Used This Decade?

 

Will there be a Nuclear Weapon of Mass Destruction Detonated on a People Group this Decade?

Yes. It Will Happen 16 10.26%
 
Most likely Yes 20 12.82%
 
Probably Not 99 63.46%
 
No. Impossible. 20 12.82%
 
Total:155

I highly doubt one would be used, atleast not against western powers. If Iran or North Korea use one it will be the last move by their country. The US would have no option but to level that country.



Around the Network
Griffin said:
I highly doubt one would be used, atleast not against western powers. If Iran or North Korea use one it will be the last move by their country. The US would have no option but to level that country.

You cant kill millions for the sake of one country losing the plot, it would be more ideal to invade and crush their government and military.



brendude13 said:
Hmm, I hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Terrorist groups could get hold of a nuclear bomb, or as people have already said, North Korea could drop one.

I wouldn't be surprised if the USA dropped one either, depends if an idiot gets in as President again.


Harry Truman was NOT at idiot, and no president since then has even seriously pondered use of nuclear weapons due to MAD (mutually assured destruction)... not even Bush as you seem to be implying.

Really... the Bush bashing is getting old... we have a whole new type of idiot in the office now.  While it is true that we haven't had a good president in the USA for decades, let us at least try to live in the now. 



brendude13 said:
Griffin said:
I highly doubt one would be used, atleast not against western powers. If Iran or North Korea use one it will be the last move by their country. The US would have no option but to level that country.

You cant kill millions for the sake of one country losing the plot, it would be more ideal to invade and crush their government and military.



Not sure if serious.....IF a nation like X nukes a nation such as Y, then you should expect Y to retaliate with maximum lethal force because just 1 nuke being dropped to nation Y is obviously with the intention of obliterating it. IIRC, current nukes are approx 20 times stronger than the Hiroshima/Nagazaki ones. From a self preservation standpoint, if I was nation Y and I JUST got nuked, you better believe I WILL turn that other nation to glass as I expect them to follow up on that nuke. You honestly cannot expect nation Y to send regular military force and air raids when perhaps millions of lives are already lost within seconds.



Make games, not war (that goes for ridiculous fanboys)

I may be the next Maelstorm or not, you be the judge http://videogamesgrow.blogspot.com/  hopefully I can be more of an asset than a fanboy to VGC hehe.

On topic...

I do not think we'll see one in the next decade. The "rogue states" will be more hesitant to use such weapons than most people think because doing so will isolate them and encourage mass retaliation. Then again, if a ruler is delusional enough or idealogically blinded to the utter stupidity of employing nuclear weapons, then who knows.

I still say, "no".

On the other hand, the worlds financial underpinnings will be torn asunder and the world as we know it will be gone. However, this has more to do with fiscal policy than nuclear proliferation.



Around the Network
hunter_alien said:
Few countries could use it in combat and get away with it ( USA, Russia, China, maybe an EU state). So dont be afraid, your childish nightmares of N-Korea or Iran using them is more improbable then a more ``civilized`` one using them Except if they are ran down, in which case I hope they do use it...

I love it when somebody reads a biased article and thinks that they know all that is to be known about its subject

If you are suggesting that I started this thread only from this one article then you have been mislead. This thread was created due to the knowledge that is known by countries possessing nuclear weapons, and how the tensions around the world do justify the possibilities of a horrific weapon like this being used. Don't think Im blindly posting based on one article. That was added just to support current events of what is going on today with nuclear development as ballistic weapons.

And the only way I could see a more "civilized" country using one is if some type of desperation, or crisis was set in place. And even then IMO its still far fetched they would actually use a weapon of that much devistation unless it was first used on them, or they were about to be annihilated.




Crazymann said:
On topic...

I do not think we'll see one in the next decade. The "rogue states" will be more hesitant to use such weapons than most people think because doing so will isolate them and encourage mass retaliation. Then again, if a ruler is delusional enough or idealogically blinded to the utter stupidity of employing nuclear weapons, then who knows.

I still say, "no".

On the other hand, the worlds financial underpinnings will be torn asunder and the world as we know it will be gone. However, this has more to do with fiscal policy than nuclear proliferation.

Granted it is difficult in some aspects to see a country like N. Korea or Iran  use one outright unless in a desperate state, however what I argue is that its MORE LIKELY that a "rogue state" country would secretly give a weapon of mass destruction over to a terrorist organization. If a terrorist organization detonates such a weapon then no country would have any paticular country to retaliate against. So they could not pin it on any nation.




Chrizum said:

Depending on the country being nuked, it certainly doesn't have to be a bad thing.

Seriously dude? How is it not a bad thing for millions of innocent lives to die from a nuclear attack? Not to mention the generations after that who will be ruined due to the radiation. Just because some countries have corrupt governments or terrorists, doesn't mean that the people are bad. Please rethink your statement because what you said is a very grave thing to say.



Allfreedom99 said:
hunter_alien said:
Few countries could use it in combat and get away with it ( USA, Russia, China, maybe an EU state). So dont be afraid, your childish nightmares of N-Korea or Iran using them is more improbable then a more ``civilized`` one using them Except if they are ran down, in which case I hope they do use it...

I love it when somebody reads a biased article and thinks that they know all that is to be known about its subject

If you are suggesting that I started this thread only from this one article then you have been mislead. This thread was created due to the knowledge that is known by countries possessing nuclear weapons, and how the tensions around the world do justify the possibilities of a horrific weapon like this being used. Don't think Im blindly posting based on one article. That was added just to support current events of what is going on today with nuclear development as ballistic weapons.

And the only way I could see a more "civilized" country using one is if some type of desperation, or crisis was set in place. And even then IMO its still far fetched they would actually use a weapon of that much devistation unless it was first used on them, or they were about to be annihilated.

I should have calrified: It wasnt intended as a direct attack to you or the topic, it was a reaction to all the "OMG N-Korea will drop da b0mb on us!!!!!11!eleven!!!" people. Lets face it most people who have an opinion in this thread only know about N-Korea because of Homefront.

As an example, a guy above us just posted something about how atomic bombs are 20x more powerfull now then they where durin WWII. How can somebody write a dumb thing like that AND get away with it? I have no idea.... at least read a wikipedia article or something before posting.



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

brendude13 said:
Griffin said:
I highly doubt one would be used, atleast not against western powers. If Iran or North Korea use one it will be the last move by their country. The US would have no option but to level that country.

You cant kill millions for the sake of one country losing the plot, it would be more ideal to invade and crush their government and military.

Lets say Seoul gets nuked tomorrow, one of the largest cities in the world.  The response from the US would be of a swift full on destruction of North Korea.  The US woundn't just sit back and invade the country and use their military power to kill them.  What would happen if they went with standard war plans and North Korea shoots more Nukes off and hits Japan or aircraft carrier groups.  The US has only one option and thats to protect the rest of their allies from further nuclear strikes.