If Iraq launched a nuke at US, how do you think our governments would react?

[OS]

<< If I remember correctly those weapons were physically very large, nothing like the size of a modern MIRV or cruise missle warhead. >>



Yeah they are. I've seen pictures of soviet high yield gravity bombs and they are the size of a large pickup truck. Very poor for delivery and actual warfare usage. I suspect they were largely developed for the &quot;my dick is bigger than yours&quot; effect that was going on during the cold war.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

uhh what about the nuclear winter that people say would happen if we started nuking everything? or does that only happen if we set off like 200 at a time?

anyone remember that game where you launch bombs at each other? it's a text based bbs game =PP

 

[Usul]

I think those were back in the tims where the XB-70 val was still flying @ Mah 3 and 82,000ft (the one that didn't got destroyed by Joe Walker in his stupid F104)

 

[Rakkis]

DiRF: B.R.E. (Barren Realms Elite)?

 

[Vikaden]

I dont think that they would be stupid enough to launch nuke against us, its called MAD(Mutally Assured Destruction) the only way they would it is if they were prepared to die.

 

[Ladies Man]

no it's not called mad
mad is U.S. vs Soviets in the cold war

it Iraq has no real friends, in war no one will back them.
If they shoot a nuke at us they will be a parking lot. No doubt in my mind.

 

[beer]

The Pakistanis that detonated a nuclear bomb underground was 200 megatons.

Ours are AT LEAST that.

 

[dennilfloss]

Elemental007,

That's probably 200kilotons. Big difference. The biggest thermonuclear device ever detonated was by the USSR and it was 60 megatons. The biggest US device was the Bravo event and that was 15 megatons.

Light My Fire (The Doors)

 

[Vikaden]

ladies man-

i beg to differ, if i launch a nuke at you, you would launch one back at me and we both die, pretty good detterent if you ask me, and who gives a sh!t about friends its between you and me

 

[Ladies Man]

one iraqi nuke will not take out the whole U.S.
yes people will die

Iraq sends one nuke at us takes out lets say New York, we would then shoot so much crap at them that they would be a parking lot in seconds.

This isn't like the U.S. vs the Soviets. In that situation EVERYONE would die. Between the U.S. and soviets during the cold war we had enough explosives to blow up the world 2 times or something like that.

Iraq on the other hand doesn't have that much power. If they have a nuclear weapon it is a crude and untested one. For all we know it wouldn't even explode on impact.

 

[IamDavid]

The US would not retaliate with Nuclear weapons... We might carpet bomb the entire country but we would not nuke them into the dark ages..

 

[Ladies Man]

we probably wouldn't use nukes but i do think we'd level them

 

[AndrewR]

If Iraq launched and landed a nuclear device on US soil, they would receive at least a half dozen in return. Baghdad would be a field of glass, and any identifiable troop concentrations would be obliterated by cruise missile delivered nukes from the Gulf or from the air. Any suspected weapons labs would be annihilated as well. It is a solid tenet of US military policy to respond &quot;in kind&quot; to attacks. There is little doubt in my mind that we would do so with nuclear weapons.

Here's accurate data on warheads for the United States and for the Soviet Union. US warheads are generally smaller because the guidance systems are more accurate, obviating the need for massive yields. The US deploys 300 kiloton warheads on the Minuteman III and the Peacekeeper (the W87). Single warheads only on land based missiles based on START II (Minuteman can carry three, Peacekeeper can carry 10). SLBMs are the Trident II's (D5) with a yield of 475 kilotons per warhead (W-88, missiles not as accurate as land based). The missiles are capable of 8 warheads, but under START II, they have five. Cruise missiles, whether sea, air or land launched, carry one warhead (W-80) with a yield of 150 kilotons. Nuclear bombs carried by the B-2s are anywhere from 100-500 kilotons with provision (though probably not in service anymore) for a 1.2 megaton bomb (the B-83).

Here's another interesting site: 50 Facts About US Nuclear Weapons

 

[dababus]

If Iraq launched a nuke at US.

Ok how are the iraqi gonna fire the nuke, probably from a camel's a$$.

 

[Usul]

By putting one in a truck from switzerland and sending it to NY harboor, 4 example.

 

[Pretender]

The problem is, if they smuggle in a nuke, we'd have no proof that the Iraqis brought it in. There are a number of terrorist groups in Arab nations that would prefer to see us bombed just a little bit, and proving it was Iraq would be a tough task, considering all the evidence within miles would be vaporized, and no country is THAT stupid to accept responsibility, because if they do, they die.




<< By putting one in a truck from switzerland and sending it to NY harboor, 4 example. >>

How do you get a truck from Switzerland to NY? Build a bridge over the atlantic, I think somebody might notice....

 

[Azraele]

If Iraq did nuke the US, they'd probably target Washington, DC. So potentially, if it was a full scale nuke (Hiroshime size) the government probably wouldn't exist. This is all hypothetical btw. The US would be a mess with no government.

Speaking realistically, though, I doubt they could ever launch a serious strike against the US, and if for some reason a strike did get through, the US would strike back targeting suspected locations where they might be hiding any nukes.

 

[Usul]

<< How do you get a truck from Switzerland to NY? Build a bridge over the atlantic, I think somebody might notice.... >>



By those things called ships......

 

[IamDavid]

Iraq would not attack D.C. fisrt.. They would want to maximize casualties... New York City... And if they did attack DC we would have enough time to evacuate most of the government.

 

[NoreagaCNN]

They might react like this.

http://members.home.net/stisev/saddam.gif, LOL

-Nore

 

[Thanatopsis]

Azraele,

Do you really think the US keeps all people that can run the country in one place? Sure, the politicians and such would be gone - but that doesn't mean the country's infrastructure would go down. There are always NORAD and other installations for control...

 

[MustangSVT]

I was gonna say , US would send NUKE to all over the world and broadcast &quot;All your base are belong to USA&quot; but there is noway i can beat NoreCNN's link! that's hilarious!!!!

 

[KDOG]

I'm sure they already have contigency plans for such an event. We keep a missile sub in the persian gulf or the med at all times. I know because when I was in Saudi (when I was in the Air Force) They had to deploy more fighters and bombers to Kuwait because there was a delay on when the other sub could relieve the other....SO....
If Iraq dared launched a nuke at the US, the sub would immedaitly surface and launch a few at already predetermined targets. Our nukes would be detonating before thiers landed. And nobody make NO MISTAKE - it IS INDEED our policy to respond with nuclear weapons if we are attacked with one/them.

GreenBeret: Its NBC weapons not ABC. (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical)

If anyone remembers, during the Gulf War, there was fear Iraq using chem weapons against us, and we make sure we told them that we had &quot;special weapons&quot; on in the area(on our subs, ships).

 

[Usul]

And US considers andy NBC attack to be replyed with a NBC, and you there is no pubblic usage of either Biological or Chemical, so all we have left is Nuke...

The point is : Will GWB send a nuke to vendicate a chemical?


y bet is yes, and I'm glad of that.

 

[sandorski]

I would hope that the US wouldn't retaliate with nuke(s). There are already plenty of conventional weapons in the area to make Saddam pre-occupied while the US/NATO and others round up a force to invade and take control of Iraq. No nukes needed.