The next country to use a Nuclear weapon?

[Yoni]

Which country do think will be next to use a Nuclear weapon?

[Strelok]

Hopefully none.

[Jingles]

I'mma take a wild guess and say Israel. Or maybe one of the Koreas.

[Rapax]

I'mma take a wild guess and say Israel. Or maybe one of the Koreas.

North Korea on South Korea or vice versa...

South Korea does not posses nuclear weapons. If anything, the USA would do it for them.

[Jingles]

South Korea does not posses nuclear weapons. If anything, the USA would do it for them.

My bad, I thought South Korea possessed it's own nuclear deterrent.

Why not, why not... ask them. BTW. the Jewnited $nakes of AmeriKKKa? I'm 12 years old and what is this?

Google "Maoism Third Worldism" or "MonkeySmashesHeaven"

Also, I'm totally stealing that quote for later use.

[memo]

I'mma take a wild guess and say Israel. Or maybe one of the Koreas.

i hope none but the best guess will be israel

[roy34543]

i hope none but the best guess will be israel

I dont undeerstand why people say this, Israel doesnt need to use nuclear weapons to project its power over anyone at this time, and in 50 years most of the other arab countries will be bankrupt anyway .

[Gromovnik]

I'll say the US. They're the only country that actualy nuked someone.

[Strelok]

Those 1500 nukes should be useful against Nibiru.

[The.Delegate]

Yea I'm going with the US. They'll get embroiled in a really nasty war somewhere, that neither side can win conventionally, against a major power, and have no choice but to use nukes [in the eyes of the people running the show]. I don't think anyone else is suicidal enough to use them; they just want them for the deterrent/prestige factor.

[Vermelho_Steele]

Maybe Pakistan? they may pull something nuclear soon as they are a most unstable nation wherein the weak, corrupt government is heavily influenced by the nations military. That's assuming that the terrorist don't steal them from a poorly guarded storage firstIf not Pakistan, then North Korea, the only reason I didn't vote NK was that they can't even fire a single good-quality rocket to deliver the nuke in the first place. Iran will most likely use a nuke, if they get one first and it's unclear if they will (maybe the sanctions will work, maybe the Isrealis will deliver a successful surgical strike to paralyze Iran's nuclear capacity.

No democracy will ever use a nuke first in a war, as it's political suicide in the next election (we all know that politicians do everything with the next election in mind)

I'm surprised by several people saying the Jewnited $nakes of AmeriKKKa; I'm even more surprised at noone saying Israel. Yet.
That'll change in time, I'm sure

@Pannonius: America of 1945 isn't the America of today, the world of 1945 isn't the world of today.

[Gromovnik]

@Pannonius: America of 1945 isn't the America of today, the world of 1945 isn't the world of today.

Yeah, you're right. They have more nukes now, and of better quality.

[motiv-8]

Yeah, you're right. They have more nukes now, and of better quality.

If all you can contribute is trolling, then step aside and let the grown-ups have their discussion.

Oh but what am I talking, half this thread is trolling.

The next actor to use a nuclear weapon, if indeed such a thing occurs -- it is always possible, but I am skeptical when it comes to that -- will likely not be a state, but a non-state terrorist organization. The reasons for this prediction are pretty simple -- state actors engaging in nuclear warfare are held responsible collectively, as a state, for that action, and are liable to be overwhelmingly attacked back. I am firmly convinced that there is not a single state actor out there so irrational as to guarantee their own complete and utter destruction just to get off a single nuclear detonation somewhere. Even mere self-preservation is an overriding concern here.

Non-state actors, however, are much more nebulous by definition and much more flexible when it comes to their geographical position. They enjoy the bonus of being able to deploy in an expeditionary manner, ie gather parts from a, b, c, assemble parts in d, gather personnel from x,y,z, train them in m, assemble them in n, and attack target p.

The good news is that expeditionary type terrorism has become increasingly difficult from the relative heydey of 2001-2004, and terrorist attempts to gather nuclear arms materials (as well as other mass destruction devices) has been well-tracked by intelligence services world-wide, who all have a vested interest in making sure such an event does not occur. Furthermore, many suspected likely sources of nuclear theft are actually not as insecure as believed -- ie Pakistan, whose current instability and troubles with terrorist groups makes its nuclear security suspect. However, Pakistan's nuclear arms are always kept dis-assembled, in a non-ready state, under the best lockdown that can be achieved, and the resulting possibility of a real mishap happening is low.

Actually it does. Doing the right thing in the face of public opposition takes balls. Most people are so 'oh nukes bad nukes bad' mentality they fail to see they are just a weapon, a weapon which if needed should be used without worrying about hippie fears.

The only thing wrong with this post, Phier, is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with public support, not opposition. In the summer of '45 a full 80% of people polled were in favor Hirohito's head on a stake, among other things. It wasn't until a liberal agenda got its paws on the history that opposition sprang up, and men like Truman and Stimson did indeed show balls for sticking up to the truth of their decisions. To them it was indeed just a weapon like any other weapon used in war, and there was no reason for them to think differently at the time.

It amuses me constantly that any time nuclear weapons are brought up in discussion, the blame America crowd comes riding along in their short bus to blab about things they know little of and without the realization that the United States is the country least likely to use a nuclear weapon in reality, short of an already devasatating world/national situation, in which a nuclear attack would already be among the least of our worries.

[Hattushilish]

The next actor to use a nuclear weapon, if indeed such a thing occurs -- it is always possible, but I am skeptical when it comes to that -- will likely not be a state, but a non-state terrorist organization.

That's not what the question asks. Obviously the most likely scenario is that a non-state would be the first to use a nuclear weapon.

The question is what happens after that.
Let's say for example al Qaeda gets a nuclear weapon and uses it against a US city. Or the Chechens get one and use it against Russia. Or Hamas uses one against Israel. Or the Uighurs use one against China. Or Lashkar e-Tayyaba uses one against India.

Would one of those five states retaliate with a nuclear strike?

[motiv-8]

That's not what the question asks. Obviously the most likely scenario is that a non-state would be the first to use a nuclear weapon.

The question is what happens after that.
Let's say for example al Qaeda gets a nuclear weapon and uses it against a US city. Or the Chechens get one and use it against Russia. Or Hamas uses one against Israel. Or the Uighurs use one against China. Or Lashkar e-Tayyaba uses one against India.

Would one of those five states retaliate with a nuclear strike?

This is not what the question asks, either, but point for originality.

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

North Korea on South Korea or vice versa...

[Vermelho_Steele]

Well put it this way, if America is so concerned about the twin wars, why not use nukes to ensure the destruction of the Islamists? why not? Also, why didn't the Jewnited $nakes of AmeriKKKa use nukes in the Cold War? Against China today with the problem with economics (Yuan pegging and job draining)?

[Gromovnik]

Well put it this way, if America is so concerned about the twin wars, why not use nukes to ensure the destruction of the Islamists? why not? Also, why didn't the Jewnited $nakes of AmeriKKKa use nukes in the Cold War? Against China today with the problem with economics (Yuan pegging and job draining)?

Why not, why not... ask them. BTW. the Jewnited $nakes of AmeriKKKa? I'm 12 years old and what is this?

[Boyar Son]

Jewnited $nakes of AmeriKKKa

Why so butthurt?

[Hattushilish]

Well put it this way, if America is so concerned about the twin wars, why not use nukes to ensure the destruction of the Islamists? why not?

How the heck are you going to "destroy the Islamists" with nuclear weapons? That's ridiculous.

What are you going to do, invite them all to attend a big event in one particular city and nuke that city?