Which countries are mad enough to use nuclear weapons?
Discussion
once one gets launched its either gonna be nobody launches and retaliates or everybody does.
I agree with taking the americans off that list because if at all they will be used as a last resort and that hardly classifies as "mad" usage.
N.Korea and other countries are more likely to get pissed off at something and start launching.
I agree with taking the americans off that list because if at all they will be used as a last resort and that hardly classifies as "mad" usage.
N.Korea and other countries are more likely to get pissed off at something and start launching.
what everyone else thinks... 
srebbe64 said:
I reckon George Bush would push the red button - he'd have no qualms !!
Naaah - anyone with half a brain knows that there would be no real winner in a nuclear war. I know that comes close to counting Dubya out, but I don't believe that it would come to that unless it was last gasp retaliation for an attack that had all but wiped the US off the map.
I was reading in The Times on Sunday that Mrs Thatcher was allegedly fully prepared to use nukes on the Argentines and told President Mitterand that she would do so unless the French gave her the codes that would have disabled the French missiles sold to Argentina. Apparently she gave hime very precise instructions as to what she wanted of him.
Taking America off the list????
WHAT???????
(They are the only country who have used nuclear weapons in actual war. No matter what the circumstances, and moral pretext. Past behaviour predicts future behaviour more powerfully than ANYTHING.)
Can't believe someone would take america off the 'likely to use nuclear weapons' list.
How taken in could one be?
WHAT???????
(They are the only country who have used nuclear weapons in actual war. No matter what the circumstances, and moral pretext. Past behaviour predicts future behaviour more powerfully than ANYTHING.)
Can't believe someone would take america off the 'likely to use nuclear weapons' list.
How taken in could one be?
It's probably a bit leftfield, but my worry is that with a decline in the development of conventional weapons, (the UK is an example) we could see a distant future where the Nuclear deterrant is the only weapon of significant force.
Well, if you're pushed, and all you have is nuclear weapons what are you going to do? You only get two choices, give in or use the nukes.
The thing to consider is that big nuclear weapons don't make a logical offensive. On the other hand a small nuclear device is an excellent agent of terror.
In some respects, it seems to me that the unilateral disarmament approach has some merit, but only when coupled with an equivalent increase in conventional arms. I don't think that's what most of the CND types were after.
IMO the real problem in a capitalist society is that Nukes are cheap and effective. They're certainly cheaper than equivalent conventional arms. To this end, I think we're all equally likely to use them. Clearly, the motive and mechanisim would diferent between say Iran (or rather it's terrorist agents), and the US.
Well, if you're pushed, and all you have is nuclear weapons what are you going to do? You only get two choices, give in or use the nukes.
The thing to consider is that big nuclear weapons don't make a logical offensive. On the other hand a small nuclear device is an excellent agent of terror.
In some respects, it seems to me that the unilateral disarmament approach has some merit, but only when coupled with an equivalent increase in conventional arms. I don't think that's what most of the CND types were after.
IMO the real problem in a capitalist society is that Nukes are cheap and effective. They're certainly cheaper than equivalent conventional arms. To this end, I think we're all equally likely to use them. Clearly, the motive and mechanisim would diferent between say Iran (or rather it's terrorist agents), and the US.
dilbert said:
It's probably a bit leftfield, but my worry is that with a decline in the development of conventional weapons, (the UK is an example) we could see a distant future where the Nuclear deterrant is the only weapon of significant force.
Well, if you're pushed, and all you have is nuclear weapons what are you going to do? You only get two choices, give in or use the nukes.
Well that was the policy in the fifties and sixties - "Tripwire Strategy". Then in the late sixties everyone realised that the strategy was a bit stupid in that it limited the options somewhat, given that wars were still happening anyway, and so the doctrine of "flexible response" was adopted. This meant that suddenly we needed to tool up with conventional weapons again. Now, as you rightly point out, we're drifting back to the technology and limitations of the tripwire strategy, if not the strategy itself.
yertis said:
But the americans have form.
which makes them unlikely to want to do it in the future.
no country would be prepared to use them as it makes their own destruction inevitable. even if iran sold a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group - the day it got used in another nuclear country the radioactive material will be traced back - and bye bye iran.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff