Which of these will use a nuclear weapon?

[crocodile deathroll]

I am not speaking of the so called "dirty bomb attack" but an actual nuclear weapon that would be capable of destroying a city, period.
If such a nuclear weapon is ever used again in war which of these countries or organizations do you consider to be the first use it?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
I am not speaking of the so called "dirty bomb attack" but an actual nuclear weapon that would be capable of destroying a city, period.
If such a nuclear weapon is ever used again in war which of these countries or organizations do you consider to be the first use it?

I voted Fundamentalists/terrorists but only because that was the only choice that was broad enough.

I don't think that with the [very] next use of 'da bomb' it will be obvious (after the investigation) who was responsible.

The one (several) after that may be more than obvious.

[CapelDodger]

It's a lottery, but the smart money has to be on Israel as the weirdest of them all.

[geni]

France or USA. No one is going to be stupid enough to use nukes big enough to blow apart a city. Tactical nukes though are a diferent kettle of fish.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I voted Fundamentalists/terrorists but only because that was the only choice that was broad enough.

I don't think that with the [very] next use of 'da bomb' it will be obvious (after the investigation) who was responsible.

The one (several) after that may be more than obvious. Of course it would be obvious who set it off, and who was involved. There'd be far too many people in the chain, and too many interests, for it to remain secret. If it was simple to buy a nuclear weapon after the collapse of the USSR, why hasn't it happened yet? Pakistan has the Bomb, and hasn't handed it over to free-agents. They've got the Bomb so that they can declare "Hey, we've got the Bomb", not so that everybody gets it. If Iran gets the bomb, it's not so that they can hand one over to some Lebanese faction and put their future in their hands.

If it happens, it'll be traceable. Which is why it probably won't be allowed to happen.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by geni
France or USA. The Brits won't give it up while French still have it. That's certain. But a European deterrent created from both is an intriguing idea. It would have to be post-NATO, of course. And not necessarily good news for Turks.

If the French nuke Cote d'Ivoire, I'll be very surprised, but I wonder what the US response would be? Apart from made up very quickly. The beauty of the poll is that the next use of nuclear weapons will probably result from something so esoteric nobody's even thinking about it. It will probably have nothing to do with religion (Israel is a secular democracy). And future generations will marvel at our blindness.

[geni]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The Brits won't give it up while French still have it. That's certain. But a European deterrent created from both is an intriguing idea. It would have to be post-NATO, of course. And not necessarily good news for Turks.

If the French nuke Cote d'Ivoire, I'll be very surprised, but I wonder what the US response would be? Apart from made up very quickly. The beauty of the poll is that the next use of nuclear weapons will probably result from something so esoteric nobody's even thinking about it. It will probably have nothing to do with religion (Israel is a secular democracy). And future generations will marvel at our blindness.

Europes militry has wound down a lot since the cold war. They can still handle third world forces and limited conflicts but a battle against a large second rate force would be a problem. I chose france because they are the country with a lot of tactical/battlefield nukes.

[Ed]

Originally posted by geni
Europes militry has wound down a lot since the cold war. They can still handle third world forces and limited conflicts but a battle against a large second rate force would be a problem. I chose france because they are the country with a lot of tactical/battlefield nukes.

and....they already nuked Greenpeace... liberal, socialist, commie, CBSist bastards.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
If it happens, it'll be traceable. Which is why it probably won't be allowed to happen.

My understanding is that bomb residue can be tested by a metalurgist to determine where it was manufactured in exactly the same way a metalurgist can determine where steel was smelted.

Which is just trivia.

My vote is equally on Iran and N. Korea, though I like your so esoteric nobody's even thinking about it hypothesis.

[evildave]

This needed the multiple selection poll, as several are likely to launch.

The U.S. is still the only one on the list that already has used them. Twice.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by evildave
This needed the multiple selection poll, as several are likely to launch.

The U.S. is still the only one on the list that already has used them. Twice.

Do you mean I should of given people the option of clicking on both the number 1 and number 10 box?

CDR

[evildave]

If they wanna.

One will use a nuke, and then another, pretty soon everybody wants to get in on the act.

[richardm]

I voted Israel for a couple of reasons: Firstly, they would seem to be one of the most threatened of the countries on the list, and secondly because the countries they'd be likely to use it on don't have the bomb - so no deterrent effect, which is a very important consideration, perhaps the most important.

I remember during the first Gulf war there was a good bit of anxiety about Israel's reaction if Saddam sent over some chem/bio warhead on a Scud, so perhaps that's influenced my choice.

All that's assuming aggression from the surrounding countryside first, of course. I don't think the Israeli Government would wake up one morning and say "Let's nuke Damascus".

[zenith-nadir]

I think North Korea or Iran would use the bomb before Israel does. Why? Because only one goofy guy controls the bomb in North Korea and only a handful of religious mullahs will control Iran's inevitable bomb. They don't have to answer to anyone.

Israel's bomb is a deterent not an offensive weapon and the Arab countries trying to destroy Israel know that. That is one of the reasons Iran wants the bomb so badly, to use it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I think North Korea or Iran would use the bomb before Israel does. Why? Because only one goofy guy controls the bomb in North Korea and only a handful of religious mullahs will control Iran's inevitable bomb. They don't have to answer to anyone.

Israel's bomb is a deterent not an offensive weapon and the Arab countries trying to destroy Israel know that. That is one of the reasons Iran wants the bomb so badly, to use it.

Only one problem with that theory, Iranians aren't Arabs.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Only one problem with that theory, Iranians aren't Arabs. Yes a_u_p most Iranians are Persians. Thanks for playing, did you learn that off the internet?. Would you have felt better if I had said Muslims? No. Then you would admonish me for being racist against muslims.

Either way, Iran's leaders want the bomb and are only one fatwa away from using it.

[richardm]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I think North Korea or Iran would use the bomb before Israel does. Why? Because only one goofy guy controls the bomb in North Korea and only a handful of religious mullahs will control Iran's inevitable bomb. They don't have to answer to anyone.

Israel's bomb is a deterent not an offensive weapon and the Arab countries trying to destroy Israel know that. That is one of the reasons Iran wants the bomb so badly, to use it.

Thing is that North Korea or Iran could only use their bombs on countries that could respond in kind. So unless they really did lose their minds, they'd hesitate before using it. Whereas if pressed militarily Israel could use their option without fear of a matching response.

Iran only want the bomb to avoid any Iraq-style bashings, IMO - they'd be committing suicide if they ever actually used it. At the moment I don't think the leadership of Iran is mad enough. That could change, of course, in which case I'll happily promote them to "Most Likely".

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Yes a_u_p most Iranians are Persians. Thanks for playing, did you learn that off the internet?. Would you have felt better if I had said Muslims? No. Then you would admonish me for being racist against muslims.

Either way, Iran's leaders want the bomb and are only one fatwa away from using it.

You left out this.

:wink8:

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by richardm
Thing is that North Korea or Iran could only use their bombs on countries that could respond in kind. So unless they really did lose their minds, they'd hesitate before using it. There is no "they" in North Korea. There is only Kim Chong-il. And unfortunately his mind is suspect.Originally posted by richardm
Whereas if pressed militarily Israel could use their option without fear of a matching response..Israel has been pressed militarily for decades and has never paraded the "bomb" down main street. They don't even officially admit it exsists. But it does as a deterent, not as an offensive weapon.

Originally posted by richardm
Iran only want the bomb to avoid any Iraq-style bashings, IMO - they'd be committing suicide if they ever actually used it. At the moment I don't think the leadership of Iran is mad enough. That could change, of course, in which case I'll happily promote them to "Most Likely"... The Islamic government in Iran no longer has broad popular support. Iran's lawmakers chanted "death to America" in their legislature just a few short weeks ago, Iran's leaders are harsh Islamic clerics who demand people adhere to the regime's strict islamist ideology.

Obviously I have a bias towards Israel, but I feel that the probability a few islamist clerics and a goofy North Korean dictator might use "the bomb" irresponsibly before Israel does is high. ;)

[BPSCG]

I don't know who'll use it next. But if it's used against the U.S., I know who'll use the following three or four.

[Magyar]

Unless something really bizarre happens I don't believe that
any hard target - Iran, N. Korea or Israel - will use the bomb.
If they initiated first strike in a conventional manner - ie rocket, - it woud be traceable and no amount of denial or appoligetics would stop US, UK, Russia from full retaliation.

On the other hand, if OBL et al get their hands on one it will be
suitcase type. However I think this is a remote possibility.
IT is far more difficult to smuggle a completely assembled nuclear device through several countries and borders than to use one that is already here. Department of home land security is a joke.
I would say that it is FAR more likely that some American Taliban is already, or will be, employed at a nuclear plant somewhere in the US and is waiting for orders. This way, it will be hard to tell whether it was an accident or sabotage. And it will be nearly impossible, even for Bushies to pick out a target and justify using nukes.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Magyar
I would say that it is FAR more likely that some American Taliban is already, or will be, employed at a nuclear plant somewhere in the US and is waiting for orders. This way, it will be hard to tell whether it was an accident or sabotage. And it will be nearly impossible, even for Bushies to pick out a target and justify using nukes.
Or even an American citizen with impeccable military credentials but has some extreme right wing bent like Timothy McVeigh sabotages a power plant to maybe vilify foreigners so they get the blame. Or he may of just do it for all the media attention it attracts. Like a firebug lighting a forest fire.

CDR

[richardm]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Israel has been pressed militarily for decades and has never paraded the "bomb" down main street. They don't even officially admit it exsists. But it does as a deterent, not as an offensive weapon.


When I say "pressed" I mean literally, as in a major assault directed at Israel.

One thing that puzzles me slightly is that if you've got something for deterrent purposes, what is the point of keeping it secret? I suppose Israel really do have atomic bombs, and aren't just letting everyone think they do as a cheaper alternative...? ;)


The Islamic government in Iran no longer has broad popular support. Iran's lawmakers chanted "death to America" in their legislature just a few short weeks ago, Iran's leaders are harsh Islamic clerics who demand people adhere to the regime's strict islamist ideology.


Yeah, I can quite readily see that happening; bit worrying, that. But at this moment, I don't think they would.

Actually, I'm forgetting that India and Pakistan seemed to come rather close to an exchange a year or two back. Since they're two countries who are always chafing away, perhaps they're the most imminent worry.

[Ed]

The damn Albanians

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
There is no "they" in North Korea. There is only Kim Chong-il. And unfortunately his mind is suspect.

I insist you retract that foul slur. Kim Jong Il's mind is not "suspect". It's perfectly clear and orderly, floating in a gentle haze over Planet Zoopy in the Bizarro Universe, in constant mental communion with Mr Pippy the Magic Clown and legions of magical pink elephants that proffer excellent advice on governance and diplomacy.

And we needn't worry at all that the invisible leprechaun will urge the Beloved Leader to press the shiny red button. So shiny, so bright....mmmmm. The red button tastes like candy! Do it, Kimmy! Make boom go now!

I voted "Iran". Those guys are nuts.

[AWPrime]

There is no 'me' option........

[Michael Redman]

Isreal pretends it doesn't have the bomb so the US doesn't have to scold them the way we would any other country developing the bomb.

Pakistani militants get control of their bomb, and use it against India. Although there will be retribution it won't be total, and, with God on their side, the Pakistanis can finally rid themselves of the Hindu scourge.

Or maybe Brazil. They're awfully full of themselves recently.

[aerocontrols]

I voted for the US.

I hope I'm right.

[crocodile deathroll]

That's interesting, the USA and Israel are running neck and neck with the fundamentalists/terrorists with N Korea running hot on their heals.

[Kopji]

1st bet: USA. I don't think we'd ever bomb a city though. Maybe a nuclear version of a 'bunker buster' will be next. Not a huge nuclear weapon but more of a tactical one. The strategy would be to gradually wean Americans off the idea that nukes were all horrible. So next up is a 'good 'lil Nuke'.

If we located someone like Bin Laden to within a mile or so, hidden away on a remote mountain... The temptation would be there.

2nd bet: An Iranian attack on US troop concentrations in Iraq or HQ in Qatar in response to a failed or partially successful attack on them first.
If Israel or US ever attacks Iran first, it'd better be a real decisive blow.

[gnome]

I voted Israel... I predict it would be in response to a massive non-nuclear attack such as "dirty bombs"... something that killed at least 25 thousands of people or so.

Personally I believe their nuclear deterrent is the reason they haven't been invaded in a few decades. But sooner or later someone may cross the line--and that's the most likely scenario I see.

This is from someone that generally supports Israel--I think it's important for us to have a good, strong friend in the region, that is unlikely to stab us in the back. But they scare me, some. Like that guy you know that's pretty cool, but you suspect may go postal if someone pushes him too hard.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by geni
I chose france because they are the country with a lot of tactical/battlefield nukes. I see your location is UK, which supports my opinion that the Brits won't give 'em up while the froggies have them (I registered the lower-case "f").

The French are far too sophisticated to do anything so ... brutish. Any more.

I love France, but Paris ... that's the kind of city the neutron-bomb was designed for.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by evildave
If they wanna.

One will use a nuke, and then another, pretty soon everybody wants to get in on the act. Hey, do you know how much these things cost? They're there to wave, not use.

[TillEulenspiegel]

I don't think the first shot will be a stolen Soviet era MIRV warhead. I believe that there will be a test case for the fellows with table cloths on their heads. That will probably come in the form of a dirty bomb composed of some of the some 10's of thousands of missing medical use radioactives. Like Cesium and Iodine.

The case is simple drive a truck with some nitrogen fertilizer surrounded with various active elements, to wall street detonate and Viola' a billion dollar clean up. No muss no fuss and no blame.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Magyar IT is far more difficult to smuggle a completely assembled nuclear device through several countries and borders than to use one that is already here. Department of home land security is a joke.
Yes, but DoH isn't in charge of guarding nukes.

This way, it will be hard to tell whether it was an accident or sabotage. Nuclear power plants do not become nuclear bombs by "accident".

richardmThing is that North Korea or Iran could only use their bombs on countries that could respond in kind. Do you mean they only have reason to use them on such countries? What if the two Koreans resume their war, it doesn't go well for the North, and Kim decides he's going to die anyway, might as well take some Americans with him?

Iran only want the bomb to avoid any Iraq-style bashings,The reason they are worried about Iraq-style bashings in the first place is that they are engaging in Iraq-style shennanigans. They want the bomb so that they will be able to get away with even more.

[crocodile deathroll]

IMO the biggest threat from the point of view of fundamentalists would be a Chechen fundamentalists where I feel it would not be beyond them to acquire one on the black market load it on to a truck and let one off in central Moscow. They have the advantage of not having the barrier of the Atlantic Ocean like the US.

One scenario where it could happen through the US may be a situation where some madman high up in the American military decides to take in on himself to launch a missile anywhere he see fit. That could even be New York. That would not be beyond the realms of possibility because they have already got one madman in the White House.

CDR

[richardm]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

richardm Do you mean they only have reason to use them on such countries? What if the two Koreans resume their war, it doesn't go well for the North, and Kim decides he's going to die anyway, might as well take some Americans with him?


Possibly. We'll see how that develops, I suppose. At this moment I don't see South Korea kicking anything off. I could just about imagine the North getting things going in order to distract from internal difficulties, but to be honest it is a bit of a stretch. Could be wrong, though.


The reason they are worried about Iraq-style bashings in the first place is that they are engaging in Iraq-style shennanigans. They want the bomb so that they will be able to get away with even more.

Absolutely. I was suggesting that they didn't want it because they're going to nuke Israel, but so that everyone knows that if they're attacked then they will use it (and probably on Israel). As a deterrent, not an offensive thing, in my opinion. As has been said, of course, if they do succeed in getting functional nuclear weapons and then have a lurch to more radical leadership things can change and it might become offensive... however...

I think that in general, even in mad fundamentalist sects the people who end up at the very top of the greasy pole tend not to be entirely mad. For one thing, they've only got to the top because they want power, and that's not generally something you can do if you have straw in your hair. And once you've got it, you don't usually want to squander it and lose that power. So I think that while they might talk a big talk and whip up their followers, and do relatively small things (small compared to a nuclear attack, which gives a fair bit of leeway) they'd know that to nuke anywhere else that has or is supported by their own nuclear weapons would be to bring instant destruction on themselves, and to lose that power they worked so hard to get.

In most cases, mad leaders who run countries attack overtly only if they think they have a genuine chance of winning. It's the mad leaders who run small groups of people that can cause the trouble. They may of course sponsor attacks covertly, because they don't want the attack to be traced back to them and cause problems for their grip on power. I daresay there are exceptions, but I think perhaps not many.