Which nuclear powers would you say are most likely to ignite a nuclear holocaust?

[Imran Siddiqui]

the ends justify all means?

Usually.

[Faeelin]

Hmm. I'd argue that the USA would be least likely to start a nuclear war, because we're afraid of our own people's opinion (storing the waste caused protests), internatioanl reaction, and more importantly, our own people's opinion.

Plus, as the superpower of the world, we have a vested interest in the status quo. Nuking some one would break said status quo.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by Carver
Israel.

Has a day gone by since the fifties when Israel hasn't attacked someone? And they've repeatedly demonstrated that they like offensive strikes into other countries during "peactime".

Actually, the Arab nations bring it on themselves.

In the beginning, Israel was polite enough to let their enemies attack them before they retaliated.

But that was hard.

They Figured out that when the egyptians or syrians or whomever moved tanks and troops toward their borders, they weren't planning on being friendly. So the Israelis said, "Screw this," and killed all the arabs before they had time to attack. The best defense is a good offense.

But israel would most likely lose their greatest ally, the US, if they were to make a strike on civilian centers with nukes. They kinda like having someone to make airplanes and coca-cola* for them.

*That is the national drink of Israel, is it not?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Cloud9


Well, excuse me, but this is where I got my list, and unfortunately I didn't have time to read the specifics on each nation.

Maybe you should. Argentina:

Argentina has since eschewed nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons but retains an ambitious nuclear energy program. It dismantled its ballistic missile program in the early 1990s.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
the ends justify all means?

You do realise that the use of nukes killed many people there who weren't even born in 1945?

Yes, Yes, Yes, and if we had all fought WW2 the way your country did you'd be dancing to the goosestep right now SM. We couldn't all just roll over and put our hands up in the sky. Someone had to do the fighting. How very decent of your people to leave it to the Brits, Russians and Americans. The Dutch contribution to victory? It is well known now that the Dutch resistence was so thoroughly honeycombed with Nazis sympathizers that almost all communications went directly to the Gestapo. It is known that some information concerning D-day reached the Germans from the Dutch underground. Fortunately Allied deception was sufficient to negate the leaks from Dutch forces or you'd be wearing a really neat black uniform right now.

The idea of the strategic use of air power didn't begin in the USA, it began in Germany during WW1. The Germans used terror bombing quite effectively on your people IIRC. Japan used it quite effectively on the Chinese. The main effect of the US strategic bombing campaign on Japan early in the war was to force them to divert military resources from the offensive towards the defense of Japan. It worked. The main reason that the Japanese failed to follow through on their thrust at Australia was that planes and ships were sent back to Japan to defend the emporer. It has already been pointed out above that non-nuclear bombing killed many times more Japanese people than nuclear bombing. It is a well known fact that the Japanese Imperium fully expected Japanese civilians to sacrifice themselves by joining the army in the fight to repel the Allied invasion force. Millions of Japanese would have died. Do you really mean to say that it would have been better for one or two million Japanese to die in a non-nuclear battle in place of one or two hundred thousand killed by nuclear weapons? That doesn't make sense.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Yes, Yes, Yes, and if we had all fought WW2 the way your country did you'd be dancing to the goosestep right now SM. We couldn't all just roll over and put our hands up in the sky. Someone had to do the fighting. How very decent of your people to leave it to the Brits, Russians and Americans. The Dutch contribution to victory? It is well known now that the Dutch resistence was so thoroughly honeycombed with Nazis sympathizers that almost all communications went directly to the Gestapo. It is known that some information concerning D-day reached the Germans from the Dutch underground. Fortunately Allied deception was sufficient to negate the leaks from Dutch forces or you'd be wearing a really neat black uniform right now.

The idea of the strategic use of air power didn't begin in the USA, it began in Germany during WW1. The Germans used terror bombing quite effectively on your people IIRC. Japan used it quite effectively on the Chinese. The main effect of the US strategic bombing campaign on Japan early in the war was to force them to divert military resources from the offensive towards the defense of Japan. It worked. The main reason that the Japanese failed to follow through on their thrust at Australia was that planes and ships were sent back to Japan to defend the emporer. It has already been pointed out above that non-nuclear bombing killed many times more Japanese people than nuclear bombing. It is a well known fact that the Japanese Imperium fully expected Japanese civilians to sacrifice themselves by joining the army in the fight to repel the Allied invasion force. Millions of Japanese would have died. Do you really mean to say that it would have been better for one or two million Japanese to die in a non-nuclear battle in place of one or two hundred thousand killed by nuclear weapons? That doesn't make sense.

I agree completely with everything you say. And incidentally, this helps support my contention that the Americans will be the next to use nukes, as well as being the first. Thanks!

Can't fault that good 'ol Yankee reasoning...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man


I agree completely with everything you say. And incidentally, this helps support my contention that the Americans will be the next to use nukes, as well as being the first. Thanks!

Can't fault that good 'ol Yankee reasoning...

Did you know that for 8 out of every 24 hours a Canadian is in charge of the Strategic Air Command? That means that there is a one in three chance that it would actually be a Canadian who launches the attack!

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Did you know that for 8 out of every 24 hours a Canadian is in charge of the Strategic Air Command? That means that there is a one in three chance that it would actually be a Canadian who launches the attack!

Why would they trust something like that to a canuck?!

If they get televized hockey at SAC, we're all doomed!

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Did you know that for 8 out of every 24 hours a Canadian is in charge of the Strategic Air Command? That means that there is a one in three chance that it would actually be a Canadian who launches the attack!

Me! ME!

So, why isn't Canada on the list?

( I guess this is why CSIS took away my nuclear weapons.)

[Grrr]

THE USA!!!

[prophet]I predict that Washington or so will be struck by Nuke terrorism. And as a result, the USA will detonate thousands of nuclear weapons over the middle east. [/prophet]

The first is an act of terror, for which reason can be found, if seeking and is willed. The second is a holocaust.

[Dan Severn]

for which reason can be found, is seeking is willed.

WTF??

Is that a new language?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Two wrongs never make a right.

Your defense of the use of nukes is: the japs were worse.

Rather poor argument.

Based upon the casualty numbers of past military campaigns the War Department estimated 1 million killed or wounded allied soldiers, and 5-10 million dead Japanese soldiers & citizens, if the Japanese home islands were to be invaded. I don't know the exact numbers but something like 100,000 to 200,000 people got killed in Hiroshima & Nagasaki so you do the math.

Which is better 6-11 million killed and wounded or 200k? It is much easier to b*tch and moan about the evil US then it is to take a rational look at things.

BTW I think the most likely nation to use Nukes is China. The Communist Chinese are planning to triple their number of war heads and introduce new intercontential missles. The senerio would be Indian attempting to regain the 25% of Cashmire that the Chinese invaded & occupied in the late fifies, which the Indians still claim, or the Chinese might use Nukes to stop Indian convential forces from sweeping Pakistan.

[Giovanni Wine]

Nuking Japan was a big mistake:

And here is why:

- The Americans and the Russians already agreed that Russia would start attacking Japanese occupied lands in September 1945

- The Japanese last resource was to ally with Russia

- Japan knew they were losing... but they didn't want to lose their Emperor

Now: If America had told Japan that, Russia was gonna attack them, they had two atomic bombs ready to launch, but that they would help them not fall into communist hands if they surrended, and that in exchange they would be allowed to keep the Emperor.

I think that any smart leader (and Japanese are smart enough) would have agreed to that.

Here you have your milions of lives spared, and you don't have to nuke anybody.

Anyway.... what happened can not be changed
But you can not justify, there is ALWAYS a better solution

Saluti

[connorkimbro]

it logically follows that we would probably have less hesistation to use them again.

actually, that doesn't seem very logical at all.

[Garth Vader]

I picked the US because of their switch to a "first strike" policy under Bush.

I would not have picked them a few years ago.