Who will be first to use the next nuke? (In conflict)
- Thread starter bdude
- Start date
In testing or in a conflict?
Deployment of a nuke and a test of a nuke have two different answers.
Deployment of a nuke and a test of a nuke have two different answers.
Pakistan in some form or another. The rest of the countries have leaders and elite who live like kings whose life would be ruined/ended if they used a nuke. The elite don't want to be martyrs, Pakistan on the other hand is a shithole of a country where the bottom to the top have a good chance of dying every day.
Poll doesn't matter
If nukes are used again it would be the last and no one left to know about it.
If nukes are used again it would be the last and no one left to know about it.
I really doubt that as the final word. Especially in cases where capacity is small and yield is low to essentially match conventional weapons. Sure, in a MAD situation that would be the case but there are other situations where use of a single nuke may arise without an overwhelming nuclear response.
SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 14,359
- 4,640
- 136
I doubt that. Personally I think it will be a group or individual that gets a nuke and uses it, probably against Israel. It will spark a lot of fear and outrage, and a massive conventional war that will change the leadership of what ever country(s) is blamed as backing the group or individual, and then nothing much else. I suspect that it will happen a few more times after that before we figure out some way to stop it.
Brovane
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 6,390
- 2,582
- 136
Actually there is a school of thought that if one flies they all fly. In example if Pakistan launches a strike on India then India will launch on Pakistan and China. If India is going to go down then they are going to take China with them since they view China as a serious threat. If China is going to get nuked by India and seriously hurt then China will launch against India and Russia and maybe the US. It will try and hurt Russia. If Russia gets nuked everyone gets nuked. The basic Soviet policy was if they where going to get taken out then everyone got nuked, even states not even involved. So that way everyone starts out at the same crappy level to try and rebuild. Basically everything snowballs from the first nuclear weapons being launched. Not saying that I completely agree with the school of thought that if one flies they all fly, however it does make some interesting points.
I'll go through each one:
US- We won't anytime soon, unless in retaliation to a nuclear attack from another country. We have too much to loose if we used one offensively.
UK/France- I will lump these together, because they are the same reasoning. Basically the same as the US, because frankly they have nothing to gain. The French only might in their next civil war if some crazed fanatic gets a hold of one.
Russia- More likely to use nukes, but due to the Cold War they won't launch first. MAD keeps them from wanting to use them offensively. The would for sure if attacked first though.
China- Similar to Russia. They are in an even better position than Russia financially, which means that they have less reason to use a nuke except in response to an attack.
Israel- They have no need to use one. They are very effective at conventional war, and only would in response to a nuclear attack from another country (not a rogue terrorist nuke).
India- They have too many people to want to use one offensively. Their population would be devastated. India as the ones above only would defensively.
Iran- I don't believe they are stupid enough to use one offensively. They might sell them to terrorist groups, but I highly doubt they are stupid enough to think they could get away with launching a nuke in an offensive attack.
N Korea- They are possibally crazy enough to launch a nuke, but they would wait to launch high quantities of them. I don't think they would want to use only a few (and last I knew they didn't have a whole bunch of them if any warheads). They are more likely to send one through terrorist groups.
Pakistan- They are the most unstable irrational country on the list IMO. Pakistan has corruption throughout most of the leadership, it's a poor country (even the "rich" people there), and it's crappy living conditions in general. So the leadership IMO would be most likely to start shooting nukes at India offensively. I'm Green Bean will come in here and tell me it's not them, but India who causes it all as well.
The only other country that would is Palestine, but they don't have them IIRC. So my vote went to Pakistan for the next country. I can't say about a rogue group, because they are an unstable element that will when they can obtain a nuke. I don't believe they have one yet, or if they do that it's really useable (or of significant size). Rogue factions are more likely to use a dirty bomb anyways, because it's much easier to obtain and build one.
US- We won't anytime soon, unless in retaliation to a nuclear attack from another country. We have too much to loose if we used one offensively.
UK/France- I will lump these together, because they are the same reasoning. Basically the same as the US, because frankly they have nothing to gain. The French only might in their next civil war if some crazed fanatic gets a hold of one.
Russia- More likely to use nukes, but due to the Cold War they won't launch first. MAD keeps them from wanting to use them offensively. The would for sure if attacked first though.
China- Similar to Russia. They are in an even better position than Russia financially, which means that they have less reason to use a nuke except in response to an attack.
Israel- They have no need to use one. They are very effective at conventional war, and only would in response to a nuclear attack from another country (not a rogue terrorist nuke).
India- They have too many people to want to use one offensively. Their population would be devastated. India as the ones above only would defensively.
Iran- I don't believe they are stupid enough to use one offensively. They might sell them to terrorist groups, but I highly doubt they are stupid enough to think they could get away with launching a nuke in an offensive attack.
N Korea- They are possibally crazy enough to launch a nuke, but they would wait to launch high quantities of them. I don't think they would want to use only a few (and last I knew they didn't have a whole bunch of them if any warheads). They are more likely to send one through terrorist groups.
Pakistan- They are the most unstable irrational country on the list IMO. Pakistan has corruption throughout most of the leadership, it's a poor country (even the "rich" people there), and it's crappy living conditions in general. So the leadership IMO would be most likely to start shooting nukes at India offensively. I'm Green Bean will come in here and tell me it's not them, but India who causes it all as well.
The only other country that would is Palestine, but they don't have them IIRC. So my vote went to Pakistan for the next country. I can't say about a rogue group, because they are an unstable element that will when they can obtain a nuke. I don't believe they have one yet, or if they do that it's really useable (or of significant size). Rogue factions are more likely to use a dirty bomb anyways, because it's much easier to obtain and build one.
What a bullshit theory..
Why would China attack Russia? Why would India attack Pakistan out of nothing more than a "I'm taking everyone down with me" mentality? That theory makes a lot of assumption on the leadership.
:beer:I do see the point that argument is making, but I disagree.
If Pakistan launches against India, they would only launch against Pakistan (provided they knew the orgin of the launches). Even though India may view China as a serious threat, I highly doubt they are going to be willing to be obliterated by China. In a war with nukes vs Pakistan they will most likely win and have a decent amount of survivors. OTOH in a war with China, they would be wiped out.
Also I don't believe countries are going to be agressors to other countries not involved, provided they do know the source of the launches. The only way a MAD situation will happen is if there is insufficient knowledge about the attack and who launched. If there is a breakdown of communication and/or intelligence then we could have a MAD situation without much difficulty.
A single nuke launch will not cause a MAD situation to occur. The only way that might occur is with 1: lack of intel/communication 2: if one country launches against many different ones and we all just start shooting at one another. While not impossible by any means, it is unlikely MAD will occur.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,767
- 46,572
- 136
Even these counties aren't stupid enough to turn nukes over to terrorists who will use them on western targets. If NK or Iran supplied a nuke that was used against a major American city we aren't going to give a god damn that they didn't personally launch it themselves.
Provided we have evidence that they were where the nukes were obtained. If they are able to get them secretly to terrorist groups, it's not a stretch to see what I said as a possibility.
The question is simply are they willing to chance that we would find out they supplied the nuke, and what we will do to them if we found out they supplied it.
SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 14,359
- 4,640
- 136
In light of recent developments I am changing my vote to USA, and we will use it against the evil life forms of Mars. How dare they invalidate our terracentric view point with their methane creating heresy! I?m fact I vote that we use the Mars Rovers as spotting devices to target Mars for an immediate full scale nuclear bombardment immediately.
if it were to happen, it would probably be India or Pakistan (likely Pakistan). I don't think it would initiate an end of the world scenario like if Russia were to launch nukes at the US or something.
I can't see Israel ever using their nukes as anything but a deterrent... they're too close physically to any country they'd want to use it on.
I can't see Israel ever using their nukes as anything but a deterrent... they're too close physically to any country they'd want to use it on.
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
My coworkers are looking at me funny now b/c I was laughing so hard
At least I wasn't drinking something at the time....oh that's silly, why would China nuke Russia????
and if Russia get's nuked then you know for a fact Poland is next lol
Have you been to Pakistan. I think the terrorist IDF will be the first. They have no respect for human lives.
I think Pakistan should give up her nukes and set an example for others. Loss of human life on such a scale can never be justified even by national security or pride. And as far as the rich people being poor; let's see how many people make a million$ every year on this forum.
Me either, but people think they can get away with stuff like this. It's not difficult to believe that either of those two countries would believe they could do it without us finding out it was them.
Nukes are useless unless activated by a password that only a very few people in command know. I really don't think Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is at any risk of falling into the hands of terrorists. The absolute worst than can happen is terrorists over run a nuclear bunker site. But without the codes they won't be able to launch. And within minutes that site will be bombed by the army in minutes. If they are unable; then surely by the USAF. Pakistan's nuclear assets are guarded well enough however. In any case we should destroy them before we are tempted to use them.
I also think talking of nuclear revenge against civilian is barbarism at best.
Sure mr I support my people bombing woman and children in India to fight a war over territory that does not matter since I have my own country already.
I'm sure the fight over Kashmir is wonderful to distract the people of Pakistan from realizing what a shit hole that country is turning into.
For someone who has so much in common with Hamas, including the complete disregard of the sanctity of civilians, including the acceptance of woman and children civilians as valid targets, I can understand your hate though.
Either way, Pakistan is a shit hole country that can't even clean up it's own borders.
The Israelis are terrorists occupying land that doesn't even belong to them. The IDF has no land to protect. All land that is "Israel" is illegally occupied land and if anybody should be cleaned up it's the IDF terrorist organization. They are without the doubt the most bloody and sophisticated terrorist network in the world and I think the arabs should clean them up.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter