Who Will be First to Go Nuclear

[dudalb]

I believe a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan is the most likely.

You have two countires whose politicians basically hate each other with many long term disputes.
Likely scenario, the Kashmir situation heats up, a border clash become open conventional warfare, and it escalates.
Maybe Modi of India whould have been on the list.

 

[dudalb]

I don't think it's gonna be India-Pakistan. Neither really poses an existential threat to the other, nor does either gain any significant strategic advantage from using nukes.

But they hate each other guts, and religion....Islam vs Hinduism is involved. With religion you can throw all logic out the window.
And The Leader of India a pretty much a Hindu fanatic......

 

[shemp]

Nobody else has the Q-bomb.

That's what they want you to think!

 

[dudalb]

They're also adjacent, I can't believe that doesn't merit at least some consideration.

With a big time border dispute over Kashmir. And there have been two Major wars between the two..though the last one was before Either had nukes.
And at least one of the wars was started over a border clash in Kashmir.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I honestly don't know.

Part of me does just want to say "The United States and the USSR had their finger on the button for 44 years and 9 months and if in all that time, through multiple crises, multiple regime changes, and a countless major world events THOSE TWO never found a reason/excuse/false flag/casus belli/etc to sling nukes, nobody is."

But yeah I recognize that as both naive and a tautology. "It hasn't happened yet so it won't happen" is the most common wrong phrase in history.

But also let us be honest here. You go back to 1944 and you say "I'm from the future, from 2024. Those two bombs dropped on Japan are still the only two bombs ever dropped" would literally anyone believe you?

So I honestly don't know. Hope I don't find out anytime real soon.

 

[dudalb]

With RUssian the US you had some ratinality involved.
Not so sure that is case wiht some of the nutbars who might get their hands on nukes.

And of course, there is the possiblity that some nut group might be able to get their hands on a nuke.
And then there is the Dirty Bomb a sort of a poor man's nuke.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The "Doomsday Clock" is one of the most monumentally stupid & condescending exercises in hyperbolic preachy pretentiosity in the modern world. Anybody who participates in it puts a serious hole in his/her claim to be an "expert" in anything other than self-aggrandizing look-at-me melodrama.

I almost put "expert" in quotes in my post. My apologies for not doing so.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Dummy (I hope) Little Boy photoed by me at the Diefenbunker^WP.

\

 

[gabeygoat]

I can see Putin using mini nukes maybe
Kim Jong Un I could see using it if he was dying and just said **** it, I'm nuts. let's go nuts.


the others I think unlikely.

 

[Roboramma]

But yeah I recognize that as both naive and a tautology. "It hasn't happened yet so it won't happen" is the most common wrong phrase in history.

I think there's actually a pretty good general principle wherein things that have been stable for longer can be predicted to stay stable for something on the order of that same length of time. Of course its just a general principle, and you should definitely update on other pieces of information, but it's not a worthless piece of information.

If a company has been in business for 10 years already, it will probably still be in business a year from now. Not certainly, but you should be more confident of that than for a company that's only been in business for a month.

 

[arthwollipot]

I can see Putin using mini nukes maybe
Kim Jong Un I could see using it if he was dying and just said **** it, I'm nuts. let's go nuts.


the others I think unlikely.

Yeah. We know that if Iran uses nukes it will be against Israel. Pakistan will use nukes against India. But Kim is more likely to just yeet nukes about more or less at random, and that's why he's more dangerous.

 

[Pope130]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[Pope130]

Dummy (I hope) Little Boy photoed by me at the Diefenbunker^WP.

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10708548deb6259e19.jpg[/qimg]\

That looks more like a Mk.4. (I'm guessing the display concerns the B-36 crash in Canada?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_...ernal links-,Mark 4 nuclear bomb,-9 languages

 

[theprestige]

But they hate each other guts, and religion....Islam vs Hinduism is involved. With religion you can throw all logic out the window.
And The Leader of India a pretty much a Hindu fanatic......

I don't think they hate each other as much as all that, not at the leadership level. Nor do I think religion plays such a big part of it, at the leadership level.

Also, the components of the Pakistani nukes are stored at separate locations. It would take some effort, and some political will, to gather the parts and assemble them for use.

I think these two countries acquired nukes at a different time, when tensions were higher, and it really seemed like either country could be about to overrun the other. I think things are different for both countries, now. I think that while they each may have an interest in keeping the Kashmir dispute alive, neither of them wants or expects it to escalate to all-out war. In part because of their nukes.

I think Iran is more likely to have a short chain of command, populated entirely by people with fanatical devotion to the cause, and therefore the most likely to use a nuclear weapon to (try to) get their way.

I'm probably being soft on Moscow. I that Putin and many others would likely stoop to using a nuke in petulant defiance, salting the earth behind them as they're forced to withdraw (and maybe turning the tide of battle in their favor - but at what cost!). But I think the problem there is that Putin is not really able to trust his weapons or his people, and has to worry about the risks he incurs if the attack actually succeeds.

 

[alfaniner]

Kim Jong Un just rattled his nuke saber at the South again. That used to concern me. Now I just see it as crying wolf.

 

[Chanakya]

Are you actually disputing the factual nature of thepretige's claim? The period in which the US has possessed nuclear weapons and not used them is longer than that for any other nation. Whether or not you find this fact meaningful is a separate question from whether or not its accurate.

Want to test its accuracy? Just ask, how long is that period for the US? It stretches from just after the bombs were dropped in 1945 to today, so ~79 years.

Is there another nation that has both possessed nuclear weapons and not used them for more than 79 years?



Yes, this is also a fact. Both are true. It's up to you to determine the meaning of those facts.

Certainly I dispute the factual nature of the claim. It's a half-truth. Which is another way of saying it's a half-lie. It's weasel words, engaged in to try to spin the plain and simple truth, and to paint the one single nation that's ever unleashed atomic/nuclear weapons of mass destruction as exactly the opposite of that.

Which is not to suggest that the US is an irresponsible nuclear power. Of all the nuclear powers, I personally believe the US is amongst the saner ones. I mean, obviously. (Unless the orange madman gets to plant his fat ass on the WH again, and manages to get his paws on the red button. Then it's much like Kim Jong Whatsisface all over again, except with far bigger nukes.) ...Bar that orange catastrophe, the US certainly is a responsible nuclear power. But one might just say that straight on, instead of presenting in those terms, and trying to pretend that H&N did not happen, or that they don't count, because they do.

 

[Chanakya]

As far as this Khameini guy, do they actually have nukes? Actual workable nukes, and actual working delivery systems to effectively launch those nukes? If yes then how far's their reach, can they actually cross continents?

(Not suggesting they don't. I'm personally not really up to speed on this, don't really know, so asking.)


eta: I guess there's zero doubt they do, if Putin decides to stand behind them. And Putin's probably mad as hell already, and would be happy to be able to show the world he's got a functioning dick after all. ...God help us all, we're actually staring at a very real possibility of everything actually going boom, aren't we?

 

[theprestige]

As far as this Khameini guy, do they actually have nukes? Actual workable nukes, and actual working delivery systems to effectively launch those nukes? If yes then how far's their reach, can they actually cross continents?

Apparently Iran is weeks away from assembling a nuclear weapon. So functionally, yes, they do have nukes.

And yes, they do have delivery systems. They have several medium-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles that can be equipped with nuclear warheads. Crossing continents? Probably not yet. But they can certainly cross the region, and threaten shipping in the Gulf.

Anyone interested in Iran not having nuclear weapons should probably not try to minimize the risk of Iran having nuclear weapons.

 

[Chanakya]

Apparently Iran is weeks away from assembling a nuclear weapon. So functionally, yes, they do have nukes.

And yes, they do have delivery systems. They have several medium-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles that can be equipped with nuclear warheads. Crossing continents? Probably not yet. But they can certainly cross the region, and threaten shipping in the Gulf.

Ok, thanks. I guessed as much, that probably they do have something, but not with very vast range. But just a vague impression, I didn't actually know.

Anyone interested in Iran not having nuclear weapons should probably not try to minimize the risk of Iran having nuclear weapons.

Not sure if that was aimed at me, but if so that doesn't apply. I only wanted to know, is all, no subtext implied. ...And taking what you're saying literally, agreed, we should all hope Iran doesn't have stuff like that, given that they're the ones likeliest to actually use it if things go really bad from them in the coming days. And on those terms, agreed, no one should minimize the risk of their having nukes, absolutely not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//Slight Hijack but some I think meaningful context//

"Nuclear Power" a somewhat sloppier term then we sometimes think.

If you have a domestic nuclear power program (or sufficiently large and advanced nuclear medicine program or any form of uranium or plutonium processing) and basically any military delivery system more advanced than horseback cavalry and a slingshot... okay you're not "technically" a nuclear power but you're not a nuclear power in the same way a guy holding an unloaded gun in one hand an a full magazine in the other hand doesn't have a loaded weapon. Yes the gun is not loaded, but the gun is not loaded in a VERY different way from a guy holding an empty gun and he would have to go to the store and buy bullets. There's not loaded and then there's "not loaded."

Japan is often described as a "one twist of the screwdiver" away from being a major nuclear power, same thing with Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, and yes, Iran.

Now this is not a label of intent or desire, but from a purely technical standpoint those countries could all be reasonably large nuclear powers in a very short period of time without major research, fabrication, or "work" needed.

And real talk, even the very non-nuclear desiring of those it would shock me exactly zero percent if they do, somewhere deep in their classified defense strategies, have a plan for just that if absolutely necessary.