Who Will be First to Go Nuclear

[theprestige]

View attachment 73874



The US has possessd a nuclear arsenal and used it shorter than any other nation on earth.

Used it when it most needed to be used, and then never again.

 

[dellarte]

Which paranoid tyrant will be first?

Parody: Iran (So Far Away) by A Flock of Eagles

"I feel like i'm getting déjà vu"

USA gave atomic power to Iran in the 1950s then wanted it back like so-called Indian giver and now wanna regurgitate it to Saudi Arabia.

 

[dellarte]

Used it when it most needed to be used, and then never again.

Until Trump MAGA regurgitate it to Saudi Arabia 2026.

 

[arthwollipot]

The US has possessd a nuclear arsenal and used it shorter than any other nation on earth.

The US remains the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon against an enemy.

 

[Trausti]

The US remains the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon against an enemy.

In your view, which belligerent in WWII would not have used nukes if they had them?

 

[theprestige]

The US remains the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon against an enemy.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I like to think it'll be Putin's colon, literally blowing his buttocks out the Kremlin window. I mean, it probably won't happen, but one can still hope

 

[dudalb]

The US remains the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon against an enemy.

Let's move this discussion to history.,
And, frankly, this remarke is generally made as a cheap shot at the USA< without going into WHY the decision was made to drop the bomb.

 

[dudalb]

I still maintain that an exchange between Pakistan and India is the most likely use of Nuclear weapons. You have two countries in which government you have too many people who just plain hate the other country.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, yes, actual history is all a mess about the hows and whys. Unless the version taught in school before college, which is just a case of rote memorisation of names (of both people and places) and dates. /personal pet peeve

 

[theprestige]

I still maintain that an exchange between Pakistan and India is the most likely use of Nuclear weapons. You have two countries in which government you have too many people who just plain hate the other country.

As I understand it, Pakistan's weapons are disassembled, with critical components distributed amongst competing agencies. For Pakistan to use their nuclear weapons, there would have to be unanimous and urgent agreement among rival factions, that the country was facing an existential threat.

I maintain that the US will be the next nation to use nuclear weapons. Simply because the US has the small warheads and precision guidance to solve otherwise-intractable strategic problems in a pinch.

When all there was were giant inefficent warheads, and "somewhere near that city" was the height of accuracy, it made a lot of sense to demonize the idea of actually dropping those bombs.

Nowadays, the US could probably chop out Putin no problem, no matter how deep he's buried himself, for far less loss of life than what he's already caused, or would result from taking him down through conventional means. Or would result from letting him continue status quo.

 

[theprestige]

dp

 

[arthwollipot]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[theprestige]

Aw. Bless your heart, arthwollipot.

Explosions are explosions. Nobody thinks explosions are wrong, in war. Imperial Japan needed to be stopped. Unprecedented large explosions did the trick. You didn't cry when large explosions wrecked the Kido Butai off Midway. Why would you cry when large explosions wrecked Imperial Japan's designs on the entire western Pacific, including China, the Philippines, and even Australia? Do you really think the Showa Emperor should have been given a fair shot at your fair Island continent?

Things might have gone differently, if Australia had actually resolved to be a power in the region, rather than a perennial client state.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I maintain that the US will be the next nation to use nuclear weapons. Simply because the US has the small warheads and precision guidance to solve otherwise-intractable strategic problems in a pinch.

Nuclear bombs are not something you use 'in a pinch'.

The Consequences of Tactical Nuclear Weapons Use

But almost irrespective of such tactical outcomes, a state’s decision to cross the nuclear threshold instantly changes the stakes of the war and sets in motion a political crisis that will likely see many dramatic shifts within the international community. Importantly, there is a qualitative difference between the kinds of conventional attacks on civilians commonly seen in modern conflict and the specter of nuclear use, no matter the justifications those carrying out such an attack might believe or promote.

Such a provocation, even if the initial TNW use came out of a defensive logic (i.e. used to halt an invasion), would serve as a polarizing moment for the international community. With outcomes depending on the disposition of both states (i.e. whether each is seen as aggressor or defender; levels of existing international support; relative nuclear status and capabilities; see Section III for more), the international community will likely view the strike separately and distinctly from the fuller conflict—as a crisis to be responded to with superseding priority.

Once one country uses tactical nukes it opens the door for others to do the same. Escalation and proliferation is practically guaranteed. If the US uses one in Iran because it's 'in a pinch', Russia will almost certainly use them in Ukraine. It might even give some to Iran, and then all hell will break loose. Israel will probably use their nukes to take out the Iranian nukes. China will then see nukes as the answer to reclaiming Taiwan, and North Korea will use them on South Korea. The EU can't let Russia take Ukraine so they will respond in kind - and now you have global nuclear war.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Things might have gone differently, if Australia had actually resolved to be a power in the region, rather than a perennial client state.

Things might have gone differently if the US had resolved to not be a power in the region.

In case you didn't know, Australia entered World War II on September 3, 1939. The US didn't bother to join in until December 11, 1941, after Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941.

Australia in World War II

In the decades leading up to the war successive Australian governments had provided subsidies, tariffs and other incentives to encourage the development of military-related manufacturing sectors such as the production of aircraft, automobiles, electronics and chemicals. These secondary industries were integrated into a war economy during 1940 and 1941, and were able to meet most of the Army's needs by 1942.

At the outbreak of war the Australian forces in Malaya comprised the 8th Division (less the 23rd Brigade) under the command of Major General Gordon Bennett, four RAAF squadrons and eight warships. The RAAF became the first service to see action in the Pacific when Australian aircraft shadowing the Japanese invasion convoy bound for Malaya were fired at on 6 December 1941. Australian units participated in the unsuccessful Commonwealth attempts to defeat the Japanese landings, with RAAF aircraft attacking the beachheads and Vampire accompanying the British battleship Prince of Wales and battlecruiser Repulse during their failed attempt to attack the Japanese invasion fleet.

Australia was and is part of the Commonwealth. It was not and is not a 'perennial client state'. Your implication that Australia was dependent on the US for defense is off base. In fact Australia was fighting wars on several fronts even before the US became involved. Towards the end of the war in the Pacific, after repelling Japan from its shores with help from Britain and the US, Australia supplied US forces with food, materials and manufactured goods. So in fact the US was dependent on Australia for defeating Japan.

 

[theprestige]

Nuclear bombs are not something you use 'in a pinch'.

The Consequences of Tactical Nuclear Weapons Use


Once one country uses tactical nukes it opens the door for others to do the same. Escalation and proliferation is practically guaranteed. If the US uses one in Iran because it's 'in a pinch', Russia will almost certainly use them in Ukraine. It might even give some to Iran, and then all hell will break loose. Israel will probably use their nukes to take out the Iranian nukes. China will then see nukes as the answer to reclaiming Taiwan, and North Korea will use them on South Korea. The EU can't let Russia take Ukraine so they will respond in kind - and now you have global nuclear war.

At least we agree that all hell will break loose, if Iran ever gets nuclear weapons.

 

[theprestige]

Nuclear bombs are not something you use 'in a pinch'.

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?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

At least we agree that all hell will break loose, if Iran ever gets nuclear weapons.

That's exactly what people said about India , Pakistan, North Korea, etc.
But it never happened.

Pattern Recognition is your friend instead of ideology.

 

[theprestige]

That's exactly what people said about India , Pakistan, North Korea, etc.
But it never happened.

Pattern Recognition is your friend instead of ideology.

You want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Noted.