When are we gonna get nuked? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

eyeronic · 02-03-2004, 09:57 PM

What better place than paranoia for this question?
I am more terrified now than I ever was during the cold war about the prospect of a dirty bomb or even a real warhead blowing up a major American city in the near future. Just wondering how others felt about this and when you think it might happen. I am starting to feel that the building hatred for our country might make this inevitable.

Links to relevant articles are welcome.

hklong741 · 02-04-2004, 08:12 AM

Would there ever be a legitimate reason for nuking a US city? And I would hope a dirty bomb might be more manageable than a full- blown nuclear detonation, but then the effect on the public's pysche might be the real issue. And, more importantly, would we ever learn the whole truth behind it, see as how the government is well aware of their every-increasing vulnerability to rule in such a state.

But then I discount George Clooney's and Nicole Kidman's nuke-busting capabilities!

Shame on me...

Psivage · 02-04-2004, 08:26 AM

June 26, 2008

slvrnblck · 02-04-2004, 11:53 PM

We will get nuked in the year 2015 by the Russians. They will send a nuclear missle to every major city in the US and China, 3 billion people will be killed.

numist · 02-05-2004, 12:09 AM

yikes, that was a bit specific for my liking.

The possibilities of a 'terrorist' attack using a nuclear missile are very low, mainly because terrorists, as far as we know, dont have ICBMs available to them, so theyd have to build them here.

We will most likely get hit by a computer failure or idiot attack by a bumbling president.

The world is reactionary, all we have to do is launch one first, and Im sure we can cause everyones tangled alliances to destroy the world.

hulk · 02-05-2004, 02:46 AM

I'm going to have to agree with John Titor on this, we'll find out if he's right by next year...

Charlatan · 02-05-2004, 08:00 AM

Two words...

Suitcase bomb.

fik · 02-06-2004, 08:50 PM

6-10 yrs for a nuclear blast in the US.

Anyone want to bet which city is first?

Nancy · 02-07-2004, 03:16 PM

sure glad that I don't live in the US. Don't you guys ever get freaked out because of this possible threat?

skier · 02-08-2004, 01:50 AM

I think it all depends on how tough countries get with nuclear anti-perliferation. But with many second world countries with nuclear arsenals, i would expect nuclear weapons to begin to be used in as little as 10-20 years. 5 if President bush stays in power.

PorscheBunny · 02-08-2004, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fik
6-10 yrs for a nuclear blast in the US.

Anyone want to bet which city is first?

Washington DC, during a Presidential inauguration: maximum effect from one bomb.

kurtisj · 02-08-2004, 12:24 PM

6-10 years got my vote. All the shit we have gotten into over the years, we have way to many countries pissed at us.

Astrocloud · 02-08-2004, 04:44 PM

Front Page of the Boston Globe

Quote:

$7b effort to disarm ex-Soviet WMDs slows

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, 2/8/2004

WASHINGTON -- Twelve years after the collapse of the Soviet Union left weapons of mass destruction scattered throughout Russia and its breakaway republics, most of the fallen empire's vast arsenal remains intact and dangerously underprotected, according to new military data compiled over the past year.
ADVERTISEMENT

While the United States has spent more than $7 billion to remove all nuclear warheads from three former Soviet republics -- Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus -- and has destroyed hundreds of missiles, the task remains less than half done. Defense Department figures show that fewer than half of the 13,300 warheads slated for deactivation had been destroyed by the end of 2003, with prospects for finishing the task stretching out more than a decade.

On Jan. 27, Matthew Bunn of Harvard's Managing the Atom Project told the Senate that less than half of 600 metric tons of highly enriched uranium and plutonium is even minimally secure. The rest is protected by as little as a rusting fence and a guard, and it will take 13 years to secure it at the current pace, he said.

Almost none of the Soviet 40,000-ton chemical weapons stockpile, much in shells that could fit inside a suitcase, has been destroyed.

Security specialists say disposing of these weapons is the best chance to prevent a more catastrophic follow-up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They are calling on the Bush administration to resolve serious bureaucratic delays in the United States and Russia that are hampering efforts to secure dangerous materials.

With Al Qaeda seeking nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, intelligence specialists believe that the risk that stray Soviet material could be used against US citizens has increased since the end of the Cold War -- yet political will to reduce the threat has stagnated.

Senator Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican who co-sponsored the first program to bring the materials under control with then-Senator Sam Nunn, Democrat of Georgia, said President Bush was initially skeptical about keeping the program but has since "indicated his enthusiasm and commitment." Still, Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would welcome a more urgent push from the White House.

"I would appreciate it if the president . . . mentioned the Nunn-Lugar program continuously," he said. "It does not have the same topicality of new initiatives that the president has come up with. It's a program that goes on, like a brook, and the dilemma really is to stimulate the rank-and-file in the Congress, many of whom were not there at the end of the Cold War and many of whom have not been involved in going to Russia."

Graham Allison, an assistant secretary of defense while Bill Clinton was president, said neither Clinton nor Bush gave these efforts the priority they deserve, though he faulted Bush in particular for neglecting the program at the same time he has stressed the danger of weapons of mass destruction falling into terrorist hands.

Allison cited a case of equipment purchased to upgrade nuclear storage facilities that sat in a warehouse for five years due to disputes over access and whether the United States or Russia would pay to install it.

"There are problems that have been allowed to fester for years," he said. "That doesn't happen if you're taking these things seriously -- which isn't to say that the people at the working level trying to get the job done aren't taking it seriously. There's only so much they can do without sustained leadership at the highest levels."

A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, disputed that characterization. The official noted that Bush asked G-8 nations to match $10 billion in planned US spending and won authorization to waive requirements delaying construction of a Siberian chemical weapons disposal plant.

"I think our record is a terrific one," the official said.

But security specialists say bureaucratic snags have gone unresolved while the White House focused on other matters.

"At this point I'm making my role literally each year and each month to try to work to find where the obstacles are -- on the authorization level, on the appropriation level, if someone in the administration may have had second thoughts on the second or third tier below the secretary -- and elevate that to the attention of the president," Lugar said.

Interviews with numerous nonproliferation specialists, including Laura Holgate of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which is devoted to bringing the former Soviet arsenal under control, revealed five consistent problems:

Russian officials have blocked access to key sites -- a problem that might be resolved by emphatically bringing it to President Vladimir Putin's attention.

No single official is responsible for the success of the threat reduction effort, whose programs are dispersed between three departments and susceptible to turf wars.

Visa difficulties have delayed key meetings between US and Russian officials.

A dispute over whether Russia must completely shield the United States from liability in the unlikely event of sabotage by a US official has killed programs that dispose of plutonium and retrain nuclear technicians to keep them from selling their skills on the black market.

Members of the House Armed Services Committee have attached strings to certain provisions and delayed the release of funds for key programs.

In 2001, a task force cochaired by Howard Baker, former Republican senator from Tennessee, and Lloyd Cutler, counsel in the Clinton White House, found that an additional $30 billion was needed just to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union.

"It really boggles my mind that there could be 40,000 nuclear weapons, or maybe 80,000 in the former Soviet Union, poorly controlled and poorly stored, and that the world is not in a near-state of hysteria about the danger," Baker told Congress at the time.

Still, the United States spends only about $1 billion a year to secure not just nuclear, but also chemical and biological, weapons inside the former Soviet Union. Last year, Congress authorized some of those funds to be spent outside the former Soviet Union without giving additional money. Other G-8 nations have pledged to match the US effort, but much of the money has yet to materialize.

In 1991, Lugar and Nunn got about $400 million to start the program in the Defense Department. A few years later, that was augmented by related programs in the Energy and State departments. Funding has stayed flat since.

"Because of political gridlock, that's been the number ever since, but there's no logic to it," said Ashton Carter, another former Clinton-era assistant secretary of defense. "There's a lot more we could do in Russia, and if we had a larger program on offer they might be more forthcoming."

If better funded, he added, the program could also secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and dismantle Libya's equipment.

In Bush's 2005 budget proposal, funding dipped slightly from 2004 levels, according to an analysis by the Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council.

"This is a status quo budget," said the council's executive director, Kenneth Luongo. "It is not aggressive in attacking the real and mounting global nuclear threat. The Bush administration needs to focus on eliminating the impediments that are debilitating this agenda, preventing rapid progress, and impeding fresh and needed initiatives."

Democratic presidential candidates have used the issue to claim that the Bush administration has not done all it could prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, despite its rhetoric before the Iraq war.

Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts says "the Bush administration underfunds our efforts to secure and dismantle nuclear weapons." Senator John Edwards of North Carolina calls for "devoting the maximum amount of resources necessary." Retired General Wesley K. Clark promises to "greatly accelerate" efforts. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean would triple the funding.

Said Lugar: "To the extent that Democrats are able to do this successfully, I would say, `More power to you and I hope you will if you get the opportunity to govern.' "

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...et_wmds_slows/

cait987 · 02-08-2004, 05:30 PM

Quote:

I'm going to have to agree with John Titor on this, we'll find out if he's right by next year...

Hmm, Im not sure if you read much into it but John Titor was proven a fake, he had everything set up really well but he then reappeared as another person, I forget who, and they tracked his IP to the same person and he admitted to everything.

He got everything from some time machine game made in 1998, which is pretty crazy since alot of it came true haha.

Ide give you a link but I honestly cant remember the site, but had a big argument about it on another board

slvrnblck · 02-09-2004, 11:41 PM

glytch · 02-10-2004, 08:40 AM

I'd love to read about the John Titor debunking if anyone can find the site (I'm at work now and can't look). I was fascinated by that story when I read about it here a while back.

BentNotTwisted · 02-10-2004, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nancy
sure glad that I don't live in the US. Don't you guys ever get freaked out because of this possible threat?

Yeah, I think about it occasionally. It's part of the reason I left Denver, CO. Not that it's likely that Denver will be hit, but any major US city is a possible target. For now, I keep a small supply of drinking water in storage and hope for the best.
As far as when, I'd say withing 5 years nor not at all. As techology advances it will be harder and harder for terrorists to smuggle WMD. Personally, I'd like to see a foreign policy change so the US wouldn't have to worry about foreign terrorists.

Fullzero · 02-11-2004, 02:56 PM

Who voted that we'll never be nuked?...man, we have it coming.

Lokus · 02-11-2004, 02:59 PM

I voted 6-10 years. It's only a matter of time until a terrorist gets his hands on a nuke and smuggles it into the country.

Charlatan · 02-12-2004, 08:27 AM

As a teenager at the height of the Cold War (80s) I was sure WWIII would happen in my lifetime.

I used to have nightmares where my flesh would melt or worse I would survive the blast (my plan was to rush to ground zero if there was a nuclear warning because I had no desire to live in a post-apocalyptic world or die slowly from radiocative exposure).

I now think it will happen but on a limited basis (i.e. suitcase bomb in one city).

My hope is that this will be the wake up call of all wake up calls and lead to world peace...

it's a naive pipe-dream but it's mine...

jobu · 02-13-2004, 10:39 AM

I would be worried if Musharraf loses control of Pakistan. That country already has a lot of radical elements in it. You don't wnat these people having control of the countries nukes.

frozenstellar · 02-21-2004, 08:09 PM

i'll go 6-10years, but not just an attack on america, but the 3 main contenders in the gulf war part 2, america, england, australia.

america - washington dc
england - london
australia - melbourne/sydney

macmanmike6100 · 02-22-2004, 04:30 AM

i highly doubt australia, just because the visibility would be low

america would be the #1 target, I think

maybe a better question is where would this nuke come from? but in answering, let's always remember that we're merely speculating and not judging ;-)

opackfan · 02-22-2004, 01:06 PM

my contingency plan is to move to des moines iowa, no terrorist in their right mind would go to such a dull and scary place! MWAHAHAHA!

bacon_masta · 02-22-2004, 01:48 PM

i live in bfe, north carolina, but recent declassification of gov't/russian documents said that my town was in the friggin top 10 nuke-list during the coldwar. this is because the carbon plant in my town is one of four places in america that produce the core control rods that run nuclear plants that can produce weapons-grade plutonium. i went with 10 to 20 years, there isn't another world power strong enough to take on the us singlehandedly right now, but one may arise, or a series of unforeseen alliances could come together, and then we're pretty fuct. nuclear winter is inevitable, however; mankind is forcing itself, step by step, toward it's own destruction. technology is the power of man, but in my opinion, it will also be the downfall.

Thagrastay · 02-25-2004, 06:20 AM

The first Nuke to go off any time soon is going to be in the Middle East. My guess is Istanbul, Turkey. That's going to set off a chain reaction that unleashes a bunch of them in the US. and Britain. Small ones, probably, around airports and Nuclear facilities or power plants and water treatment facilities. These will probably be be by either muslim radical sleepers or by our very own super patriotic groups who feel that we need a new government and the best path to that is the murder of tens of thousands of our citizens and a possible civil war or a bloody war of independence! God help us. The US is doomed to fade from prominence anyway as the EU accelerates its timetable. I look for a Nuclear detonation in the US within the next 2-3 years. If we have a Dem in the Whitehouse, watch for the time table to be sped up as the Muslims do not respect our Democratic Administrations.

floydthebarber · 02-25-2004, 06:50 AM

As much as I don't want to see shit like this happen I think it's just a matter of time before the US gets nailed. Actions taken and attitudes in the US over the last couple of years certainly aren’t helping defuse the situation.

aurigus · 02-25-2004, 09:56 AM

One of the Tom Clancy Movies had a great quote about this - "It isn't the nukes we know of that I'm worried about... it's the one we don't know about"

I put 2-3 years. But who knows really, I guess that is a pessimistic view. Hopefully I'm far enough away from any big city to be in the blast perimeter.

minyn · 02-25-2004, 03:37 PM

Im just banking on it happening after I'm dead.

eyeronic · 02-25-2004, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thagrastay
Muslims do not respect our Democratic Administrations.

Please back this up.

Boo · 02-25-2004, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fik
6-10 yrs for a nuclear blast in the US.

Anyone want to bet which city is first?

6-10 for a hit or near miss.

Target, somewhere in the heartland.

I worked Minuteman III in ND. Scary stuff I must say.

auswegian · 02-26-2004, 06:51 PM

Quote:

i'll go 6-10years, but not just an attack on america, but the 3 main contenders in the gulf war part 2, america, england, australia.

america - washington dc
england - london
australia - melbourne/sydney

Oh please. Despite our media to the contrary, we were not a major contender in that conflict. Hell, Poland might be a plausible number 3, but Australia's participation wouldn't have been missed much for its absence.

I guessed 2-3 years before a US city bites the dust, with DC, NY and LA all rather likely targets. If the terrorists are clever, they'll work out the wind patterns and proximity to nuclear power facilities in their choice of target. If they're dumb, they'll hit something symbolic instead.

I wouldn't be surprised if it one US city goes, several others go as well, coinciding with the release of biological agents and random acts of violence in other parts of the US. But it depends on how well planned the operation is, and how many bombs they have. In post-9/11 world, the terrorists might find a complex operation too risky though.

Ustwo · 02-28-2004, 09:06 AM

If you want to be worried about being nuked think China.

And thank Clinton for giving them the tech needed to hit us.

eyeronic · 03-15-2004, 02:22 PM

I am glad to see that most people think it will be either a long long time or never. I would be interested in the results of a similar poll taken in the middle east or asia. Is anyone here from those regions? What do people there think?

NeverBorn · 03-15-2004, 05:01 PM

What are you worried about ..if it hits you your dead game over end of story

eyeronic · 03-15-2004, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NeverBorn
What are you worried about ..if it hits you your dead game over end of story

You must live in a one room shack with every person you care about or you might understand why this is a concern of every person with friends and family who live in cities outside of theirs. I would also suggest that you are of way lower than average intelligence.

bernadette · 03-15-2004, 06:13 PM

i picked never, because i want to remain optimistic that mankind isn't that stupid or evil to ever employ the nukes again.

yeah yeah yeah... i know there are some of makind who would if they could, but hopefully <i>they</i> can't.

immediately after 9-11, i was panicked that a nuke was going to hit the usa at any time.
now i'm not so sure that will ever happen.
*<i>if</i> * once one nuclear weapon is launched, then i would suspect there would be a retaliation nuclear weapon(s) returned.
that is a terribly grim scenario. i don't think it will happen. i hope not anyway.

Annabella · 03-17-2004, 03:27 PM

Like someone allready said if it hits it over at the same moment

JRG · 03-21-2004, 08:55 PM

I think American's are lying to themselves if you say we are not going to get nuked. If out security/intelligence can prevent Al qaeda from beinging a suitcase bomb over here and detonating it I will be surprised (not that I dont hope they are sucessful). Al Qaeda is too determined and the USA has very porous borders. Also, thanks to our 50 year long coldwar, Al Qaeda can buy a bomb much easier than it would be to actually contruct one. It's like buying a new lawnmower at K-Mart, instructions and all on the black market. I think our best hope at avoiding a nuclear attack is to stabilize Iraq as a democracy and hope that leads to a more progressive middle east. As long as people in countries hate us, it doesn't matter how hard we try to buy their government, we will still be in danger.

dami³ · 03-30-2004, 02:58 PM

No idea when and if it will happen, but the risk of course is very much out there (well depends on how you look at it really) - but since you asked for some links, here are some interesting ones:

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

And in these times of terrorists threats, this one may be particulary interesting (from the same group).

Quote:

Nuclear terrorism could take many forms, any one of which would be a disaster by any measure. But some would be potentially more devastating than others. In this briefing paper, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize, summarizes four of the scenarios that comprise the nuclear terrorist threat and concludes with some recommendations on how to prevent nuclear terrorism.

Interesting read, nomatter how paranoid you are

View Poll Results: When if ever will a US city get blown up?
within 1 month	4	2.38%
3 months	0	0%
6 months	5	2.98%
1 year	4	2.38%
2-3 years	18	10.71%
4-5 years	16	9.52%
6-10 years	24	14.29%
10-20 years	25	14.88%
20+ years from now	21	12.50%
never	51	30.36%
Voters: 168. You may not vote on this poll

02-03-2004, 09:57 PM	#1 (permalink)
eyeronic I run E. Location: New York	When are we gonna get nuked? What better place than paranoia for this question? I am more terrified now than I ever was during the cold war about the prospect of a dirty bomb or even a real warhead blowing up a major American city in the near future. Just wondering how others felt about this and when you think it might happen. I am starting to feel that the building hatred for our country might make this inevitable. Links to relevant articles are welcome. __________________ I hold with those that favor fire. Last edited by eyeronic; 02-03-2004 at 10:01 PM..

02-05-2004, 02:46 AM	#6 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	I'm going to have to agree with John Titor on this, we'll find out if he's right by next year... __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review. Last edited by hulk; 02-05-2004 at 02:48 AM..

02-05-2004, 08:00 AM	#7 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Two words... Suitcase bomb. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-07-2004, 03:16 PM	#9 (permalink)
Nancy Femme Fatale Location: Elysium	sure glad that I don't live in the US. Don't you guys ever get freaked out because of this possible threat? __________________ I have all the characteristics of a human being: blood, flesh, skin, hair; but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed and disgust. Something horrible is happening inside of me and I don't know why. My nightly bloodlust has overflown into my days. I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy. I think my mask of sanity is about to slip.

02-04-2004, 08:12 AM	#2 (permalink)
hklong741 Upright Location: someplace cold and dark	Would there ever be a legitimate reason for nuking a US city? And I would hope a dirty bomb might be more manageable than a full- blown nuclear detonation, but then the effect on the public's pysche might be the real issue. And, more importantly, would we ever learn the whole truth behind it, see as how the government is well aware of their every-increasing vulnerability to rule in such a state. But then I discount George Clooney's and Nicole Kidman's nuke-busting capabilities! Shame on me...

02-04-2004, 08:26 AM	#3 (permalink)
Psivage Psycho	June 26, 2008

02-04-2004, 11:53 PM	#4 (permalink)
slvrnblck Banned	We will get nuked in the year 2015 by the Russians. They will send a nuclear missle to every major city in the US and China, 3 billion people will be killed.

02-05-2004, 12:09 AM	#5 (permalink)
numist Banned Location: UCSD, 510.49 miles from my love	yikes, that was a bit specific for my liking. The possibilities of a 'terrorist' attack using a nuclear missile are very low, mainly because terrorists, as far as we know, dont have ICBMs available to them, so theyd have to build them here. We will most likely get hit by a computer failure or idiot attack by a bumbling president. The world is reactionary, all we have to do is launch one first, and Im sure we can cause everyones tangled alliances to destroy the world.

02-06-2004, 08:50 PM	#8 (permalink)
fik Crazy Location: Tacoma, WA	6-10 yrs for a nuclear blast in the US. Anyone want to bet which city is first?

02-08-2004, 01:50 AM	#10 (permalink)
skier Rawr! Location: Edmontania	I think it all depends on how tough countries get with nuclear anti-perliferation. But with many second world countries with nuclear arsenals, i would expect nuclear weapons to begin to be used in as little as 10-20 years. 5 if President bush stays in power. __________________ "Asking a bomb squad if an old bomb is still "real" is not the best thing to do if you want to save it." - denim

02-08-2004, 12:24 PM	#12 (permalink)
kurtisj Insane Location: The Wick	6-10 years got my vote. All the shit we have gotten into over the years, we have way to many countries pissed at us. __________________ Marvin the Mountie Always Gets His Kurtisj.

02-10-2004, 08:40 AM	#16 (permalink)
glytch I am not permanent. Location: Tennessee	I'd love to read about the John Titor debunking if anyone can find the site (I'm at work now and can't look). I was fascinated by that story when I read about it here a while back. __________________ If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit. - Mitch Hedberg

02-11-2004, 02:56 PM	#18 (permalink)
Fullzero Upright Location: Under your mama's bed.	Who voted that we'll never be nuked?...man, we have it coming.

02-11-2004, 02:59 PM	#19 (permalink)
Lokus I can't think of a good title Location: East Bay Area, CA	I voted 6-10 years. It's only a matter of time until a terrorist gets his hands on a nuke and smuggles it into the country. __________________ The black wind howls...

02-09-2004, 11:41 PM	#15 (permalink)
slvrnblck Banned	nm

02-12-2004, 08:27 AM	#20 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	As a teenager at the height of the Cold War (80s) I was sure WWIII would happen in my lifetime. I used to have nightmares where my flesh would melt or worse I would survive the blast (my plan was to rush to ground zero if there was a nuclear warning because I had no desire to live in a post-apocalyptic world or die slowly from radiocative exposure). I now think it will happen but on a limited basis (i.e. suitcase bomb in one city). My hope is that this will be the wake up call of all wake up calls and lead to world peace... it's a naive pipe-dream but it's mine... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-13-2004, 10:39 AM	#21 (permalink)
jobu Crazy	I would be worried if Musharraf loses control of Pakistan. That country already has a lot of radical elements in it. You don't wnat these people having control of the countries nukes.

02-21-2004, 08:09 PM	#22 (permalink)
frozenstellar Without Wings Location: Australia	i'll go 6-10years, but not just an attack on america, but the 3 main contenders in the gulf war part 2, america, england, australia. america - washington dc england - london australia - melbourne/sydney

02-22-2004, 04:30 AM	#23 (permalink)
macmanmike6100 High Honorary Junkie Location: Tri-state.	i highly doubt australia, just because the visibility would be low america would be the #1 target, I think maybe a better question is where would this nuke come from? but in answering, let's always remember that we're merely speculating and not judging ;-)

02-22-2004, 01:06 PM	#24 (permalink)
opackfan Tilted Location: St. Paul	my contingency plan is to move to des moines iowa, no terrorist in their right mind would go to such a dull and scary place! MWAHAHAHA!

02-22-2004, 01:48 PM	#25 (permalink)
bacon_masta Psycho Location: i live in the state of denial	i live in bfe, north carolina, but recent declassification of gov't/russian documents said that my town was in the friggin top 10 nuke-list during the coldwar. this is because the carbon plant in my town is one of four places in america that produce the core control rods that run nuclear plants that can produce weapons-grade plutonium. i went with 10 to 20 years, there isn't another world power strong enough to take on the us singlehandedly right now, but one may arise, or a series of unforeseen alliances could come together, and then we're pretty fuct. nuclear winter is inevitable, however; mankind is forcing itself, step by step, toward it's own destruction. technology is the power of man, but in my opinion, it will also be the downfall.

02-25-2004, 06:20 AM	#26 (permalink)
Thagrastay Crazy Location: Handrail, Montana	The first Nuke to go off any time soon is going to be in the Middle East. My guess is Istanbul, Turkey. That's going to set off a chain reaction that unleashes a bunch of them in the US. and Britain. Small ones, probably, around airports and Nuclear facilities or power plants and water treatment facilities. These will probably be be by either muslim radical sleepers or by our very own super patriotic groups who feel that we need a new government and the best path to that is the murder of tens of thousands of our citizens and a possible civil war or a bloody war of independence! God help us. The US is doomed to fade from prominence anyway as the EU accelerates its timetable. I look for a Nuclear detonation in the US within the next 2-3 years. If we have a Dem in the Whitehouse, watch for the time table to be sped up as the Muslims do not respect our Democratic Administrations. __________________ "That's it! They've got the cuffs on him, he's IN the car!"

02-25-2004, 06:50 AM	#27 (permalink)
floydthebarber Insane Location: ?	As much as I don't want to see shit like this happen I think it's just a matter of time before the US gets nailed. Actions taken and attitudes in the US over the last couple of years certainly aren’t helping defuse the situation. __________________ wish you were here

02-25-2004, 09:56 AM	#28 (permalink)
aurigus Insane	One of the Tom Clancy Movies had a great quote about this - "It isn't the nukes we know of that I'm worried about... it's the one we don't know about" I put 2-3 years. But who knows really, I guess that is a pessimistic view. Hopefully I'm far enough away from any big city to be in the blast perimeter.

02-25-2004, 03:37 PM	#29 (permalink)
minyn young and in bloom Location: under the bodhi tree.... bling	Im just banking on it happening after I'm dead. __________________ "Woke up this morning with a blue moon in my eye" ~A3 "woke up this morning" "Don't compromise yourself, you're all you've got." -Janis Joplin

02-28-2004, 09:06 AM	#33 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	If you want to be worried about being nuked think China. And thank Clinton for giving them the tech needed to hit us. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-15-2004, 02:22 PM	#34 (permalink)
eyeronic I run E. Location: New York	I am glad to see that most people think it will be either a long long time or never. I would be interested in the results of a similar poll taken in the middle east or asia. Is anyone here from those regions? What do people there think? __________________ I hold with those that favor fire.

03-15-2004, 05:01 PM	#35 (permalink)
NeverBorn I'm a pepper bitch..	What are you worried about ..if it hits you your dead game over end of story

03-15-2004, 06:13 PM	#37 (permalink)
bernadette ::::::::::::::::::::::::: :. Location: this ain't kansas, toto	i picked never, because i want to remain optimistic that mankind isn't that stupid or evil to ever employ the nukes again. yeah yeah yeah... i know there are some of makind who would if they could, but hopefully <i>they</i> can't. immediately after 9-11, i was panicked that a nuke was going to hit the usa at any time. now i'm not so sure that will ever happen. <i>if</i> once one nuclear weapon is launched, then i would suspect there would be a retaliation nuclear weapon(s) returned. that is a terribly grim scenario. i don't think it will happen. i hope not anyway. __________________ .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.

03-17-2004, 03:27 PM	#38 (permalink)
Annabella Tilted	Like someone allready said if it hits it over at the same moment __________________ Milloin vaan voi kiihoittua!!

03-21-2004, 08:55 PM	#39 (permalink)
JRG Tilted	I think American's are lying to themselves if you say we are not going to get nuked. If out security/intelligence can prevent Al qaeda from beinging a suitcase bomb over here and detonating it I will be surprised (not that I dont hope they are sucessful). Al Qaeda is too determined and the USA has very porous borders. Also, thanks to our 50 year long coldwar, Al Qaeda can buy a bomb much easier than it would be to actually contruct one. It's like buying a new lawnmower at K-Mart, instructions and all on the black market. I think our best hope at avoiding a nuclear attack is to stabilize Iraq as a democracy and hope that leads to a more progressive middle east. As long as people in countries hate us, it doesn't matter how hard we try to buy their government, we will still be in danger.