What are the chances of a US city being nuked?

What are the chances of a US city being nuked?

  • Very little

  • 50/50

  • Very likely.

  • RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!


Results are only viewable after voting.

SavedByGrace3

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)
Supporter
Jun 6, 2002
19,640
3,658
Midlands
Visit site
✟551,529.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What are the chances of a US city suffering a nuclear attack at some point in the future? The attack may be from any source... foreign enemy, terrorists, hate groups, or just a nut case.
 

xMinionX

Contributor
Dec 2, 2003
7,828
461
✟18,028.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Define 'Nuke.' Nuclear missile? Small, covert bomb (suitcase, etc)? Dirty bomb?

I think there's about a 50/50 chance of a real nuclear bomb going off. Nothing really to base this on except my gut. I see little possibility of a nuclear missile coming in, as few have either the reason or the capability to complete such a task.

But a dirty bomb seems more than likely. It's easy enough to put together that it's more viable.
 
Upvote 0

MoodyBlue

Veteran
Jun 14, 2004
2,047
145
67
Virginia
✟17,934.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
LogicChristian said:
The US has the greatest retaliatory nuclear capability on the face of the planet, I'd say the odds are pretty slim.

How does one nuke shadowy terrorist groups? Do you think terrorist groups are in any way intimidated by our retaliatory nuclear capability? What if the nuke is detonated by one of our own (a la Timothy McVeigh)? How do we retaliate then? Just a few questions that came to mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwinCrier
Upvote 0

simplicity

incredibly ordinary member
Jun 29, 2002
2,610
128
57
Toronto
Visit site
✟3,507.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Nuking is an illogical first-strike approach since it is impossible to stop a devastating response.

A more effective terrorist attack would be to lace water and food supplies with pathogens. However that doesn't have much political value since we cannot definitively link the event with the cause. Bin Ladin's approach of simply waiting while the U.S. exhausts its resources and alienates other nations seems to be an effective strategy.

China is one of Canada's biggest trading partners now. The Chinese are getting together with the Russians. It's like the dynamics are so totally different these days.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

simplicity

incredibly ordinary member
Jun 29, 2002
2,610
128
57
Toronto
Visit site
✟3,507.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Cerberus~ said:
It's difficult nuking terrorists.

I went 50/50. But if it does happen, I bet it'll be traced back to the border.

See it's that sort of stuff that has distanced the U.S. from its traditional allies. Canada has a tiny population spread out over a huge land mass. We can barely afford to patch up our roads let alone police all the traffic going across the border.
 
Upvote 0

Oblivious

Matthew 7:12
Nov 6, 2003
12,602
615
The Mile High City
✟31,244.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It depends on what damage a "suit case" nuke could do. Honestly, I'll admit I don't know, but I would think it wouldn't be able to destroy a good size city (e.g New York, L.A.). If I'm wrong, please someone correct me. :)

A nuke being launched at a city from a terrorist group? I don't believe that will ever happen, well, at least not anytime soon. I'm with LogicChristian on our retaliatory nuclear capability. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Mystery24

Member
Sep 8, 2005
6
1
44
✟15,133.00
Faith
Pagan
Politics
US-Green
Let's see, who has (or is developing) nuclear power: USA, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran.

Obviously, some of these states are not our greatest allies, would probably we willing to sell weapons if the price was right. I don't doubt that terrorists will one day get their hands on a nuke, and I don't think they would hesitate to use them. I think it's very likely that one day, there will be a nuclear attack on American soil. :sigh:
 
Upvote 0

pantsman52

Senior Veteran
Dec 29, 2003
3,462
220
52
Fairfield
✟4,755.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
How far into the future exactly? I mean, if you just mean "whenever", then I guess that there is very close to 100% chance of it happening, since there is no time limit. Nuclear weapons will spread more and more, they will become easier to make, and at some point in time we will get nuked.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dracil

Well-Known Member
Dec 25, 2003
5,005
245
San Francisco
✟16,707.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
pantsman52 said:
How far into the future exactly? I mean, if you just mean "whenever", then I guess that there is very close to 100% chance of it happening, since there is no time limit. Nuclear weapons will spread more and more, they will become easier to make, and at some point in time we will get nuked.
Actually, it won't necessarily hit 100% chance.

There's a good chance the US will simply implode (politically), collapse on itself, and cease to exist as the USA.
 
Upvote 0

Norseman

EAC Representative
Apr 29, 2004
4,706
256
20
Currently in China
✟13,677.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
If you were smart, and wanted to cause serious damage or casualties, nukes would be one of the worst ideas. And seeing as you need to be fairly smart to begin with to construct or operate a nuke, that probably means there won't be any terrorists nuking anything. They'd be more likely to poison the water supply, blow up a chlorine plant, or kill some people in the presence of the media (the effects of terrorism are much more damaging than the acts which caused terror). Simple things. Neither expensive nor difficult and only minimally risky. A nuke either must be stolen (risky and difficult) bought (expensive) or built (very difficult). It must be transported to where it will be detonated which is both risky and difficult, as the US government has placed geiger counters on many freeways, so transport could only be done on less common roads, and even then there is no guarantee the vehicle won't be detected. Going across states would also be rather difficult, but I suppose not impossible. Or, with almost no effort, they could plant a truck bomb at a chlorine gas plant, and the resulting gas could kill an entire city if the wind is blowing that way. Same damage, but with way less effort, risk, and financing. Incidently, that's why I think we should have greater security measures around potentially dangerous facilities.

In any case, it's highly unlikely that terrorists, or nutcases, or hate groups (?) would nuke us. But what about Russia, Iran, China, or North Korea? Well, that's where MAD comes in. No foreign ruler would send a nuke our way unless he wanted to die along with his entire family, all his friends, and pretty much everyone he's ever known when we retalliate. Again, it's not very likely. Indeed, a foriegn ruler could probably cause more harm more safely by just supporting groups that are already fighting us, such as Al Qaeda. They wouldn't get nuked, but they could still be indirectly killing us and blaming it on them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums