Hypothetical question: What will happen to USA's nukes & their ability to launch them , if..?
964611
nuclear warheads can be delivered as:\n\n1. bombs (obviously you don't need satellites for this)\n2. cruise missiles (Wikipedia: "The lowest cost system in wide use uses a radar altimeter, barometric altimeter and clock to navigate a digital strip map. Some systems may now use satellite navigation or inertial guidance, but these are substantially more expensive...")\n\nI think ballistic missiles need GPS but I'm not sure. either way we have plenty of nukes that don't need satellites, enough to destroy the world once over, I'm sure.
209811
Writing a book, hmmmm....Look people the next big one will start with nukes going off at the same time in Tel Aviv, NY, DC, and London. \n\nThat will be from Iran's Hamas, next will be freighters in all of the US shipping ports having nukes in lead shielded boxes in the fuel oil tanks of merchant ships. That will effectively take the US completely out of it in the first 30mins of WW3 \n\nNow after that North Korea will take South Korea and China will take Japan and as much of Russia as possible. Europe will wisely sue for peace with China as the new World Super power. \n\nAfter things calm down a bit negotiations between the EU and China will take place. The former US will be divided up between the two based upon the premise that France will not nuke what is left. \n\nDuring these negotiations the EU and China will also plan a lightning take over of the middle east which will also be divided up between the two powers. When all is said and done there will be peace and technological progress unheard of before.
1053417
Wont be the Iranians, it'll be terrorists who get or steal it from Iran. \n\nDepends on what group and the size of the weapon. Hopefully it's DC but we wouldn't be that lucky.  New York, LA, Houston and Chicago would be prime targets.  New York and Chicago offer very dense population areas. A downtown nuke in either could kill hundreds of thousands. \n\nLA and Houston are very spread out. So it'd take more nukes or a much bigger nuke. They however offer very tempting targets such as Hollywood in LA and the Oil refineries, Bush sr's hometown, NASA in Houston. In any coastal city it's possible a nuke could trigger a tsuami as well. This means that folks in other continents might die from the terrorist blast. Something the terrorists would like celibrate all the more but likely would not even consider.  \n\nSecondary effects would be the destruction of fishuaries around the target. In the case of Houston much of the Gulf of Mexico which would heavily damage or destroy shrimping for both US and Mexico. Same with LA. East coast it'd prob damage half the fishing in the East coast. Then there is the fallout which would touch much of the world including the Middle East. Who of course would somehow blame the US for it. That assumes that the US does not retaliate with nukes of thier own, an assumption I would not make if I were a terrorist. Isreal might nuke some Arabs as a pre-emptive strike though Tel Aviv would be more likely to be nuked than any American or European city. \n\nSo the realistic answer is who cares what city was nuked. The response would lead to other nukes being used and potentially the end of mankind. The Middle east would cease to be inhabitable, Europe and Africa not far from it. Asia possibly and the entire world would suffer even from a very limited nuclear exchange. So if the goal of the terrorists was to exterminate the Arab race nuking a US, Isreali or European city would be a very good way to go about it. The WTC sparked a deep simering anger in Americans. Isreal would not hesitate to launch pre-emptive strikes and even Europe might find millions of dead as incentive for a temporary lapse of reasoning.  Even if world Govs were able to react in a restrained mannor private citizens would have no difficulty getting nukes from sympathetic places and using them against Arab nations. The anger would be one no Gov could control. \n\nIn short it's best we don't ever find out by keeping Iran and other unstable inmature nations from ever getting nuclear weapons.
317144
Look people the next big one will start with nukes going off at the same time in Tel Aviv, NY, DC, and London. That will be from Iran's Hamas, next will be freighters in all of the US shipping ports having nukes in lead shielded boxes in the fuel oil tanks of merchant ships. That will effectively take the US completely out of it in the first 30mins of WW3 \n\nNow after that North Korea will take South Korea and China will take Japan and as much of Russia as possible. Europe will wisely sue for peace with China as the new World Super power. After things calm down a bit negotiations between the EU and China will take place. The former US will be divided up between the two based upon the premise that France will not nuke what is left. During these negotiations the EU and China will also plan a lightning take over of the middle east which will also be divided up between the two powers. \n\nWhen all is said and done there will be peace and technological progress unheard of before, and best of all, the herd will be weeded out.
1186990
Okay first of all don;t worry there missiles are not that sophisticated to actually reach the US yet.  Yet even if they do fire a missile at the US that does have a nuclear war head we would be able to shoot it down before it gets to our shores.\n\nLet me explain there are two types of nuclear missiles \n\n1.  NK has just a regular missile, this will reach a certain altitude maintain that altitude until it reaches it's destination.\n\n2.  The US has are what are called ICBM, these missiles go into the subspace and then come down which make them almost impossible to shoot down.  This was the big scare during the Cold War.  \n\nSo I wouldn't worry about NK they are just looking for attention.
874638
Nuclear bomb with something arabic written on it\n\nThat way they have no doubt whats about to happen
308622
As far as I am aware, the 2 atomic bombs that were dropped are still causing deaths today due to birth defects and cancers.\nHyposcrisy? I have often wondered the same thing. The question I ask is why does it appear that the US government only allow the US and it's allies to even have nuclear capability?
330604
A couple of issues with your question.\n\nThe US is no longer testing nuclear weapons, and production is limited to what is required to replace older systems that are obsolete (read the SALT-II treaty).\n\nNext, of the countries that currently have nuclear weapons I would say the ones most likely to use them are Pakistan (which would lead to its anihilation) and Russia, out of desperation and impotence.  The chances of the US using nuclear weapons is fantastically small.\n\nThe US, and the UN for that matter (if you come up out of your hate america haze long enough you would realize that France, Germany and the UN are the ones leading the charge against Iran) don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because it seems very likely that they will use them on their neighbors.\n\nBesides, would you give a loaded pistol to a three year old and expect no one to get hurt?  Same idea with Iran.
1011948
I would agree that we're fairly safe from this launch. My concern is this quote:\n"North Korea as a sovereign state has the right to develop, deploy, test-fire and EXPORT a missile," he said. "We are aware of the U.S. concerns about our missile test-launch. So our position is that we should resolve the issue through negotiations." \n\nHe said EXPORT, right out in the open like that? To whom? Is he talking about Iran? Pakistan & India already have longer range missiles. Iran can already hit eastern Europe, if North Korea sells them this they could hit western Europe, then what do we do? What if they accidently leave a warhead attached or send over some scientists? I'm very concerned with the meanings that word brings. \n\nIn the short-term this is just backmail to get stuff from us.
62970
THE U.S. has more nukes than we know what to do with.  Any idiotic country that would openly attack us  deserves to die in a nuculear holacost for their stupidity.
357209
Absolutely not going to happen.  We've signed treaties left and right saying we won't use nuclear force.  The US has absolutely bent the rules when it comes to foreign relations but they absolutely would not completely abandon them.  With that being said, I predict a high probability of them using force OTHER than nuclear force...
345358
Stockpiled    Deliverable\nUS:   10,640         6,390\nRussia  16,000       3,242\nBrit     200           200\nFrance   350           350\nChina   ~400           ~325\nIsrael   200           200\nIndia    150           110\nPakis     75            75\nN.Korea   ~13          ~13\n\nWhere are they aimed? Here's a brief summary: (but as you can imagine, it's only best guess)\n\nN.Korea: Seoul is within tactical range,limited capacity for direct attack on continental USA, unless from medium range missile fired from a ship or sneaked-on weapon to US port. Most likely target is US forces in S.Kor and Japan.\n\nIran: poses little threat to continental US, largest threat is strike at Israel, main threat is future years when they do possess an operational nuke.\n\nPakistan: ally now but an unstable one, possibility their nukes can be taken over by terrorist elements against the US.\n\nIndia: Ally but more stable, continued confrontation over Kashmir raises the possibility of a nuclear war, under a war situation, fanatical elements could put the control of weapon systems into their hands.\n\nTerrorists: this is a new post-Cold War threat, not involve state actors or rational leaders.  Many terrorists seek martyrdom and would see a US strike on a Muslim target as a positive step toward turning Muslim world against the US.\n\nBritain,France,Israel: have sizable arsenals, concern is over the theft,pilfreage or diversion, as well as unauthorized or ciminal action to launch, which would have negative consequences for the US.\n\nUS: strategy is twofold: countervalue and counterforce targeting. The first on major cities,industrial complexes, and critical economic modes, with reduncy.  The 2nd targets weapons systems before they can be launched, success relied on preemptive strike and maintenance of high alert forces, ready to launch on warning...ie, hair triggers.  \n\nThese are general guidances, the actual targest are kept on list contained on the highly classified Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). At the moment of decision, only the President can issue the command based on his reading of the SIOP.  The world is continuously less than 30 minutes away from full scale nuclear war, unfortunately still at this time.\n\nAnd now, the assessment for our friend in Russia:\nFrom the point of bview of strategic nuclear weapons, Russian is the main concern.  The end of the Cold War has brought a sobering awareness of the vulnerabilitys of their nuclear complex, their security is downgraded with some assets left in new and unstable countries.  Old habits die hard, the suspicions of US intentions are still there, look at the post-Cold War incident on Jan. 25, 1995 - \n\nRussia almost launched a nuclear attack after a Norwegian missile launch for scientific research was detected from Spitsbergen and thought to be an attack on Russia, launched five minutes from Moscow.  For the first time in history the Soviat briefcase is activated.\n\nGetting back to targeting, the presence of highly survivable mobile systems, both in the US and Russia, vis-a-vis land-based systems, bombers and subs. has made countervalue and counterforce targeting obsolete. Both sides have recognized MAD and any launch would be national suicide.  The only threat from Russia then is the irrational actions of rogue commanders or accidental launches from an aging control-command system.\n\nAnd finally China: has some long range capability, covering most of continental USA. they have stated a "no-first-use' policy, even over the impending Taiwan crisis. Their real competition is economic and political, threatening to dominate the world markets.  Russia is trying to sell strategic bombers and nuclear subs which would be of concern.  There is some potential for future nuclear confrontation, but presently we are in a nuclear standoff with them.
929270
Diabolically, nuking Mexico will affect the US because of the radiation.  Likewise, it will drive more Mexicans to go north - USA.
948598
If you checked you would find that India is already has nukes. Russia isn't really in good enough shape to help anyone out. Although selling arms is becoming a big export business in Russia. Glad its a hypothetical question. I can't figure out who or why anyone would attack India.
1152360
If we used every nuclear weapon on earth simultaneously, it would make a spectacular fireworks show in the sky, and create a whole bunch more craters, but the moon would stillbe in our sky, just obscured by dust.\n\nWe may brag about how destructive our nukes are, but they're pikers when considering the cosmic scale of things.
429640
The whole MAD business.  If both sides start using nuclear weapons, the world has a good chance of ending.  So, no one actually uses them.  I'm guessing if Iran actually uses them, the US won't retaliate because no one wants to use nuclear weapons.
1018242
Ok folks, who can hit the United States with a nuclear missile? China , no way! Russia, maybe but I doubt it. You know we were raised with a fear installed within us to try and make us  believe that if America didn't have the strongest, bigest military force and if we didn't stockpile more nuclear weapons, that we would be stupid cowards, with suicidal tendencies, because surely every rogue country on the planet would attack us and try and take everything we have. Our Democracy and freedom being the prize!I realize that we have all been sedated by the powers rhat be and that clear unadulterated thought is hard to come by within our minds these days, but try to focus on this question for a second or two. if You and I were from a poor middeleastern counrty that had corrupt government  like we all do but no watchdogs within to circumvent this attrosity ,so your country just struggled along, do you think your little piece of shit country would sit around and try to  figure out ways to overthrow the Big Guy, namely the United States, well maybe a little bit but remember you don't have shit for nukes and you couldn't fly one overhere let alone hit anything! so the answer has got to be no way, yes you will be forever envious of the Americans and you may fantasize about living here and being a rich person with everything that goes with it, but there's no way you are going to help bring on your own demise the human mind does'nt go there, and either will your's. So stop with the paranoia and all your little insecurities and be assured that no country other than this country, The most powerful country of all times) is planning to take us out; But one US! Sorry Spellcheck is having problems!