How bad would a war have to get before someone considers using nukes?

[RoloMather]

For countries that have nukes, what's the lowest threshold before one of them is used?

 

[MoPHo]

It would just take one ruler to think the other was crazy enough to do it...

 

[Mojoed]

Depends on the country.

I have a feeling Iran will eventually "lose" a nuke, and very bad things may happen.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Fart in their general direction.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: RoloMather
For countries that have nukes, what's the lowest threshold before one of them is used?

Define "threshold" RoloMather.

 

[Barfo]

They certainly will if you start one more thread today

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Mojoed
Depends on the country.

I have a feeling Iran will eventually "lose" a nuke, and very bad things may happen.

I don't think the people in charge of Iran are that stupid.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: barfo
They certainly will if you start one more thread today

:laugh:

Cheers barfo! :beer:

 

[miketheidiot]

probably only when they are overrun

 

[RoloMather]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: RoloMather
For countries that have nukes, what's the lowest threshold before one of them is used?

Define "threshold" RoloMather.

Threshold = intensity and desperation in a particular war

 

[zinfamous]

I know it's against policy now, but joshsquall, could you please now use your newly-acquired power as master of this thread and nuke it from orbit? I'm sick of these damn rolomather threads.

I think it must be tridentboy, or something....

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Mojoed
Depends on the country.

I have a feeling Iran will eventually "lose" a nuke, and very bad things may happen.

I don't think the people in charge of Iran are that stupid.

They are that crazy, though. No doubt they'll pin it on being stolen from Pakistan or something.


For any of the superpowers to start using nukes, they would only do so with the knowledge that their enemies can't (sabotage).

 

[SlitheryDee]

Probably invasion and/or bombardment with near certain defeat. In this case I think the likelihood increases many fold if the country in question is a dictatorship or something close to it.

 

[Red Squirrel]

We should nuke all the countries that end with an before they nuke us!

 

[alyarb]

it won't be their joke of an administration that nukes us, it will be some radical group. we should just clean up their mess now.

 

[Newbian]

It only takes one to start until everyone else wants to use their fireworks.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Newbian
It only takes one to start until everyone else wants to use their fireworks.

and that's the real problem. more then likely a nuclear event will take place in the next 20 years or less. Once it starts, how will it end. I suspect the US would absorb atleast 2 hits in an effort to limit or stop such an event.

 

[alyarb]

at least they are still comparatively hard to come by, and third world nukes are in the less-than-10 kiloton range. i'm not saying people couldn't get hurt, because they absolutely would. but if we had to justify erasing a country, at least we can actually get through it. when you think about nuclear terrorism, you are talking about a very small, very light, very low-yield device. how else are you going to get it into this country? and what are you going to do with it, put it in a truck or a car? thermonuclear weapons weigh in at hundreds of pounds.

unless china and india start handing out their technology to faggots, a terror-nuke isn't going to be delivered by an aircraft or a rocket. it's going to be a small piece of shit, and it's going to be sneaked in.

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: alyarb
at least they are still comparatively hard to come by, and third world nukes are in the less-than-10 kiloton range. i'm not saying people couldn't get hurt, because they absolutely would. but if we had to justify erasing a country, at least we can actually get through it. when you think about nuclear terrorism, you are talking about a very small, very light, very low-yield device. how else are you going to get it into this country? and what are you going to do with it, put it in a truck or a car? thermonuclear weapons weigh in at hundreds of pounds.

unless china and india start handing out their technology to faggots, a terror-nuke isn't going to be delivered by an aircraft or a rocket. it's going to be a small piece of shit, and it's going to be sneaked in.

I blame the snukes.

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: alyarb
at least they are still comparatively hard to come by, and third world nukes are in the less-than-10 kiloton range. i'm not saying people couldn't get hurt, because they absolutely would. but if we had to justify erasing a country, at least we can actually get through it. when you think about nuclear terrorism, you are talking about a very small, very light, very low-yield device. how else are you going to get it into this country? and what are you going to do with it, put it in a truck or a car? thermonuclear weapons weigh in at hundreds of pounds.

unless china and india start handing out their technology to faggots, a terror-nuke isn't going to be delivered by an aircraft or a rocket. it's going to be a small piece of shit, and it's going to be sneaked in.

Yeah, I think Perez Hilton would want one for Miss California.

 

[dbk]

can't see it happening anywhere

 

[alyarb]

i'm just saying, lightweight or man-portable nukes are much less than 0.5 kiloton yield, and require loads of manufacturing experience. the soviets never had miniaturized weapons like this, so where are terrorists going to get them?

 

[Rubycon]

Someone has to be really MAD to use them.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
Someone has to be really MAD to use them.

touche!

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
Someone has to be really MAD to use them.

/Insert groan here.