I think the world might be in for a few very bad years. Given the mentality of the US, a nuclear retaliation would be likely; with pretty much any target that included lots of dark skin tones and Muslims being okay. One would hope that China the the Russians would stand down, but once nukes start flying around? If N Korea decides that is a good time to go nuts on the South, nukes along their boarder will make it hard for China to sit it out. Russia has lots of assets in the Middle East, presumably where some of America's nukes are going to land. Even a limited exchange, say only 50 or 100 warheads traded back and forth, and the world's economy is in the dumpster for a generation at least. Added to the millions of casualties from the weapons, add millions more from starvation and disease. Big parts of the planet become uninhabitable for decades due to contamination.

All pure madness of course. The only good that might (might) come out of such a disaster is a world turning its back on nuclear weapons once and for all. And maybe, if it was a jihadist attack, the world might turn its back on religion as well. It would be a turning point for humanity, the only real question is which way we will turn.

Oil is no longer as important geopolitically as it had seemed in 2001. If the US ties itself into knots over the illusory opportunity to have a excuse to control oil again, it would be even more foolish than the same thing had been in 2001.

Because how the US comported itself in the aftermath of 2001, the US would be unlikely to receive anything close to a similar level of sympathy, benefit of doubt, and thus freedom of action, as we received in 2001, even if NYC gets nuked.

So directly as a result of what we've done after 2001, we would have fewer opportunities to commit monsterous blunders in case of another quantum leap in terrorism against USA proper.

(January 28, 2016 at 2:26 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 2:12 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: Unless they steal one.

You think it's that easy to just steal something like that?

I'm retired USN. I know how hard it would be without help.

(January 28, 2016 at 1:24 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Hypothetically if a small terrorist group managed a one off nuclear attack on New York City, what do you think would be the consequences for the world?

Where are they located, what country gave them a base of activity, what is "small"? Would we know it is "one-off"?

Immediately, stock markets would drop alongside the buildings. Beyond that, the scenario presented is unclear, except to say that American defense contractors would see a long-range above-average forecast, and speculators in that sector would be smart to drop a few dimes into it. Boeing/Lockheed would come out on top, would be my best guess.

(January 28, 2016 at 1:47 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: When you're talking about a nuclear bomb you're talking about certain governments by necessity. A random group of people with no government resources behind them won't be able to pull something like that in a million years. Nuking those governments and/or the sites that hold further nuclear weapons would be the only thing left to do.

Don't be so sure. The amount of fissile materièl available is plenty:

Quote:There have been no confirmed reports of missing or stolen former-Soviet nuclear weapons, but there is ample evidence of a significant black market in nuclear materials. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported more than a hundred nuclear smuggling incidents since 1993, eighteen of which involved highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient in an atomic bomb and the most dangerous product on the nuclear black market.

http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destr...ukes/p9549

The contradiction in your post won't be addressed.

(January 28, 2016 at 2:29 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: I guess my question is: How much power would the POTUS really have in that kind of situation? Could he just proceed without the backing of Congress, for example?

In that sort of instance, he would have the backing of Congress, no questions asked. Fear is not only the mind-killer, it is the mind-seller.

(January 28, 2016 at 4:58 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 1:47 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: When you're talking about a nuclear bomb you're talking about certain governments by necessity. A random group of people with no government resources behind them won't be able to pull something like that in a million years. Nuking those governments and/or the sites that hold further nuclear weapons would be the only thing left to do.

Don't be so sure. The amount of fissile materièl available is plenty:

Quote:There have been no confirmed reports of missing or stolen former-Soviet nuclear weapons, but there is ample evidence of a significant black market in nuclear materials. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported more than a hundred nuclear smuggling incidents since 1993, eighteen of which involved highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient in an atomic bomb and the most dangerous product on the nuclear black market.

http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destr...ukes/p9549

The contradiction in your post won't be addressed.

(January 28, 2016 at 2:29 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: I guess my question is: How much power would the POTUS really have in that kind of situation? Could he just proceed without the backing of Congress, for example?

In that sort of instance, he would have the backing of Congress, no questions asked. Fear is not only the mind-killer, it is the mind-seller.

It's not so much a contradiction as it is bad phrasing. I was continuing an earlier thought and didn't separate it from the random terrorist group line of thought. My bad.

The fact that there's a black market for certain materials doesn't mean it's not governments who are buying them. It's still quite a stretch to think a random group of people could both acquire and/or make atomic weaponry on their own.

The United States would not be the only ones to react. The entire world would react. A nuclear bomb going off in a major city? That's not something any major country in the world will sit idly by and tolerate. I imagine that most major countries would quickly declare their own war on terror, and probably against terrorist backers as well. There would also be a large scale relief effort.

If a country was found to have supplied the bomb to terrorists, then that country would probably face nuclear retaliation.

The NSA surveillance would increase, and we'd probably see a Trump-Esque response to immigration. Our rights would be trampled on in the name of security.

(January 28, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 4:58 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Don't be so sure. The amount of fissile materièl available is plenty:


http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destr...ukes/p9549

The contradiction in your post won't be addressed.


In that sort of instance, he would have the backing of Congress, no questions asked. Fear is not only the mind-killer, it is the mind-seller.

It's not so much a contradiction as it is bad phrasing. I was continuing an earlier thought and didn't separate it from the random terrorist group line of thought. My bad.

The fact that there's a black market for certain materials doesn't mean it's not governments who are buying them. It's still quite a stretch to think a random group of people could both acquire and/or make atomic weaponry on their own.

Acquiring might well be possible. Making is probably off the table, sure. And dirty bombs which have, ahem, fallout penetrating the DNA is another thing.

What America does with a nuclear attack on New York City is entirely dependant on the actors and circumstances, was my point. But our government will certainly strike at the first available target. It's the American Way.

(January 28, 2016 at 5:19 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 28, 2016 at 5:12 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: It's not so much a contradiction as it is bad phrasing. I was continuing an earlier thought and didn't separate it from the random terrorist group line of thought. My bad.

The fact that there's a black market for certain materials doesn't mean it's not governments who are buying them. It's still quite a stretch to think a random group of people could both acquire and/or make atomic weaponry on their own.

Acquiring might well be possible.  Making is probably off the table, sure. And dirty bombs which have, ahem, fallout penetrating the DNA is another thing.

What America does with a nuclear attack on New York City is entirely dependant on the actors and circumstances, was my point. But our government will certainly strike at the first available target. It's the American Way.

Hopefully the right people will represent America if that scenario ever plays out.

(January 28, 2016 at 5:17 pm)Cecelia Wrote: The United States would not be the only ones to react.  The entire world would react.  A nuclear bomb going off in a major city?  That's not something any major country in the world will sit idly by and tolerate.  I imagine that most major countries would quickly declare their own war on terror, and probably against terrorist backers as well.  There would also be a large scale relief effort.  

If a country was found to have supplied the bomb to terrorists, then that country would probably face nuclear retaliation.

The NSA surveillance would increase, and we'd probably see a Trump-Esque response to immigration.  Our rights would be trampled on in the name of security.

I agree with everything except the dark tone in which you cast the last sentence. It would be an unfortunate thing, but certainly necessary. Both better immigration screening and surveillance, that is.