# The most likely location for a nuclear attack? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 21, 2003, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371 "2003-12-21T21:47:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2004, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371/41 "2004-01-01T06:41:20Z")
Yes, but it will take a force to remove his government. A mere assassination doesn’t accomplish that. Assassinations that change governments happen after coups, not before. ---
**Author:** ![LH75](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lh75/32/4438_2.png) [@LH75](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LH75)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2004, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371/42 "2004-01-01T14:04:35Z")
friend bouncer, think also of our friends living around the norad base outside of colorado springs… ---
**Author:** ![gouda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c77e96/32.png) [@gouda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gouda)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371/43 "2004-01-02T11:52:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Uzi \* > \*\*Yep, perfectly clear…But, how would one go about enforcing a pact with a country you are at war with? Threaten to war harder? \*\* IIRC, the idea behind the pact was to keep civillian casualty resulting from nuclear meltdown (not unlike Chernobyl) to a minimum. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear facilities not too far from heavily populated cities, and it would be in both countries mutual interest not to target these facilities. Which is not to say that it definetly won’t happen. I’m just explaining the rationale behind the pact. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371/44 "2004-01-02T13:03:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gouda \* > \*\*IIRC, the idea behind the pact was to keep civillian casualty resulting from nuclear meltdown (not unlike Chernobyl) to a minimum. > \*\* My first response: So, they made a pact that would allow them to nuke a city thus killing everyone, but not be allowed to nuke a nuclear facility near the city because the meltdown might kill everyone…:rolleyes: But, I suspect the pact refers to using conventional weapons and the targeting of nuclear facilities. If not I stick with my first response. I still have no idea how they’d enforce either one, though. ---
**Author:** ![gouda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c77e96/32.png) [@gouda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gouda)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371/45 "2004-01-02T13:23:54Z")
Yup, that’s exactly what I said… a pact to not target nuclear facilities. Nothing about not using nuclear weapons. And like I said, it’d be in each other’s mutual interest not to violate the pact. Besides, IMO targeting nuclear facilities, even with conventional weapons is as good as using nuclear weapons, thereby inviting nuclear retaliation. Not violating the pact makes more sense now, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2004, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371/46 "2004-01-02T13:32:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gouda \* > \*\*Yup, that’s exactly what I said… a pact to not target nuclear facilities. Nothing about not using nuclear weapons. \*\* Yes, but you used the quote in a thread about the most likely location for a nuclear attack. Thus the confusion arose, you see? ---
**Author:** ![gouda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c77e96/32.png) [@gouda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gouda)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371/47 "2004-01-03T06:26:27Z")
No, I don’t see. My post was in response to a comment by **Adaher** , which I duly quoted, regarding India targetting Pakistan’s nuclear installations. Towards the general goal of fighting ignorance, I pointed out yada yada yada. You drew your own conclusions from there on. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371/48 "2004-01-03T06:31:27Z")
I did not know that. Thank you. Although I would caution that pacts signed about these situations tend not to be followed. India would actually have to trust Pakistan and may not be in a very trustful mood while a war is raging. ---
**Author:** ![gouda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c77e96/32.png) [@gouda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gouda)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371/49 "2004-01-03T07:56:15Z")
Both countries continue to supply each other with updated lists of their nuclear installations, and the hope is that the pact will be abided by. Having said that, I do indeed doubt Pakistan’s sincerity regarding this pact, and I’m sure the same hold true on the other side. But history has shown, in the wars India and Pakistan have fought, that Pakistan has realised when the war was lost and has surrendered, before allowing any more damage to its own. Hopefully the same sense will prevail if it comes down to war again. ---
**Author:** ![gouda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c77e96/32.png) [@gouda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gouda)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371/50 "2004-01-03T08:01:27Z")
Because if it does come down to war, we are going to beat the crap out of them again 😃 ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371/51 "2004-01-03T08:20:30Z")
Yes, you will clean their clocks, even easier than you did last time. ---
**Author:** ![gouda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c77e96/32.png) [@gouda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gouda)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2004, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371/52 "2004-01-03T09:23:19Z")
Errm, that last post was made tongue-in-cheek, as indicated by the smiley… ---
**Author:** ![SAustinTx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/57b2e6/32.png) [@SAustinTx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SAustinTx)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2004, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371/53 "2004-01-12T06:48:36Z")
Hopefully Branson, Missouri [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-most-likely-location-for-a-nuclear-attack/220371.md?page=2)