• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Who Will be First to Go Nuclear

Who will be the first to go nuclear?

  • Vladimir Putin

    Votes: 13 25.5%

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 3 5.9%

  • Kim Jong Un

    Votes: 4 7.8%

  • Benjamin Netanyahu

    Votes: 6 11.8%

  • Ali Khamenei

    Votes: 9 17.6%

  • Xi Jinping

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • If you arelucky, you'll never know

    Votes: 16 31.4%
  • Total voters
    51
Pure ideology again - it's getting boring.

There is a difference between having enough nukes for deterrence and having enough for offensive actions.
The former is empirically useful for regional stability.

At this point, only someone who wants continuous war in the region would think that Isla and Saudi Arabia should have nukes, but not the by far biggest country by population and size.

Grow up
 
In case you haven't noticed: hell has already broken loose for millions of people - you just don't care about me them
 
theprestige said:
That's actually the best (only?) time to use them. Last ditch weapons and all that.

Do you not know what "in a pinch" means?
Click to expand...
in a pinch
being in a situation where the preferred or ideal choice is unavailable.
appearing as a substitute.
to be hard-pressed.
to be in an emergency.
being in a terrible situation where you need help.
Click to expand...
If you can't see why resorting to nuclear weapons when they are not the best choice is a bad idea, all I can say is we are lucky you don't get to make that decision. However I'm worried that Donald Trump might use them because he is 'in a pinch' politically. It's just the kind of reckless self-serving thing he would do, and I'm concerned that his incompetent sycophants would go along with it - perhaps even cheer it on.

I was less worried about global nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis than today. Back then world leaders understood the responsibility they shared, and the biggest fear was a technical glitch. Not so today. We have three world leaders who are reckless, and one of them is a narcissistic idiot who can barely read.

The age of nuclear wars won't start with an apocalypse, but with limited tactical use that escalates until everyone is doing it - just like previous weaponry did. I only hope this doesn't happen in my lifetime, preferably because humanity has grown out of such idiocy. That's why we need to keep previous idiocies like WW I and II fresh in our minds.

The US didn't drop nuclear bombs on Japan because it was 'in a pinch', the action was carefully considered and assessed to be the best option. President Truman got away with it on the premise that more civilians would die in a conventional invasion (which was true). Since then many countries have acquired nuclear weapons, but none have used them. It would be a real shame if that record of non-aggression was broken by a beleaguered President attempting to shore up cratering domestic support.
 
BTW those 9 posters who predicted that Ali Khamenei would be the first to 'go nuclear' can be happy that they were wrong. Unfortunately another contender with far less impulse control is now looking to be the most likely. I just hope we were all wrong, and the answer is nobody.
 
Truman didn't care about civilian deaths, onl US troop deaths.
At that point of the war, Japan was considered beaten - the nukes were meant as a signal to the World, especially Russia, that the US was now incontestable Top Dog.

You could argue that the bombs saved lives because their use extended a period of relative peace.

They were completely superfluous for making Japan capitulate.
 
Last edited:
Iran had the capability to build Dirty Bombs for decades, and chemical WMDs for even longer.
Fear of a WMD first strike by Iran are pure projection, not based in any reality.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Truman didn't care about civilian deaths, onl US troop deaths.
At that point of the war, Japan was considered beaten - the nukes were meant as a signal to the World, especially Russia, that the US was now incontestable Top Dog.

You could argue that the bombs saved lives because their use extended a period of relative peace.

They were completely superfluous for making Japan capitulate.
Click to expand...
This is arguable. In fact, this has been argued my entire life. Yes, Japan was definitely beaten at this point. But that doesn't mean they would capitulate. In fact, the evidence from my reading is they weren't anywhere near capitulating.
 
acbytesla said:
This is arguable. In fact, this has been argued my entire life. Yes, Japan was definitely beaten at this point. But that doesn't mean they would capitulate. In fact, the evidence from my reading is they weren't anywhere near capitulating.
Click to expand...
why ... was instant capitulation so necessary?
They were completely isolated, could be bombed at will. There was no military need to force a surrender at any cost.

What was happening was that Russia was about the take the Northern Japanese Islands, and the US didn't like the idea of the Soviets getting more force projection into the North Pacific.
As many contemporaries have said, the nukes were targeted at Stalin, not the Tenno.
 

‘Playing a dangerous game’: Putin threatens using ‘all its arsenal’ if there is a ‘direct attack on the Russian Federation’​

Click to expand...
I've seen it alternatively referred to as "all weapons". Seems like just the saber-rattling North Korea does every few months. I used to get concerned about it. Not so much, any more.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
why ... was instant capitulation so necessary?
They were completely isolated, could be bombed at will. There was no military need to force a surrender at any cost.

What was happening was that Russia was about the take the Northern Japanese Islands, and the US didn't like the idea of the Soviets getting more force projection into the North Pacific.
As many contemporaries have said, the nukes were targeted at Stalin, not the Tenno.
Click to expand...
That has been argued too. But there were very good reasons why it was necessary that Japan surrender beyond sending a message to Stalin. But an in depth conversation about this might be off topic.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
why ... was instant capitulation so necessary?
They were completely isolated, could be bombed at will. There was no military need to force a surrender at any cost.

What was happening was that Russia was about the take the Northern Japanese Islands, and the US didn't like the idea of the Soviets getting more force projection into the North Pacific.
As many contemporaries have said, the nukes were targeted at Stalin, not the Tenno.
Click to expand...
Including at least one senior US general. Scratch that it was the most of the senior command in the military.

en.wikipedia.org

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Dropping the bombs was purely a political decision, not a military one, and any political decision would include cowing the USSR as a major factor, especially given it wasTruman making it.
 
theprestige said:
In 2025, I would have said if Ukraine makes significant advances, Putin will use tactical nukes to prevent a route.

Now it's 2026, Ukraine is making significant advances, and I think it's probably a toss-up between that and Trump using nukes just because.
Click to expand...
Funny thing about Mutually Assured Destruction

It deters attacks on those that have nukes, because MAD. Now if the other country doesn't have nukes, and doesn't have allies willing to back them up, then, what's the deterrent from it being attacked with a nuke?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom