Which country with nuclear weapons frightens you the most?

[Alexander's Horse]

We've heard a lot about weapons of mass destruction recently.

Which nuclear power are you most afraid of and why?

[JohnT]

Oh, let me say it before anybody else!?!?!?!?

USA!!!!

[Skanky Burns]

The US is the only country to actually use them in a hostile act. They are also on the warpath (judging from recent events). Fortunately they use Australia for support, so they aren't really to be feared. They also mainly target the British for friendly fire incidents, so I don't really fear them.

No other country has used nuclear weapons in aggression, so they don't rate.

[TCO]

Russia, reasons:

1. large amount of them. Enough to end the world.
2. Intercontinental delivery mechanisms.
3. Corruption rampant.
4. Potential for slipping back into hostile dictatorship

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by JohnT
Oh, let me say it before anybody else!?!?!?!?

USA!!!!

Now why would you say that John?

[TCO]

In comparison the other nuclear powers:

US: only 1 and 2 (save the trolls, tired Horsie)
UK: half of 1 and 2
France: half of 1 and 2
China: half of 1 and 2, all of 3 and 4
India: 3 and 4 only
Pakistan: Do they have them? Can't remember if that test was verified? In any case, only 3 and 4.
Israel: Do they have them? If so, probably doesn't match any of the numbers.

[Spiffor]

1. The USA, by far.
They are the only ones who threaten to use them in an offensive way, and their current leadership is bigoted enough to actually do so. Besides, they have the power to create international crises, and won't hesitate to do so.

2. North Korea
Nuclear power is their main asset in the current diplomatic crisis. Kim might have entered a suicidial path for his country and the ones surrounding. But their conventional potential is probably more fearsome as their nuclear potential, since their artillery could easily level Seoul

3. Israel
They are fighting for their very survival. They won't hesitate to use their nukes if a conventional war goes badly.

4. Pakistan
About as fearsome as India, but it adds the nice extra touch of being a tame Islamist country that could become radical if Musharraf fails. For some reason, I don't like the idea of a terrorist-supporting regime with nukes.

5. India
Until now, the nuclear ability of these 2 countries has merely been chest-thumping, but the strong hatred between these two countries, and their propension to massacre each other, could lead to a degenrative situation.

Others aren't fearsome IMHO, since they don't intend to use them first, and should show some caution before using their nukes.

[Bereta_Eder]

none

[TCO]

Originally posted by paiktis22
none

That avatar hurts my head. Have pity on people who drank last night.

[Skanky Burns]

This thread has been voted most likely to end up under the moderator's carpet. Wine has nothing to do with this assessment. Especially not the three bottle of German reisling that have mysteriously been used up tonight by myself and my fiance.

[Bereta_Eder]

push "Diakope" (intermission/stop) at your IE! and eat capari

[BeBMan]

North Korea, if they really have them. Not because I think they are belonging to the axis of evil, but because I can´t identify a rational policy with WMDs there.

If they really have them, they could negotiate without all the aggressive rhetorics and come to a kind of "quiet" agreement with the US. But they sound sometimes as if they think they have nothing to lose, which makes them most dangerous IMO.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Wine has nothing to do with this assessment. Especially not the three bottle of German reisling that have mysteriously been used up tonight by myself and my fiance.

And your posting here rather than making out?

[SlowwHand]

India, because essentially they have the brains gave a beer can.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
India, because essentially they have the brains gave a beer can.

huh?