Which country will deploy nuclear warfare ?
- Thread starter alpha85
- Start date
India v. Pakistan ...
Obviously people don't know their history here.
Most US think tanks and intelligence have believed since the mid-'80s that once India and Pakistan develop the bomb (which they both have now), they will use it against each other within the first 25 years. Today, this still seems to be the most likely and believable scenario by the overwhelming majority of intelligence of most of the world. People should really read up on the history of India and Pakistan and you'll quickly note the flash points where it will probably happen.
North Korea merely wants to use nukes for appeasement. So its very, very doubtful they will ever use them. China knows this and it defines much of their resistance at times to bring North Korea to the table, although the Russians have been far more cooperative because they don't like a nuclear power so close.
Iran is still up-in-the-air, although if they do get them, they will probably eventually use them. In the same counter-point, if the US knows for an absolute, undeniable and, more importantly, concrete evidence (at least to NATO allies, even if their citizens are against US action) that certain that certain Iranian facilities house them, the US will likely use burrowing (sub-surface, causing no airburst/mass destruction), tactical nukes to take them out.
People claim the US will because of WWII. If you're that ignorant, then you really should read up on the barbarism of the Japanese in WWII -- not to just the US, but the Chinese and countless other, smaller nations. The use of nuclear weapons by the US saved countless Japanese lives and unnecessary deaths of women and children as much as men and combatants. It was absolutely necessary to drop them on people, as even the Japanese military and, especially, the emperor would admit later.
Obviously people don't know their history here.
Most US think tanks and intelligence have believed since the mid-'80s that once India and Pakistan develop the bomb (which they both have now), they will use it against each other within the first 25 years. Today, this still seems to be the most likely and believable scenario by the overwhelming majority of intelligence of most of the world. People should really read up on the history of India and Pakistan and you'll quickly note the flash points where it will probably happen.
North Korea merely wants to use nukes for appeasement. So its very, very doubtful they will ever use them. China knows this and it defines much of their resistance at times to bring North Korea to the table, although the Russians have been far more cooperative because they don't like a nuclear power so close.
Iran is still up-in-the-air, although if they do get them, they will probably eventually use them. In the same counter-point, if the US knows for an absolute, undeniable and, more importantly, concrete evidence (at least to NATO allies, even if their citizens are against US action) that certain that certain Iranian facilities house them, the US will likely use burrowing (sub-surface, causing no airburst/mass destruction), tactical nukes to take them out.
People claim the US will because of WWII. If you're that ignorant, then you really should read up on the barbarism of the Japanese in WWII -- not to just the US, but the Chinese and countless other, smaller nations. The use of nuclear weapons by the US saved countless Japanese lives and unnecessary deaths of women and children as much as men and combatants. It was absolutely necessary to drop them on people, as even the Japanese military and, especially, the emperor would admit later.
DrMotorcity
Don Trump calls me Pornography Man
Re: India v. Pakistan ...
Absolutely right! Green rep points for Harry Truman!
Absolutely right! Green rep points for Harry Truman!
i think it will be a middle eastern country
I agree with the theory that only the US had nukes back at the end of WW2 and b/c of that no other nukes were used, nor were there any reprecussions.
However, depending on who used the nuke first in this age, would determine the type of retaliation.
For instance, if a dirty bomb (suitcase nuke) goes off on USA soil, they likely wouldn't retaliate with a nuke right away or possibly at all. Not b/c they are any more moral than anyone else, simply b/c a suitcase nuke isn't enough to start WW3. The pressure of the rest of the world would keep something like that in check, as it would be seen as a terrorist attack, not a declaration of WAR (as cheeeky as that sounds)
Now, if say Pakistan nuked India, there would be retaliation. If the USA nuked China, there would be retaliation. This is the pattern I see.
The more countries who have nukes, probably the safer the world is. Unless the leader is on his death bed and literally wants to leave his mark in the history books. Why would you luanch a nuke when you know full well the world will condem you and strike with unison.
If you ask me, its dirty bombs I am more afraid of, not some dictator who likes to rattle his sabre on the world stage.
However, I may have world politics all wrong
However, depending on who used the nuke first in this age, would determine the type of retaliation.
For instance, if a dirty bomb (suitcase nuke) goes off on USA soil, they likely wouldn't retaliate with a nuke right away or possibly at all. Not b/c they are any more moral than anyone else, simply b/c a suitcase nuke isn't enough to start WW3. The pressure of the rest of the world would keep something like that in check, as it would be seen as a terrorist attack, not a declaration of WAR (as cheeeky as that sounds)
Now, if say Pakistan nuked India, there would be retaliation. If the USA nuked China, there would be retaliation. This is the pattern I see.
The more countries who have nukes, probably the safer the world is. Unless the leader is on his death bed and literally wants to leave his mark in the history books. Why would you luanch a nuke when you know full well the world will condem you and strike with unison.
If you ask me, its dirty bombs I am more afraid of, not some dictator who likes to rattle his sabre on the world stage.
However, I may have world politics all wrong
well actually is quite probable that a nuke could be used against the US, but NOT against their civilians, but againt their forces (carrier tasks, army, etc) nuclear bombs could be a bless to the world peace and start a whole new dimension in the war and diplomacy
Iran and NK needs the bomb, but they dont gona use that against american civilian targets, actually is more probable that the US allies could do that
and yes i agree, more countries with nukes = safer place
Iran and NK needs the bomb, but they dont gona use that against american civilian targets, actually is more probable that the US allies could do that
and yes i agree, more countries with nukes = safer place
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
Regardless of who uses a nuke first, I agree with P&C that the world is safer, the more countries that have them. Everyone can keep everyone else in check that way...kinda like..."go ahead and try it, see what happens" type attitude! However these fuckin terrorist, whatever they call them selves, don't give a shit if they die, hell that's their whole plan. Take out as many others as you can on your way out! The point in my other post was that Iran is like buddy, buddy with the terrorist, so won't be long till they get their hands on some of these "Hellfire" weapons and just start fuckin shit up!
I totally agree with what your saying. Playing devils advocate here, i am sure the terrorists and all countries who despise the west view us as an evil empire.
Since history is written by the victors, only time will tell which side is right.
Personally, I don't have a problem with Iran getting nukes, i mean, Russia has no clue where some of theirs are, whom they sold them too, and lets be honest, countries like Pakistan have ties to terror as well.
The chinese could easily be supplying nuke technology to NKorea and the USA supplied Israel with Nukes.
so how do you draw the line. My feeling is this, in time, nukes will not be an issue, it will be some other type of weapon
which terrorists???, o man, bin laden is/would have been dead man if he gets inside Iran or the Hussein Iraq, acuatlly the US is a safer place to him than Iran....
Pakistan and Inda both have their support of some "ressistence movements"....in the other border..but that dont mean these guys gona get nukes
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
this is why I said whatever they call themselves as terrorist organizations are widespread, especially over in that part of the world. Some phsycotic terroist group will eventually get nukes or at least the technology and plutoneum to make their own. Just wasn't sure which group exactly, but it is comin, the day some terroist get's a nuke and uses it!
well then think again, sometimes that discurs of fear -u know "the terrorists are coming"- is used to lie to the ppl, now the terrorist of the week is Iran but there are tons of difference between hezbohla and Alqueda
http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=4630
again some guys use the "terrorism" word, the fear and ignorance to confuse the ppl, the violence is natural in the politic process, when you have ppl claiming for their rights, desperated and living under unfair, that is hezbohla, alqueda is only a bunch of CIA pupils and teachers
http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=4630
again some guys use the "terrorism" word, the fear and ignorance to confuse the ppl, the violence is natural in the politic process, when you have ppl claiming for their rights, desperated and living under unfair, that is hezbohla, alqueda is only a bunch of CIA pupils and teachers
I think the days of nation-states launching nuclear weapons is long past...
India/Pakistan will solve their issues if the rest of the fucking world (especially us) left them alone to work things out.
cheers,
I don't see that happening.
India/Pakistan will solve their issues if the rest of the fucking world (especially us) left them alone to work things out.
cheers,
I should have clarified:
I think the days of nation-states launching nuclear weapons is long past... not because I think the State has becoe more benevolent but because biological agents are far better. Nuclear weapons can have deterent quality - a shaving can filled with Ebola left open in a shopping mall on the other hand...
The reason countries with nuclear weapons try to stop others from getting them is simply because having nuclear weapons makes conventional wars useless. In other words - you can't piss around with those who have nukes. MAD maybe bad grammar but it's all too real.
cheers,
as many above pointed put that history is written by the vicotrs, may i point out that so is the news! it is Mr Murdoch's corporations and US and UK that have made us constantly afraid of any 'terror'. I think everone, including myself use the word 'terrorist' too lightly and relate it to any middle eastern country. the truth of the matter is that 95 % of the planet (anything which is not US, UK, Israel) would see the US, UK and Israel governments as actual terrorists. ourt governments, throuhgout history have attempted to act as 'saviours' to the world, and in turn opportunising of any attrocities. I dont agree with any terrorism, but in my view the ones we refer to as 'terrorists' are their countries freedom fighters, jus like bush and blair are standing up for our country by ruining other countries for middle east occupation for purely oil related reasons. dont you think its a coincidence that all the oil tycoons are very very good friends with teh president and prime minister.
also, the isreal bombing of lebanon, even though the majority of peeps thought it was cruel and inhumane to the civilians, we (collective as a society) accepted israels inhumane war, namely becasue bush and blair backed it. how f***ing ignorant is that.
if anyone is interested in viewing a british MP speak out on SKY news over the israel and lebanon matter click below :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNiNS8TnJnI
ps im sorry if i have broken any rules.
also, the isreal bombing of lebanon, even though the majority of peeps thought it was cruel and inhumane to the civilians, we (collective as a society) accepted israels inhumane war, namely becasue bush and blair backed it. how f***ing ignorant is that.
if anyone is interested in viewing a british MP speak out on SKY news over the israel and lebanon matter click below :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNiNS8TnJnI
ps im sorry if i have broken any rules.
Pakistan is twice on the poll...so i guess it would be them
Similar threads
