Which country is FIRST to attack with nuclear weapons

it will most likely be "one of the good guys", then we'll be told it was absolutly nessecary. just like hiroshima and nagasaki.

israel will never survive a nuclear assault. the country is too small in size. if it did happen, the only jews left on earth will be in new york and small scatterings around europe.

why israel keeps the course of action it does, is beyond any reasonable explanation. freeing the palestinian people would go a long way to stabilizing the region.

Israel...

I'm putting my money on North Korea... have we forgotten about them?

Originally posted by Bearack

Originally posted by dbloch7986

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by ZeussusZ
the usa.
They have done it before and are really into this pre-emptive strike thing.

Like Hiroshima/Nagasaki was pre-emptive? Cheezus get your facts right..

Actually as it relates to nuclear weapons, those were both preemptive strikes.

Germany was close to developing their own nuclear arsenal at that time so the US said "let's nuke them first".

Preemptive would indicate a surprise attack. Japan's emperor was warned that if they did not surrender unconditionally, they'd be met with atomic retaliation. We even warned them again before we dropped the second.

Preemptive means "taken as a measure against something anticipated". Basically used to describe some action intended as a deterrent. In that sense these were preemptive. Preemptive has nothing to do with surprise attacks

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by FissionSurplus

 

Israel has had nuclear weapons for some time now. At least since just before the six-day war, IMHO. ...and have been threatened many, many times since. Yet somehow, Damascus, Bahgdad, and many another would be target are still there.

No, if a nuke is used, it'll be by a non-national entity. Al Queda, or some groupl much like them. ...and not necessarily an Islamic one. There are all sorts of groups out there who wouldn't hesitate a heartbeat if they came to acquire a weapon of mass destruction. ...and not just nukes. Bugs and chemicals could be used as well.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. I didn't know why anyone would think anyone would be tempted to use a nuclear weapon for military purposes. No one will gain anything from a nuclear war. Wars are fought for the purpose of acquisition of land, resources or both. Nuclear war would defeat that purpose. It would only serve to destroy, which is not why wars are fought. The destruction that takes place in wars is solely to prevent defensive measures by the opponent, not willy nilly wholesale destruction.

If nuclear weapons could be used in precision tactical strikes without it escalating into an ICBM conflict, I'm sure plenty of countries would use them. I doubt any of them would want to take that risk though.

Also remember that a human being would have to push the button. Not a computer and not some ambiguous corporate entity. A flesh and blood human being who would be single handedly destroying his planet, his family and his friends.

A terrorist would not fear nuclear retaliation because there would be no specific target for us to retaliate against.

Israel or an Indian Pakistan showdown....

Or.. a terrorist organisation trying to pit the superpowers at war together.. Ala 'The Sum of all fears'

reply to post by seagull


Probably because it will fit into a bigger political picture..everything on such a scale has its reason. And when reduced to zero, after gaining power, it all comes down to money....its always money.

reply to post by zatara


Political power, or economic power, yes, I agree with you.

But when you begin to talk about the other group that might use a nuke in a terrorist attack, you begin to talk about religious zealotry. ...and a zealotry so powerful as to require a nuke, or any other weapon of mass destruction, to satisfy the bloodlust isn't about money. It's about punishing the non believer for their sins, real or imagined. In this case? Money would only be a tool to use towards the end. Not the end itself.

Hmm, weird queestion i think?

USA has already attacked with a nuclear weapon.. TWICE.. targeting civilians. That is called a crime against humanity and a war crime.

So if we had to guess who would in today's world do it i would place my bets on the only one who has done it in the past.

reply to post by varikonniemi


In the late summer, early fall of 1945, the United States, and its allies had reduced Japan's empire to essentially the Home Islands, with parts of China and Korea still occupied by the Japanese military. The allies had three options open to them to end the war...

First option: Close blockade to starve the Japanese people into surrender. How many would have died before the inevitable surrender? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Perhaps millions? No one will ever know.

Second Option: Invasion. Amphibious landings in the Home Islands. Operation Downfall. It's wiki, but it'll do for a rough overview.

Overview of the Invasion

Rough estimates of allied casualties for a one hundred and eighty day campaign ran upwards of one million dead and wounded. Estimates of civilian casualties would have been significantly higher. Think about that for a moment... Millions dead. Millions.

Third Option: Use of the new, and decidedly secret, Atomic bomb. This is the option that was chosen. Two targets, both with significant industrial capacity, were picked. ...and Enola Gay, and Bock's Car, dropped Little Boy and Fat Boy. Some days later Japan surrendered.

Sometimes, especially in war, you are faced with only horrible choices. The Atomic Bombs were the least horrible. Several hundred thousand dead, many more horribly scarred; as opposed to millions dead and maimed otherwise...

So because the United States, in order to end a horrific war, used a horrific weapon, they are, in your opinion, the most likely to use them again? Nope.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

Originally posted by WarJohn
Simple question:

Due to the current tensions, which country do you think will be first to attack with neclear weapons?

And why to your answer?

Al-Queda doesn't have a country...

LOL wut?
Funded, trained and elected by USA CIA assets, Id say they do have a country.

reply to post by seagull


How about if you had left Japan alone, or surrendered to them? Wouldn't it have ended it much sooner and with less casualty? There is always a justification found if you twist the facts and interpret history according to those twists. It is a know fact that atomic weapons are the most cost-effective means of warfare, especially if you do not have to endure retaliation by atomic weapons.

This is why i fear as long as Iran does not have atomic weapons. MAD does not exist, and atomic warfare is therefore a real possibility until they get the nuke.

No, it is never justified. I am horribly scared someone like you can find justifications from the worst act of war crime ever recorded.

Originally posted by varikonniemi
reply to post by seagull

 

How about if you had left Japan alone, or surrendered to them? Wouldn't it have ended it much sooner and with less casualty? There is always a justification found if you twist the facts and interpret history according to those twists.

Did you even attempt to read the post? Or the link? Of course peace would have been better. Even this scary person knows that. Peace at any price, however? What is that? Do think about it.

It is a know fact that atomic weapons are the most cost-effective means of warfare, especially if you do not have to endure retaliation by atomic weapons.

Cost effective? Depends upon the point of view, doesn't it? I'm fairly certain that fear of Atomic reprisal didn't play into the decision process. Saving lives, American and allied, I'll grant you; did however play a huge roll. The fact that it saved upwards of millions of Japanese lives was a great side benefit. Two hundred thousand plus people died a most horrific death, but many times that didn't. As I said earlier, when your choices are horrible, and more horrible, you must needs go with the least horrible. Surely you can see that? Excusing it? Justifying it? Not really, another solution, a realistic one, I mean; that would have rendered the atom bomb unnecessary would have been better. But there weren't any.

This is why i fear as long as Iran does not have atomic weapons. MAD does not exist, and atomic warfare is therefore a real possibility until they get the nuke.

Yeah, Iran getting the bomb will make us all so much safer... Iran's future stability is in question, the population is beginning to question the leadership of the religious leaders who, in truth, rule the country. So, another country, like Pakistan, with unreliable protections on nuclear weapons... Oh, I feel so much safer now...

I find it amusing that after half a century of fussing about it, people use MAD to "justify" Iran having the bomb... A real possibility, you say? Why? Because someone on the interwebs says so? The world has been to the brink many a time since the second use of the bomb, yet it's not happened again. For which we may indeed be grateful, I've no desire to see that happen. On that we are in lockstep.

No, it is never justified. I am horribly scared someone like you can find justifications from the worst act of war crime ever recorded.

edit on 7-12-2011 by varikonniemi because: additional info

Someone like me? I almost feel insulted...almost.

Worst act of war crime ever? Really? The holocaust doesn't rate? Or the Crusades? Or the many atrocities carried out in Africa, both during and after the Colonial period? The Killing Fields in Cambodia? Or the killings in China, and Korea, carried out by the oh, so innocent Japanese which numbered far, far more than the numbers killed in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nanking ring a bell?