h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

By selectivly though what do you mean. It is my understanding that to switch it off in one area is possible but they couldn't stop it working for one country but still keep it working for another.

I mean in hte same place.

that should read "...not exactly sure how "MAD""

Jeez, you don't give up do you...

Could you answer any of the following questions before continuing to insist that Trident is completely dependent on GPS...

1) What would be the effect of multiple nuclear bursts creating an EMP in the upper atmosphere on GPS satellites

2) Do you think that no western government/military organisation would have considered this?

3) Do you still think there aren't back-up systems

4) If Trident is dependant on GPS, would the US turn off the GPS system considering their Ohio-class use Trident, how would they fire their own missiles.

5) Why would a missile system be built without an intertial navigation system built in.

6) Do you think the only way a submarine can fix its position is with GPS

Answer _all_ of those correctly and I _might_ consider your crackpot theory... (although, be warned, I might just come up with another dozen raasons for it being wrong)...

By the way, LORAN hasn't been switched off.

>I believe that the use of a nuclear backpack/suitcase bomb could be deterred by the knowledge that half the Middle East will fry if Al Qaeda ever used such a device.<

Really? You actually believe that a religious fanatic grouping owing allegiances to no country or government would be deterred by the idea of the Middle East being turned to glass?

Do you have any idea who or what we are fighting here?

Jeez, this is getting confusing, there are at least two different conversations going on here.

yup Whisky, if only the other thread I started today wuz so busy (F19585?thread=1707362 alt="smiley - winkeye" title="winkeye" class="smiley" src="http://www.h2g2.com/h2g2/skins/Alabaster/images/Smilies/f_winkeye.gif"/>)

Yes, Blue Shark I believe it will deter some.

Hi B S

Two answers

Yes
&
Yes

Otherwise I would suspect that it would have beeen done by now.

I don't want to argue on my answers, nor expand upon my 'qualification', but I'm wiling to bet that we keep our weapons - and in view of your own remarks - and the situation in Iran, we should.

Novo

In that case Happy Dude I think you are probably woefully misinformed about Al Quaida, thier aims, philosophies and methods.

Also do you really think the US is going to make the *whole* middle east (and all that oil) glass because a suitcase bomb is detonated?

Really?!?!?

I cannot see it myself, it it was planted by the official security forces of a nation state then maybe but by a trans national terrorist organisation???

Shurely shome mishtake.

The nuclear deterrant is no deterrant at all if the people you are trying to deter are completely f*cking insane.

As I said before, MAD works upon the assumption of the sanity of your opponent. *Glances about the world*. Uh-oh.

Ste

I for one am abosolutly convinced that if and Al Quaida cell could detonante a suitcase nulcear bomb in a populated ares of a major western city then they would without hesitation.

I therefore think that either they:-

a) Have failed to aquire such a device (by far the most likely)

or

b) Are unable to move it to where they would want to detonate it (possible but unlikely).

What I totally rule out is that a terroist cell have a nuke but are too scared to use it. Remeber we already know these people are not afraid to die.

They are no motivated by Nationalism or Patriotism by by religous fervour.

"Also do you really think the US is going to make the *whole* middle east (and all that oil) glass because a suitcase bomb is detonated?"
no, but I certainly see them blasting say Iran or N.Korea or whichever nation they do decide to blame for supplying the material.

Afternoon F B

Care to speculate onthe centres of the religious fervour which I admit powers the terrorist mind?

Do you think that they ALL want to meet their 24 virgins at once?

Novo

It only takes one, not "ALL"...

Novo>

My point is the people likely to be in possesion of the suitcase nuke are most likely not oging to care that some other people who are Muslims dont believe in it quite a fully as them.

Happydude>

Errr surely the most likely place that a terror cell could get a suitcase bomb from is the former USSR?

Also assuming for a moment (and this is a big assumption) N.Korea does in fact have nukes, and enough to consider giving one away do you really think that the US would

a) Want to start a Pacific rim Nuclear war (cause if they have several and start boming Soeul and Tokyo that is what would happen)
b) Want to antagonise China who probably would not take tooo kindly to have a nuclear war on its doorstep?

I cannot see it, and neither I suspect can Kim.

If someone detonated a nuclear device in the USA I think there is no telling what the US would do.

You reckon?

I think one thing is for sure is that they would not start global apocalypse without knowing exactly who had done it.

It is one thing to loose a city, another to loose the world.

If they were gonna nuke anywhere it would be where they thought Bin Laden was I reckon.

Ferrettbadger can I just utter a few simple words in support of my comments in post 57
"President George W. Bush"

Yeah but much as though post 9/11 foriegn policy has been severerly (IMHO) misguided it has not been instant knee jerk to nuclear war.

Nothing that Bush has done has ocnvinced my that he would be likely to start a full on global WW3. He might nuke "Tora Bora" if they thought Bin Laden was there and he was responsible for the atrocity but they aint gonna "glass the middle east".

I just cannot see it.