NationStates Jolt Archive

There are 5 "declared" nuclear powers, 4 de fact nuclear powers, and several want to be nuclear powers.
Who will be the next to use nuclear weapons in anger?
(The poll is limited, so some nuclear powers are doubled up.)

Hard to say...either the Yanks with their bunkerbusters, or a terrorist group.
But I'll be diplomatic today and vote the latter.

Crazy terrorists. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by using nukes.

Hard to say...either the Yanks with their bunkerbusters, or a terrorist group.
But I'll be diplomatic today and vote the latter.

Um...Bunkerbusters arent Nuclear weapons.

However, it will be a lone individual with a hand-held nuclear device, and it will result in the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people.

America will look for a scapegoat, and nuke them off the map, in retalliation.

The US already use depleted uranium weapons, and they've seriously been talking up those mini-nukes they want, so I'll have to go with them.

Um...Bunkerbusters arent Nuclear weapons.
Those are.
Hihihi, I just read there are nuclear anti-air missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-26_Falcon). I'm loving it.

Um...Bunkerbusters arent Nuclear weapons.

I do believe he's refering to RNEPs (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm).

Only the US (as a state actor) can safely launch a nuclear attack with some confidence of more than just surviving a retaliation strike. I doubt they will use any but they are most likely. One could guess Israel since they would likely nuke an arab state and they would not face nuclear retaliation. They would have to consider a nuclear Iran or Pakistan though.

I just read there are nuclear anti-air missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-26_Falcon). I'm loving it.

Sounds like you may be unfamiliar with some of the, mmm, less than wise (at least in retrospect) applications of nuclear devices. Back in the day, they tried out nuclear warheads on just about everything. The Davy Crockett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29) "atomic bazooka" is a good example. I remeber hearing about an atomic landmine as well, but can't remember what it was called.

I do believe he's refering to RNEPs (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm).


But those arent in actual deployment are they?

You fogot Myrth!

Id say North Korea or Israel.

But those arent in actual deployment are they?

So what? They don't need to be in the current inventory to be the next nuclear weapons to be used.

However, it will be a lone individual with a hand-held nuclear device, and it will result in the deaths of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people.


No handheld nuclear device could kill hundredas of thousands of people; the yield would be too low, and the subsequent radiation effects wouldn't be that strong. Even ten thousand is beyond the capabilities of handheld nukes.

I'd say it will be terrorists, if it's anyone. Nothing to lose, everything to gain.

You fogot Myrth!

No, I didn't. I refuse to participate in that. :rolleyes:


Id say North Korea or Israel.

Dang! Dangdangdangdangdang. I knew I forgot one in the poll! :headbang:

Terrorists. At this point in time, any state would have to take MAD into account, so no state would dare unless there was some dramatic situation wherein their citizens were all as good as dead anyway.

Some crrrrrrraaaaaazy terrorist will get the president if you ask me...If it's nuclear he'd just have to be cloe to the white house, so not past the Metal detectors and all that crap. Bada Boom! The states wouldnt do it, they couldnt suport themselves with all those lovely trade embargo's from the entire world. No more oil from the arab states (they are looking for a reason to dis-associate anyway), they'd be screwed. The French are eccentric and stupid enough, they might strike us with giant nuclear escargots or something, but they'd probably miss...


Pabli is currently listening to : La Breeze (The song from the Puegot 1007 advert) by Simian.

I would have to say either Terrorists or Israel...with Pakistan/India coming in third.

I would have to say either Terrorists or Israel...with Pakistan/India coming in third.


Photo finnish?

Photo finnish?
Damn, over-exposed ;)

Dang! Dangdangdangdangdang. I knew I forgot one in the poll! :headbang:
Well there's also Ukraine too at least. So, you weren't that close to perfection, and there's no point fretting about it. :)

Well there's also Ukraine too at least. So, you weren't that close to perfection, and there's no point fretting about it. :)

AFAIK, Ukraine hasn't had warheads for almost 10 years.
Ukraine announced in June 1996 that all warheads bad been removed from the country.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/ukraine/index.html

AFAIK, Ukraine hasn't had warheads for almost 10 years.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/ukraine/index.html
I stand corrected, I guess we should both be fretting then. Way to be a killjoy.

Good thing I didn't mention South Africa, then I'd really look like a dumbass.

Who will be the next to use nuclear weapons in anger?

Israel. Failing that, the US - or a group of terrorists secretly in the pay of either of those two countries.

I stand corrected, I guess we should both be fretting then. Way to be a killjoy.

Good thing I didn't mention South Africa, then I'd really look like a dumbass.

Well at least SA　had them. You could have said Argentina, Brazil, Taiwan, or one of the others who had programs...

Big fat dirty bomb in the US or GB sadly.....

As the war on terrorisms continues to fail.........

I actually voted for the US on the poll simply because of its nuclear doctrine and past use. But whose to say really. France, during the turmoil of the breakup of Yugoslavia -- possibly in Bosnia I can't rememebr -- made moves to deploy and use an 80 kiloton tactical nuke (4 time the yield of the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Photo finnish?


The Finns have nuclear weapons?

You hadn't heard :O

The Yanks are planning an invasion now, just because the words Finn and Nuclear Weapons are linked...

Israel is the most likely. Most terrorists have an agenda beyond 'kill the west' and the use of nukes would kill that agenda.

Nukes willonly then be used in 2 circumstances.

1) Psychopath gets hold of them. Equally possible anywhere really

2) Nothing left to lose. Israel is the likeliest candidate for this, followed fairly closely by Iran and North Korea.

Thought: If Iran is not yet able to respond to a nuclear strike from Israel (I don't -think- they are, but knowing the news these days, I can't be sure), they soon will be. I don't think Israel is going to nuke Iran before then, nor Iran (unless Israel or one of Iran's neighbours does something particularly offensive).

China, India and Pakistan still have quite a bit to lose from using nukes.

The UK and France will pretty much never use them except in the case of an unstoppable invasion.

NK is too desperate for aid to bomb anything, and the US doesn't want a war/ostracism from the rest of the world (as far as I can still tell), though these sorts of things tend to change with the weather.

If I HAD to stake something on it, probably <insert random psycho here>.

Of course, the possibility remains (and a decent one, at that) that the world will not bear witness to another use of grand-scale nuclear weapons.

Well, since the question said 'in anger', I picked the U.S. I believe that no matter who or what organization launches the next large-scale attack (possibly nuclear), the U.S. will get all angry and prissy and say "screw it all, let's nuke them". Considering their reaction to 9/11 it wouldn't surprise anyone, especially if the attack was on U.S. soil. The initial attack that sparks this might not be in anger though, probably for some strategic reason.

As another person said above, the U.S. is already using depleted uranium ammunition in Iraq (also the prior two 'wars') especially in the tank-busters.

France, during the turmoil of the breakup of Yugoslavia -- possibly in Bosnia I can't rememebr -- made moves to deploy and use an 80 kiloton tactical nuke (4 time the yield of the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

WTF!?! Citation please!

The US already use depleted uranium weapons, and they've seriously been talking up those mini-nukes they want, so I'll have to go with them.

Most every country that produces tanks uses depleted uranium to pierce armor...

Besides the US, DU munitions (in the form of tank and naval artillery rounds) are also deployed by the armed forces of the UK, Israel, France, Japan, China, Russia, Pakistan, and many more. DU rounds are manufactured in 18 countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

What would the US possibly gain by nuking somebody? :rolleyes:

And just a note for Fass, Sumbol, and whomever else may be confused: DU KE penetrators are emphatically not nuclear wepons.

And just a note for Fass, Sumbol, and whomever else may be confused: DU KE penetrators are emphatically not nuclear wepons.

Not nuclear in the fission sense I suppose, but aren't they significantly radioactive? Furthermore, once it fragments into dust upon impact, won't it really spread a lot of radiation wherever it gets blown?

I think the world learned its lesson from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No matter how screwed up national leaders or terrorists become, no one will use a nuke.

Nuclear weapons are by their very definition either fission or fussion devices. A radiological weapon would be one that distribute radioactive material over a wide area. DU KE penetrators do not do any of those. (If you want to object to DU penetrator use, please do so elsewhere. I would, however, suggest that heavy metal toxicity would be a stronger objection with a sounder basis than attacking DU as a "nuclear weapon".)

I think the world learned its lesson from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No matter how screwed up national leaders or terrorists become, no one will use a nuke.While I will agree about the world leaders, Terrorists however, are really unpredictable.

and there are fanatic Terrorists groups out there...

Personally, I think we're giving terrorists far to much credit. If they had the ability to get ahold of a nuclear device, do you think they would have used airplanes? No, the thought of a terrorist organization getting a nuke is simply a scare tactic used to justify the War on Terror (or the Global Struggle Against Extremism, which is what they are calling it these days.) Iraq is a prime example.

My guess is that the USA will be the next to use nuclear weapons. We have them, we know they work, and we are the only nation in history to use them in a time of war (I don't count nuclear tests) and our current foreign policy is, shall we say, aggressive.

While I will agree about the world leaders, Terrorists however, are really unpredictable.

and there are fanatic Terrorists groups out there...
First off, it would be virtually impossible for terrorists to get their hands on a good nuclear bomb; second, they know they have at least some support in the world, and if they used a nuke, they know that they'd lose that support and maybe the "coalition" might actually become a more balanced international force.

Remember, Mutually Assured Destruction only comes into play when the aggressor and target nation(s) both can respond with overwhelming nuclear force. If, say, Israel and Iran somehow got into a nuclear pissing-match, they'd mess up the neighborhood, but the big five would just sit back and make those wincing 'ouch' faces that people do when they see a particularly hard hit in football.

I doubt there are any terrorist or extremist organizations out there that are anywhere close to having nuclear weapons. While relatively simple (in concept) to construct, the fissionable material required is not easy to obtain, and has a limited useful lifetime.

Of any of the nuclear-armed nations on Earth, I'd say either the United States or North Korea are the most likely two. The current US administration has made it fairly clear that they would like to develop tactical nuclear weapons for use in 'conventional' conflict (a seriously dangerous idea, IMO), and Kim Jong-Il is just one crazy mo-fo... if he decided he had nothing left to lose, I don't doubt he'd probably try to take someone else with him... probably Seoul.

DU anti-armor rounds are most certainly not nuclear weapons, as they do not generate a release of energy through fission or fusion reactions. It's called 'depleted uranium' because it's the left-overs from the enrichment process; most of the fissionable material has been removed for use in reactors or true nuclear devices. DU is, of course, still mildly radioactive... but then, so are brazil nuts and bananas. :)

Not nuclear in the fission sense I suppose, but aren't they significantly radioactive? Furthermore, once it fragments into dust upon impact, won't it really spread a lot of radiation wherever it gets blown?

Er... no. Not in any real quantity. The local dump probably has more radiation in it from thrown away smoke detectors than an hole full of spent rounds...

It doesn't work that way... at least, no more so than bullets spread lead. (Read the link I posted a few up.) :

Depleted uranium is also very dense: at 19050 kg/m³, it is 70% denser than lead.
(read: when it hits something, very little of it fragments.)

Most scientific studies have found no link between depleted uranium and negative health effects such as cancer, liver damage, and birth defects, but many people point to other evidence that suggests a link.

Environmental groups have raised concerns about the use of this material, particularly in munitions because it is radioactive, effectively lasts forever in the environment, and also it is toxic in the same manner as lead and other heavy metals.

So: Yes, it's not the healthiest thing on Earth, but it's not like standing in downtown Hiroshima in 1946...

First off, it would be virtually impossible for terrorists to get their hands on a good nuclear bomb; second, they know they have at least some support in the world, and if they used a nuke, they know that they'd lose that support and maybe the "coalition" might actually become a more balanced international force.true, but as I said, they are the most unpredicable. Terrorists are not just the IRA, Al-Quaida or any other Groups, it can be a lone nutjob like the Unibomber.

First off, it would be virtually impossible for terrorists to get their hands on a good nuclear bomb;

What if a state sponser of terrorism gets nuclear bombs? If those states want to get back at a nation badly enough but leaving no traces to them, giving a bomb to a terrorist to do it for them is a distinct possibility.

second, they know they have at least some support in the world, and if they used a nuke, they know that they'd lose that support and maybe the "coalition" might actually become a more balanced international force.

Not if said nation gives them a nuke. Yea publicly they'll denounce but privately? That's a different story.

Depleted uranium is also very dense: at 19050 kg/m³, it is 70% denser than lead.
(read: when it hits something, very little of it fragments.)

Actually, DU rounds are useful, not only because of their high density, but because DU is pyrophoric: the heat of impact causes DU to combust vigorously. It also fragments in such a way that the rounds are self-sharpening, aiding in penetration. It fragments very well, and in very useful fashion.

The radiation produced by DU is primarily alpha and beta particles, which have very poor penetration (they're generally stopped by your skin). Inhaling DU dust (or uranium oxides) isn't very nice for your lungs, of course.

true, but as I said, they are the most unpredicable. Terrorists are not just the IRA, Al-Quaida or any other Groups, it can be a lone nutjob like the Unibomber.
who makes nuclear bombs in his basement as a hobby! lol!

What if a state sponser of terrorism gets nuclear bombs? If those states want to get back at a nation badly enough but leaving no traces to them, giving a bomb to a terrorist to do it for them is a distinct possibility.

The problem there is that there's a very good chance that eventually, someone will trace it back to this 'state sponsor', and then they'll get wiped from the map. I doubt there are too many recognized nations who're likely to take that risk.

Also, terrorist groups usually have some goal in mind, beyond just blowing up civilians. That's simply their means, not their end. Sad as it is, killing a few people here, a few people there, is easily brushed aside by the rest of the world; but the moment one of these groups go nuclear, the entire world would be after them, as they'd have just proven themselves a deadly threat.

What if a state sponser of terrorism gets nuclear bombs? If those states want to get back at a nation badly enough but leaving no traces to them, giving a bomb to a terrorist to do it for them is a distinct possibility.

...
Actually, almost all of the present nuclear powers have been supporting some kind of 'freedom fighters' or even engaged in state terrorism themselves.

The problem there is that there's a very good chance that eventually, someone will trace it back to this 'state sponsor', and then they'll get wiped from the map. I doubt there are too many recognized nations who're likely to take that risk.


Iran. if anyone is gonna do it, its a nation of far-right hardline nutjobs most likely against Isreal, then of course the USA will retaliate with full nuclear force wiping Iran off the map.

Iran. if anyone is gonna do it, its a nation of far-right hardline nutjobs most likely against Isreal, then of course the USA will retaliate with full nuclear force wiping Iran off the map.

I still doubt it. They have too much to lose, and won't have enough firepower to defend themselves from the results of their actions.

who makes nuclear bombs in his basement as a hobby! lol!
If someone was desprate enough?

then again, someone suggested a nation backing the terrorist.

who knows?

Wouldn't a better thread be titled "Who will be the next to use nuclear weapons for shits and giggles?".

I still doubt it. They have too much to lose, and won't have enough firepower to defend themselves from the results of their actions.

friend of mine, he knows someone who trains pilots. one day he was giving a lesson to a practicing muslim, no problems there Faith is no biggie as far as I'm concerned but anyway I digress, while in the air, the flight instructor told the student to take over the controls...rather than take the controls the student started praying to allah to save him putting the plane into a nosedive, the instructor barely able to pull out in time.

the point of this story? - Iran thinks that no matter what they do, Allah will protect them, that Allah would not allow there nation to be wiped out by a nuclear attack and will smite the "Infidels" who attempt such, then belive themselves untouchable meaning they wouldn't care about not having enough firepower to hit back cos like god would never allow them to be harmed.

friend of mine, he knows someone who trains pilots. one day he was giving a lesson to a practicing muslim, no problems there Faith is no biggie as far as I'm concerned but anyway I digress, while in the air, the flight instructor told the student to take over the controls...rather than take the controls the student started praying to allah to save him putting the plane into a nosedive, the instructor barely able to pull out in time.

Was that an isolated case? For all we know, it could have been a panic case of "OMG! I don't know how to fly this thing (panicking)."

People do silly things all the time.

Who will be the next to use nuclear weapons in anger?


I want to know who will be the first to use nuclear weapons in myrth? Cause, with just the right timing... It could be really funny.

Was that an isolated case? For all we know, it could have been a panic case of "OMG! I don't know how to fly this thing (panicking)."

People do silly things all the time.umm... isn't that why he was taking lessons in the first place... because he DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO FLY?!?

I want to know who will be the first to use nuclear weapons in myrth? Cause, with just the right timing... It could be really funny.

if you'll excuse my supidity and allow me to ask a silly question, whats Myrth?.

I would have to say either Terrorists or Israel...with Pakistan/India coming in third.

I wish you have not put it like that.

India has a declared "No First Use" policy implying that nuclear weapons will only be used in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian territory or on Indian forces anywhere.

The Chinese doctrine of No First Use (NFU) does not forbid the use of nuclear weapons on what they consider Chinese territory and this includes Taiwan, as a recent Chinese general's statement about nuking US indicates.

Pakistan has a declared first use policy and constantly reminds India of that.

hmm, for some reasone i think it would be india, but i have no idea why.

Ok, I vited France. In all honesty, things in history sometimes happen from the leaast likely suspect, and who is less likely then France?

Someone is eventually going to piss the French off enough, that they're going to do it.

Failing that, Israel has my top vote.

if you'll excuse my supidity and allow me to ask a silly question, whats Myrth?.

This is a Myrth (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=myrth). Myrth used to be a very active moderator on the forums. He got into trouble for misusing his mod powers and resigned (some believe in a Nixonesque manner - ie before he got formally demoded.) He is no longer active on the forums AFAIK. Due to his being a very active mod, it became a fad to include his name as an option on polls.

(And BTW, that story about the student pilot has all the trappings of an urban myth...)

hmm, for some reasone i think it would be india, but i have no idea why.

:confused:

I think the world learned its lesson from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No matter how screwed up national leaders or terrorists become, no one will use a nuke.
Including nuclear anti-air missiles and other types of nuclear weapons that do not exist to destroy cities? ;)

Most every country that produces tanks uses depleted uranium to pierce armor...

Besides the US, DU munitions (in the form of tank and naval artillery rounds) are also deployed by the armed forces of the UK, Israel, France, Japan, China, Russia, Pakistan, and many more. DU rounds are manufactured in 18 countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Last I heard, most countries had switched to tungsten rounds. Besides, the problem with Wikipedia is that it isn't always up to date. Outside of biographies, it's not much use in debates.

Including nuclear anti-air missiles and other types of nuclear weapons that do not exist to destroy cities? ;)
Tactical nukes excluded. I'm talking about modern thermonuclear hydrogen bombs that are like a thousand times more powerful than the first two A-bombs. "Thermonuclear" is such a great word. :p

Hmm None of the above. Seen some videos lately of when Canadian hockey teams lost and they went nutz. Im thinking maybe that will be the next one.
:gundge:

Tactical nukes excluded. I'm talking about modern thermonuclear hydrogen bombs that are like a thousand times more powerful than the first two A-bombs. "Thermonuclear" is such a great word. :p

Oh. So you are only talking about H-Bombs?

And you do know your nation name means "Caution" in Deutsch?

The only country stupid enough to use nukes in anger is the DPRK, but as long as China keeps them happy they won't. Terrorists might, but I can't imagine that anytime soon.

Last I heard, most countries had switched to tungsten rounds. Besides, the problem with Wikipedia is that it isn't always up to date. Outside of biographies, it's not much use in debates.

Tungsten is more expensive, both kinds are in use. The point was that they are NOT nuclear weapons.
It's still good for general information.