Which country is the most likely to use nuclear weapons any time soon?

- USA
- Great Britain
- France
- Russia
- China
- Israel
- India
- Pakistan
- N. Korea?

Mod note: add poll have fun :D

None. They haven't been used in 60 years. Why should that change? The only nuclear fear would be if a small radical group got a hold of one.

I am not as optimistic as Invert, the states most likely to use nuclear weapons is the US-NK. Should NK invade SK, the US won’t be able to field enough men to stop it so I predict the US will just have to nuke NK into submission.

Unlikely. In that scenario (in which the US lacks forces to solve the problem immediately), the US would gather a coalition of forces, and, if that proved inadequate, bide its time and impose economic sanctions until such force existed. Were it to take long enough, the rescue of SK would be abandoned and NK would win.

Not saying that's any more palatable than nuking NK, but it at least has the benefit of lacking in international nuclear fallout, not to mention the fact that (as with Iraq) we would face another round of "yes but you go too far" political rejection from the international community. The difference between this situation and Iraq being that we'd lack the incentive to nuke NK, whereas we had incentive (such as it was) to invade Iraq.

Probably none. Nations get nuclear weapons in order to increase there power in the world and not to use them.

Unlikely.

I think it is much more likely then you tend to believe. The US had nuclear weapons on the Peninsula up until 1991. I really don’t think the US necessarily cares all that much. Of course using nukes is the last scenario but it is a scenario that I am increasingly worried about.

In that scenario (in which the US lacks forces to solve the problem immediately), the US would gather a coalition of forces,

This is not all that feasible when you are dealing with North Korea, her timeframe of war is two weeks, that is amount of time that NK believes it can achieve many of its objectives. Should NK do better then expected you have to get 600,000 men to SK ASAP, how is a good question.

bide its time and impose economic sanctions until such force existed.

Completely irrelevant when you are dealing with Juche NK.

not to mention the fact that (as with Iraq) we would face another round of "yes but you go too far" political rejection from the international community.

I personally think the international community would be much more forgiving because NK invaded SK, full knowing the possibility (of course the US should get an international consensus and warn NK that should she not leave SK territory a nuclear retaliatory strike would happen, etc.

The difference between this situation and Iraq being that we'd lack the incentive to nuke NK, whereas we had incentive (such as it was) to invade Iraq.

I think the utter destruction of the world’s 12 largest economy, and a huge trading partner, and a nuclear nation with the suspected capability of attacking the US west coast, and the capability to nuke Tokyo is enough incentive imo.

I don't agree with your conclusions, but IMO there's nothing wrong with your reasoning. All I'm saying is that you've left out the most important factor: Motivation to use nuclear weapons. There doesn't appear to be any in this scenario. The country is already in the stone age, so nuking them wouldn't accomplish much from a strategic perspective. And from a tactical perspective, well there is no stand-off tactical nuclear scenario, but assuming you came up with one, what advantages would it offer over, say, air strikes?

All I'm saying is that you've left out the most important factor: Motivation to use nuclear weapons.

There is motivation to use nuclear weapons on the peninsula, NK’s military albeit old is well run. The motivation is that the US cannot let NK win SK that would be out of the question. We must remember that back in the 50s that Macarthur wanted a nuclear strike against NK and China. SK today is integral to the world economy, as is Japan and both are under direct nuclear threat from NK. The US is obligated under treaty to assist both SK and Japan should anyone attack them. Although I doubt that using the nuke option is the first option, it is the last. The time frame for which “the last” comes very quickly on the peninsula. Also the US said she would use nukes should NK use WMD, and it’s almost a certainty that NK will use her large stocks of Chemical weapons.

The country is already in the stone age, so nuking them wouldn't accomplish much from a strategic perspective.

Firstly that is the first mistake people make about NK, although the countries economy is in bad shape it is no way in the Stone Age. It is reminiscent of Soviet industry, inefficient, old, but it still churns out deadly weapons. NK has been able to develop missiles that have the capability (suspected) to attack the US with a weapon. People usually confuse economic growth with economic power, NK’s industry is really under utilized not “Stone Aged”. Nuking NK wouldn’t stop the NK military machine either, but it would retard her growth.

And from a tactical perspective, well there is no stand-off tactical nuclear scenario,

No? If NK really does detonate her nuclear weapons, the situation will heat up within days.

the list is incomplete
Iran, if and when it gets a weapon, will be the first one to use it
or 2nd. NK will definitely use it if US gets too cocky

the list is incomplete

No it is complete, Iran still does not possess a nuclear weapon as of yet.

Iran, if and when it gets a weapon, will be the first one to use it

I very highly doubt that, Iran knows it would nuked beyond recognition should it actually use its nukes. Nuclear weapons you must understand are not made to be used; they are made not to be used. Look Saudi Arabia can very easily get nukes from Pakistan should the situation warrant it. Iran getting the bomb would fundamentally shift the balance of power into the region into what the region needs so badly, geo-political equilibrium. Israel wouldn’t be brazen enough to start acting up if Iran has a weapon, and that’s the point to mitigate Israel power to what it should be. Should Pakistan develop longer ranged missiles Israel is also within her range, and effectively outside Israel’s range. Israel will eventually be threatened by a nuclear nation soon enough the question is not if, but when.

Just to continue this on a purely intellectual level (I know you're not necessarily advocating this, we're just talkin here).....

First, regarding NK in the stone age: I know they're not literally so, but they're not all that far removed from it. Have you see the infamous night-time satellite photo of the two Koreas that was circulating a few months ago? It's an eye-opening example of just how far back they are. Well, unless one hypothesizes that they're all hooding low pressure sodium lights to protect their valuable observatories doing important astronomical research. (grin) But you're right, the military is what matters here, so let's stick with that. We'll rule out strategic nuclear attack and focus on tactical.

With the assumption that NK sets off a nuclear weapon first, I'll stop the debate right there and just conceed the point.

From the tactical perspective, I think what you're suggesting is that we might find a scenario in ground combat in which they might be useful. Am I reading that right? You're suggesting that when the two armies start to face off, it might be prudent to drop a few nukes on the combat forces, or logistics, or whatever?

That being the stipulation, I'll agree with your point on a purely tactical basis. I think that's a very marginal scenario, but certainly more likely than using them as part of an air assault, or as a strategic approach. Air combat in the region is really not an issue, and the whole country is accessible by carrier-based aircraft, and land bases exist in the region as well, so really tactical nukes as part of a ground assault is the only option here.

I think you have a point there. Air attack on ground forces would be far less effective than Iraq -- it's not a desert. So you can soften them up a little but you're still looking at huge numbers.

I still wouldn't believe it, just from a political perspective. But if there's a place where it might come up, that would be it. Good analysis.

First, regarding NK in the stone age: I know they're not literally so, but they're not all that far removed from it. Have you see the infamous night-time satellite photo of the two Koreas that was circulating a few months ago?

I have seen those pictures, and it’s because NK’s energy situation is in dire straights. The situation in NK is that the power plants are unable to produce enough electricity because of a self-perpetuating cycle of not enough production. Like I said before the problem with NK’s economy is that it’s economy is very much under utilized, and there is little if any investment inside the economy. There is a reason why NK is building nuclear powerplants, not only to make bombs but to energize NK. What’s really sad is that NK’s in the 80’s had more electricity, more food per capita then SK.

From the tactical perspective, I think what you're suggesting is that we might find a scenario in ground combat in which they might be useful. Am I reading that right? You're suggesting that when the two armies start to face off, it might be prudent to drop a few nukes on the combat forces, or logistics, or whatever?

Not exactly, a war in NK would have no precedent in history, NK has 700,000 men on the DMZ ready to invade SK, and even has men inside SK to start a second front. NK has the capability to launch 500,000 artillery shells on the capital and hour! That’s about 8333 shells a minute on the city. NK’s artillery is well hidden, and even with hi-tech tracking by American weaponry it would not be sufficient enough to silence the NK’s.

As noted previously, the figures presented here represent the optimal KPA long-range artillery threat to Seoul alone. If all the KPA's artillery of 100mm or more, capable of firing across the entire DMZ, were calculated together they could achieve an initial rate of fire of approximately 300,000-500,000 rounds per hour.

Source: Janes


I am not saying that NK is a superman force here, really they are quite an old force with questionable reliability. But I personally doubt that SK alone would be able to thwart an NK assault. The war on the Peninsula will be a fast one; estimates put the number of American forces up to 600,000. That is the critical problem, the US doesn’t have 600,000 men to spare, they are tied up in Iraq, and other regions around the world. IMO if a war were to happen today the US would have very little recourse vis-à-vis NK.

Air combat in the region is really not an issue, and the whole country is accessible by carrier-based aircraft, and land bases exist in the region as well, so really tactical nukes as part of a ground assault is the only option here.

Two weeks, that’s the time frame of this war four months max. That is how long it took the US to bring men to Kuwait etc, imagine SK? NK has 500+ scuds, and other such missiles, easily able to overwhelm defenses in the South. The NK’s will use covert operations, etc at her disposal also we forget that NK has a huge intelligence force within the SK military itself.

Air attack on ground forces would be far less effective than Iraq -- it's not a desert. So you can soften them up a little but you're still looking at huge numbers.

The problem with NK is that there is very little intelligence on its bases, and most of NK’s most important military assets are underground, and this quote from Globalsecurity.org pretty much validates the problems the US would face in NK:

U.S. military officials express confidence in existing intelligence. During a February Internet discussion, U.S. Forces Korea commander Gen. Leon LaPorte was questioned about the accuracy of intelligence on North Korea in light of the failings in Iraq. LaPorte ticked off a list of what the United States knows about the North Korean military: 70 percent is poised south of Pyongyang; it has the world’s largest special operations force; it has an “asymmetrical threat” including biological and chemical weapons.
The US has its bed made…

Why isn't anyone saying Israel. If they've got 'em then I would guess they are the most likely to use them. Though to be honest I don't know much about the whole India/Pakistan dynamic. I think Israel has survived by being one crazy som bitch in the past, and they are just right wing and militant enough to do it. They have the entire Arab world nipping at their heels and their leaders favor plans like building giant concrete walls to block off refugee camps, firing missiles into residential buildings and the like. The rhetoric they use now to justify their heavyhandedness I think would still work beautifully if they used a nuke on say, Syria. With a republican whitehouse they could probably get away with it too!

I don't want it to sound like I am Israel bashing, I mean I think the arab nations who are so committed to the destruction of Israel are also psychotic, its just that for some reason my country supports Israel in almost all of its actions that I don't understand.

Undecided,

Those are all valid points. Even with, what, ten carriers (?), it takes weeks to reposition them, so you're looking at no more than four carriers available near Korea in a decent time-frame, although presumably if they showed *signs* of war then you'd have a couple close-by. But that's, what, 80-160 strike fighters? Too many targets, not enough time.

Yes, I agree South Korea's situation is grim.


SpyMoose,

Israel's already been through two wars since acquiring nuclear capability, and they haven't used them yet. They're pretty well aware of the political ramifications of such use.

In fact that may be a good example of why the US wouldn't use them even to save South Korea. Once you open that door, once that "nuclear jeanie" is out of the bottle, there's no turning back. It's not hard at all to envision diplomatcs and military strategists rationalizing that decision -- "if it's okay for the US to do it...."

India & Pakistan are the one's that worry me. They have joined the nuclear club for 'prestige' purposes. Countries that obtain nukes for prestige I feel are the most likely to use them. Am I saying that India & Pakistan are not 'grown up enough' to be able to handle the responsibility of nuclear weapons? damn right, that's exactly what i'm saying, they should concentrate on improving their respective economies and stop trying to join the 'big boys' league.

As for NK, an attack on SK 'especially' a suprise attack with virtually no warning could possibly require a nuclear response. I do feel that a NK attack on the south would find no support anywhere in the world and as such a carefully targeted US nuclear response would be accepted. There would be the usual condemnations in the UN (this is called going through the motions) but I don't think anyone would actually risk confrontation with the US to protect the ultimate pirah state. An attack on SK by NK would be a foolish error and surely even the scumbag leaders of NK are not that stupid are they?

this is the only time you will ever hear me shout: USA, USA, USA, USA

Pangloss

Even with, what, ten carriers (?), it takes weeks to reposition them, so you're looking at no more than four carriers available near Korea in a decent time-frame, although presumably if they showed *signs* of war then you'd have a couple close-by. But that's, what, 80-160 strike fighters? Too many targets, not enough time.

Carriers should be the saving grace of the operations for the SK’s, but as you said it takes weeks to get that many there. Weeks the US simply doesn’t have, NK’s air forces would pretty much be rendered useless its way too old and the US, even SK would easily get air superiority. The problem is that the targets of interest are located underground. There are an estimated 11,000 tunnels inside NK, and surely more. Kim Il Sung made NK into a fortress, the entire economy is build around the military, literally the entire economy, and many of the most important facilities are built to withstand a nuclear attack. Secondly NK is a dark hole when it comes to intel. I doubt that there is any human intel. inside NK for the US. So I see a nuke attack on NK getting more and more likely. Let’s not forget that NK has at least 8 nuclear devices of her own.

SpyMoose

Supposedly Israel’s nuclear policy is to not use them until Israel’s territorial sovereignty is violated. What is now scary about the Israeli nuke arsenal is that she now has the triad capability, land, air, and sea capability to launch a nuke. So even if you utterly destroy Israel her nuclear armed subs can attack you later on.

aghart

Am I saying that India & Pakistan are not 'grown up enough' to be able to handle the responsibility of nuclear weapons? damn right, that's exactly what i'm saying,

I trust India, I don’t trust Pakistan. India is an established democracy, with a booming economy, and has taken the policy of which not to use nuclear weapons offensively. Pakistan is a dictatorship, almost always on the verge of a violent Islamic revolution, a relatively small economy, and has not rescinded the use of nuclear weapons offensively.

An attack on SK by NK would be a foolish error and surely even the scumbag leaders of NK are not that stupid are they?

NK’s leaders are anything but stupid, they are master manipulators. NK attacking SK would be out of total desperation on the part of NK.

Nuclear weapons you must understand are not made to be used; they are made not to be used.

Six months ago I'd have agreed with that view but I've been hearing more and more about plans by the bush admin to develop low yeild nukes (sort of the ultimate bunker buster). If these are made (or are already being made, I'm not sure at what stage they are in the development) I have no doubt the US will be the next country to use nukes.

Yes Buffy’s America’s insistence that TNW or Tactical Nuclear Weapons is certain to raise nuclear tensions internationally.

In some respects, TNWs are more dangerous than strategic weapons. Their small size, vulnerability to theft, and perceived usability make the existence of TNWs in national arsenals a risk to global security. And the new perception of the usability of nuclear weapons in both Russia and the United States, albeit for different reasons, could create a dangerous precedent for other countries.

The problem with TNW’s is that they set precedent, and you could start seeing Russians using nukes in Chechnya, or China against Taiwan, and it would legitimize a NK use of tactical nuclear weapons as well. The US is indeed playing with fire that is hotter then the surface of the sun.

exactly.

Christ, look at what proliferation of rpg's has brought. Can you imagine what a nightmare shoulder or tank mounted nukes would cause? Like every other hi-tec weapon the US will have an enormous advantage at first but eventually - likely sooner than later - it will become a standard weapon.

Frankly, I have trouble understanding the logic behind their development, it's absolutely garanteed to lead to a less stable future for everyone. I know governments often do shortsighted things but there is usually an argument that can be made in favor of these actions (not always a good one but an argument nonetheless). From the little I've gathered so far TNW's have no redeemable qualities at all regarding long term security.

No matter how hawkish a person might be, I can't see how anyone might consider TNW's a good idea.

The USA has deployed "TNWs" for decades. I don't doubt the deployment of nuetron weapons either, both by the USA and Israel. This "controversy" is about restarting an industry, as opposed to maintaining and upgrading existing weapons, which is routinely done without any special appropriations or ballyhoo. I think this "controversy" also is even more significantly a testing of the waters, and a softening up of public opinion, because a new order of battle on tap for a Korean War II scenario (in the present over-extended status of US forces) now includes the early unleashing of tactical nukes.

"No matter how hawkish a person might be, I can't see how anyone might consider TNW's a good idea."

I think it takes more than hawkishness for the USA to justify building an even larger and more diverse nuclear arsenal: This goes beyond deterrence, and beyond considerations about proliferation- to a mindset of world domination. More than ever, "we have met the enemy, and he is us".

America has systematically raised the stakes internationally with nuclear weapons, with the abandonment of the ABM treaty (which was the corner stone of all nuclear treaties), with the building of the $60 billion Barbie doll otherwise known as “National Missile Defence” (NMD), the US actively looking into the use of TNW’s, and yet we consider other states as WMD threats? The US’ ratcheting up of nuclear tensions has gotten China all riled up she fears NMD, and is expected to have I believe over 400 ICBM’s by the end of this decade, up from her 25! Russia is developing anti-NMD warheads that can maneuver, etc. If America enjoys throwing away $60 billion, ok.

NMD is for 1) IMO a Joke.
They need to use space based or plane based lasers (or whatever) to shoot down these missles. The whole interceptor concept is a waste.
I dont see what China has to be afraid of being that the NMD doesnt work and is very small in scale. It couldnt knock down 2 missles let alone 200. NMD is meant to rattle North Korea who seems to like sending missles over Japan from time to time.
The Soviets could care less about it. They have 5-10,000 nukes sitting around (more than enough to penetrate our silly little system).

As far as which countries would use a nuke?
Im betting on a terrorist group 1st. Then the U.S., Isreal, Britian, Russia (cant forget those rebels down south...), or whoever was attacked would then respond and get rid of the middle east.

Pangloss

I trust India, I don’t trust Pakistan. India is an established democracy, with a booming economy, and has taken the policy of which not to use nuclear weapons offensively. Pakistan is a dictatorship, almost always on the verge of a violent Islamic revolution, a relatively small economy, and has not rescinded the use of nuclear weapons offensively.
.


Ya very good conditions to trust. lol. Anyways, Pakistan had nukes when zia was in power, a far more extermist dictator was in power then any other, they didn't use them. Pakistan have nukes for last 20 year and india for about 30 years. They didn't use them, I think only ARABS are stupid enough to use them. They are handicap when it comes to anything sensible. look at Iranians they are so fucking pathetic that they can't produce jack shit in last 20 years they are keep trying even thou they got help from qadir khan. Once again I think stupid iranians or arabs same thing to me will try to use it. Then look at libya another group of retarded arabs who can't produce anything, actually I take it back, Arab in general are pretty coward and they can't use nukes at all, I remember reading about the Arab Israel war and Egyptions ran away from their posts when they heard Israelis were coming and all tehy had to do was push the buttons for Surface to Surface missiles. So, in the end it will be Israel or USA and they will use the nukes without any hesitations.

Ya very good conditions to trust. lol.

Significantly better then any reasons for Pakistan. I am sorry but when your dictator is constantly trying to be killed by Taliban extremists, or when a growing number of members of the Pakistani military are supporters of Islamist idealism, not secular democracies something is dangerously wrong.

Anyways, Pakistan had nukes when zia was in power, a far more extermist dictator was in power then any other, they didn't use them.

To the best of my knowledge the Pakistani’s did not have nuclear weapons in the 80’s, can I see substantiation?

They didn't use them

Because I doubt that Pakistan even had them, secondly did Pakistan even have the capability to deliver then 20 years ago?

Ya very good conditions to trust. lol.

Significantly better then any reasons for Pakistan. I am sorry but when your dictator is constantly trying to be killed by Taliban extremists, or when a growing number of members of the Pakistani military are supporters of Islamist idealism, not secular democracies something is dangerously wrong.

Anyways, Pakistan had nukes when zia was in power, a far more extermist dictator was in power then any other, they didn't use them.

To the best of my knowledge the Pakistani’s did not have nuclear weapons in the 80’s, can I see substantiation?

They didn't use them

Because I doubt that Pakistan even had them, secondly did Pakistan even have the capability to deliver then 20 years ago?


Pakistan had means to deliver them probably before they even had them, Chinese A-5 were configured for that purpose and then in 1984 pakistan got the F-16s. Pakistan had the nukes since 1984 but never detonate one, thanks for the Indians. I wonder if pakistan was so extremist then why they never detonate one? Insteadn indians did it. Ahh some questions for some Arm chair generals like ya self.

Do you want me to give you the names of all the books? news paper cuttings etc? I can only provide so much. I am not sure if everythin made it to internet. By the way a good start for you would be www.fas.org and look under pakistan. You will get your answers, I hope.

Oh and on the note of dictator/demon cazy etc, you can shove it back into your throat, We don't need *your* demon crazy. And sure pakistan army is an extremist army...lol. :D

Chinese A-5 were configured for that purpose and then in 1984 pakistan got the F-16s.

Ok then can I see a source for that please?

Pakistan had the nukes since 1984 but never detonate one, thanks for the Indians.

Ok then can I see a source for that please?

I wonder if pakistan was so extremist then why they never detonate one?

Ermm…1998 read up.

I can only provide so much. I am not sure if everythin made it to internet. By the way a good start for you would be www.fas.org and look under pakistan. You will get your answers, I hope.

I have 13 websites on my favourites associated exclusively on WMD; I have yet to see anything of what you are saying. All I am asking for is a simple quote, put up or shut up logic.

And sure pakistan army is an extremist army...lol.

Please tell me you deny that?

Chinese A-5 were configured for that purpose and then in 1984 pakistan got the F-16s.

Ok then can I see a source for that please?

Pakistan had the nukes since 1984 but never detonate one, thanks for the Indians.

Ok then can I see a source for that please?

I wonder if pakistan was so extremist then why they never detonate one?

Ermm…1998 read up.

I can only provide so much. I am not sure if everythin made it to internet. By the way a good start for you would be www.fas.org and look under pakistan. You will get your answers, I hope.

I have 13 websites on my favourites associated exclusively on WMD; I have yet to see anything of what you are saying. All I am asking for is a simple quote, put up or shut up logic.

And sure pakistan army is an extremist army...lol.

Please tell me you deny that?


did you read fas? some sources can be found here, http://www.pakdef.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=23

oh by the way how would you like me to prove that A-5 can carry nukes? Or do they tell the whole world about every single plan which can carry nukes? even the ROSE II upgraded mirages can take nukes, but how do u want me to prove it? Put the specs on? or put the specs with a SEAL from Pakistan high comission? If you don't know that A-5 and F-16 given to pakistan in 1984 could and can carry nukes then I am not sure how to help you. Use your 13 websites and help your self.


And yes I deny that, and if you think other wise please prove me wrong. ;)

I wonder if pakistan was so extremist then why they never detonate one?

Ermm…1998 read up.


Don't just get too excited. I meant to say if they were what you made out of them then they should have been the first to detonate it. ;)

Year by Year accord.

http://www.pakistanidefence.com/Nuclear&Missiles/Nuclear_Program_Chronology.html

I was a year off. It was 1985.

Get this book I don't have it online and u can see in more detail.

Author / Editor
Mian, Zia, Ed.
Title Pakistan’s Atomic Bomb & The Search For Security
Publisher Gautam Publishers
City Lahore, Pakistan
Date Published 1995


You asked for links?

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/aircraft/index.html


Pakistan Nuclear Weapons
A Brief History of Pakistan's Nuclear Program
Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972.

India's 1974 testing of a nuclear "device" gave Pakistan's nuclear program new momentum. Through the late 1970s, Pakistan's program acquired sensitive uranium enrichment technology and expertise. The 1975 arrival of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan considerably advanced these efforts. Dr. Khan is a German-trained metallurgist who brought with him knowledge of gas centrifuge technologies that he had acquired through his position at the classified URENCO uranium enrichment plant in the Netherlands. Dr. Khan also reportedly brought with him stolen uranium enrichment technologies from Europe. He was put in charge of building, equipping and operating Pakistan's Kahuta facility, which was established in 1976. Under Khan's direction, Pakistan employed an extensive clandestine network in order to obtain the necessary materials and technology for its developing uranium enrichment capabilities.

In 1985, Pakistan crossed the threshold of weapons-grade uranium production, and by 1986 it is thought to have produced enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Pakistan continued advancing its uranium enrichment program, and according to Pakistani sources, the nation acquired the ability to carry out a nuclear explosion in 1987.


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/index.html

With year on and off, but the point being that they had the nukes in 80s and you calimed that they woould have used them to who ever you thought against lol............so they did have them. Now, I wish you weren't that lazy and I have to work. Next time just take my words for whatever I tell you friend. ;)

Oh and It is time that you update your WMD links,

there are few dozen for more links that you were looking for frome me.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/index.html

And yes I deny that, and if you think other wise please prove me wrong.

Are you on PMS Skywalker? I never asserted otherwise about the A-5, or the F-16 so calm the F**k down, all I asked for was when they were adapted to carry nukes for the Pakistani’s.

Don't just get too excited. I meant to say if they were what you made out of them then they should have been the first to detonate it.

That is not what you said little one, what you said did they never detonated them (period) and I said yes in 1998. You have to learn how to use the English language correctly, do us all that favour.

I was a year off. It was 1985.

1985--ABC News reports that US believes Pakistan has `successfully tested' a `firing mechanism' of an atomic bomb by means of a non-nuclear explosion, and that US krytrons `have been acquired' by Pakistan.
1985--U.S. Nuclear Export Control Violation: Texas, krytrons (nuclear weapon triggers).
1985--U.S. Nuclear Export Control Violation: US cancelled license for export of flash x-ray camera to Pakistan (nuclear weapon diagnostic uses) because of proliferation concerns.
1985/6--Media cites production of highly enriched, bomb-grade uranium in violation of a commitment to the US.
1985 -- Pressler Amendment [section 620E(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act] requires a total cut-off of U.S. aid to Islamabad unless the president can certify that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear weapon, and that continued US aid will significantly decrease the probability of its developing one in the future.
Nothing here states that Pakistan had a nuclear weapon in 1985; all Pakistan had been the ability to blow up a bomb “by means of a non-nuclear explosion”. And you even contradicted yourself when you quoted this: according to Pakistani sources, the nation acquired the ability to carry out a nuclear explosion in 1987. Hmmm…can you please read your own sources next time so we avoid this laughable incident?

And yes I deny that, and if you think other wise please prove me wrong.

Are you on PMS Skywalker? I never asserted otherwise about the A-5, or the F-16 so calm the F**k down, all I asked for was when they were adapted to carry nukes for the Pakistani’s.

Don't just get too excited. I meant to say if they were what you made out of them then they should have been the first to detonate it.

That is not what you said little one, what you said did they ever detonate them (period) and I said yes in 1998. You have to learn how to use the English language correctly, do us all that favour.

I was a year off. It was 1985.


Nothing here states that Pakistan had a nuclear weapon in 1985; all Pakistan had been the ability to blow up a bomb “by means of a non-nuclear explosion”. And you even contradicted yourself when you quoted this: [/b] Hmmm…can you please read your own sources next time so we avoid this laughable incident?

Awww... getting lil frustrated ? First no one is going to fucking tell you that they have nukes ready or non ready when a country posses the Nuclear explosion capability they have ready nukes or not, no one and i repeate no one will tell you for sure. Now what the fuck do you want? you wanted them to come out and tell every one yes they have it, or wait........ you wanted them to print it all out on a nice paper and send it to all the major world meida outlets so I CAN provide you a link today. You have got to be retarded if not handicap. Israel got nukes and did they tell any one WHAT day.year month they made one ready??? Do you u see what a retarted question you have asked? lol.....


When they were adapted to carry nukes?? again you are asking stupid questions just to write a reply you are wasting ur own time.

no one can ever answer about what time, it is the common understanding that chienese A-5 were able to carry nukes for china men so when they were converted is not important there are no records when any plane was converted to carry nukes or is there? Mirages/ f-16s were always been able to carry nukes. Now dont u fucking tell me that you want dates about when they were configured because that would be retarded.


*That is not what you said little one, what you said did they ever detonate them (period) and I said yes in 1998. You have to learn how to use the English language correctly, do us all that favour. *

Sure I will. If it was very hard for you to understand,I am sorry. But that is what I meant. But one way or another you get the point. Now don't waste your time by keep repeating the same thing, such as *I want the fucking proof, I want the fucking dates, I want to know what day/year/ time it happened** becuase you have to be retarded to ask questions like these, since no one will ever tell or made that kind of info all public. May be 50 years from now it will be all public. So untill then you better believe me and fas and all other resources included in those links.

Awww... getting lil frustrated ?

Who wouldn’t, I’m dealing with a prepubescent child who contradicts himself, and goes on tirades with ad homs, when all I asked for was sources to substantiate his stance.

. You have got to be retarded if not handicap.

I do have a handicap, it’s called being cognitive, frankly most of us here have that handicap that seems to escape you. What do I mean by that? Well look at morass you wrote before what I quoted, that literally had no value. I am shocked you wasted that amount of energy. So you want to continue to ad hom, go ahead but it’s only detrimental to you.

Israel got nukes and did they tell any one WHAT day.year month they made one ready??? Do you u see what a retarted question you have asked?

My question is not retarded, if it were retarded as you say, then why were you trying to answer it? Wouldn’t you by association also be “retarded”? I thought so…

When they were adapted to carry nukes?? again you are asking stupid questions just to write a reply you are wasting ur own time.

Actually again, you tried to answer my questions so my questions were not a waste of time.

Now dont u fucking tell me that you want dates about when they were configured because that would be retarded.

Not really, firstly it is relevant to find out when aircraft are fitted to carry nuclear weapons because it shows us when the government felt it necessary to configure those aircraft, secondly it is important to know so we can an educated guess as to when the nation got nuclear capability. So I don’t know why it is retarded?


Now don't waste your time by keep repeating the same thing, such as *I want the fucking proof, I want the fucking dates, I want to know what day/year/ time it happened**

Firstly I never said fucking in that context so don’t incorrectly quote me, secondly using your logic I can say that most Pakistani’s are really Roman Catholics, I don’t need to prove it. So yes you need to prove what you are saying, good luck in University mein friend (should you happen to go).

i read an article on the guradian, in 20 years from now there will be SERIOUS water/energy/food shortages in almost ALL countries so there will be most likely nuclear war fare!!
what? how would nuclear war solve the problem of food/water/energy shortages?

By getting rid of the problem...humanity. ;)

I think it's funny that the Americans try to disarm other countries but they insist on keeping all of their weapons.

I believe that all countries should rid themselves of nuclear weapons. They are unecessary.

I believe that all countries should rid themselves of nuclear weapons. They are unecessary.

I personally disagree; I think nuclear weapons have prevented another world war. If the Cold War happened without a nuclear weapon there would have been another major war, much larger then WWII. Nuclear weapons among major powers has one major positive factor, it prevents wars. It is in nobody’s interest to go into a conflict with another state that has nuclear weapons. I am pro-nuclear weapons because I am largely confident they exist not to be used.

I think it's funny that the Americans try to disarm other countries but they insist on keeping all of their weapons.

I think it's that kind of profound hypocrisy that is at the heart of much of the anger leveled at america.

The UN resolutions that sadam broke are another example. That was waved around as justification to attack iraq and yet the US treats the UN with total contempt 99% of the time. The only time anything they say actually matters is when it coincides with americas views.

The hypocrisy is staggering, the weird thing is the majority of americans don't even seem to realize how out-of-whack their actions are to their words.

Awww... getting lil frustrated ?




Blah blah and more blah blah...........;) How many countries disclosed when they become nuclear power and when they REALY became nuclear power, How many fighter planes were publicaly announced to carry nukes and how many werent'? So I still think that you are asking very retarded question and wasting awfull lot of time by writing to pretty much every single post in this forum.

There goes another one of your posts. :D :p

If Bin Laden had some nukes, no matter if they were large or small, he would'nt hesistate to use them and use them wherever he felt he could hurt or cripple the U.S. or U.S. interests..........My guess is it's only a matter of time before he gets some!

Yob Atta

yes, but bin laden is not a country as far as i am aware. so the only way of making the comment relevant is to ask, "from where will bin laden get his nukes?"

Blah blah and more blah blah...........;)

So you have finally completed your cognitive surrender I see.

How many countries disclosed when they become nuclear power and when they REALY became nuclear power,

USA, USSR, UK, France, China, India, and Pakistan…just to name a few. You really only become a nuclear power if you detonate your weapon.

How many fighter planes were publicaly announced to carry nukes and how many werent'?

Then why were you trying to answer the question? You obviously don’t know what you are saying. “Blah blah and more blah blah” indeed.

So I still think that you are asking very retarded question

I think everyone here agrees the only “retard” here is you because you tried (in vain) to answer my legitimate questions, then when unable to come up with a coherent and logical answer, you start to ad hom, and the cognitive surrender was assured. So go on and “Blah blah and more blah blah” I dare you, because the only person you are making look stupid is yourself.

I think it's funny that the Americans try to disarm other countries but they insist on keeping all of their weapons.

I believe that all countries should rid themselves of nuclear weapons. They are unecessary.

Do you also think its funny that the UK, France, China, and Russia also want to disarm other countries but insist on keeping their weapons? This is not "Only America wants to keep its nukes.."

All the world needs is some Bozo country like Iran to get a nuke. Look how much of a problme N. Korea is. If N. Korea didnt have nukes then no one would care and we could let them rot. Once a year they hold Japan and South Korea hostage and demand Money, Food, and Fuel.

Look how much of a problme N. Korea is. If N. Korea didnt have nukes then no one would care and we could let them rot.

That’s exactly why NK having nukes is not necessarily all that bad. If we play our cards right NK should give up her nukes in return for economic assistance, and eventual political reform within the country. If NK had no chips to bargain, and was desperate what would have been the alternative? I shudder to think…

Once a year they hold Japan and South Korea hostage and demand Money, Food, and Fuel.

Imo, better then being destroyed.

Once a year they hold Japan and South Korea hostage and demand Money, Food, and Fuel.
i don't see how this would work. a country really can't hold another country hostage with nukes nowadays. suppose nk did launch against sk and japan. now they are royally f***ed. their worthless little stretch of pennisula is going to be bombed to s***. and nobody will really care about sk and japan, they're dead afterall, right? :D

Blah blah and more blah blah...........;)

I think everyone here agrees the only “retard” here is you because you tried (in vain) to answer my legitimate questions, then when unable to come up with a coherent and logical answer, you start to ad hom, and the cognitive surrender was assured. So go on and “Blah blah and more blah blah” I dare you, because the only person you are making look stupid is yourself.

there you go again, another stupid wastedl post. Do you have any life? besides sciforums...lol You asked stupid questions and then when I helped you out, you get all *inteligent* by the way you shouldn't have asked those questions to be begin with.

**How many countries disclosed when they become nuclear power and when they REALY became nuclear power,

USA, USSR, UK, France, China, India, and Pakistan…just to name a few. You really only become a nuclear power if you detonate your weapon.
***

Ever heard of a term called Un declare Nuclear powers?

There , you are still not getting it my Arm chair general. You cannot even get my post. Look einstien, Israel is a nuclear power and every one knows it, so stop using flawed logic and stop trying to act stupid. Pakistan and Indian were considrered nuclear power way before they declare or detonate, so they were un delcare nulcear powers. So top playing with my words or urs and admit that you are asking silly questions just to get the posts going. Now you will post something else totally out of this world and call it your inteligent post.

FYI, YOU Is not Equal to Every one, like you tried to implied.

**How many fighter planes were publicaly announced to carry nukes and how many werent'?

Then why were you trying to answer the question? You obviously don’t know what you are saying. “Blah blah and more blah blah” indeed. ****


If I don't know what I am saying why don't you enlighten all of us here with the dates of all the planes converted for every country to carry nuclear arms.

Now go find and tell us when did the mirages, f-16/15/14/18s and all other planes in the world, When were they converted to carry nukes. I am sure you have that Data since you want it from me, like it is documented history of some sort. :D :p

there you go again, another stupid wastedl post. Do you have any life? besides sciforums...lol You asked stupid questions and then when I helped you out, you get all *inteligent* by the way you shouldn't have asked those questions to be begin with.

Excuse me, but if you are so antsy about me posting “stupid” things why bother posting in rebuttal? I mean obviously my posts have enough value that you feel it necessary to offer me a rebuttal, so who here is being a hypocrite? Surely not me…

Ever heard of a term called Un declare Nuclear powers?

I am not even sure what Un declare Nuclear powers is trying to say.

You cannot even get my post.

Can anyone?

Look einstien, Israel is a nuclear power and every one knows it, so stop using flawed logic and stop trying to act stupid.

Where did this come from?

Pakistan and Indian were considrered nuclear power way before they declare or detonate, so they were un declare nulcear powers.

Are you trying to say “undeclared nuclear powers”? India detonated in 1974, so that would only apply to Pakistan. Secondly all I wanted to know was when Pakistan got her nuclear capability nothing else, you are the one who went off a tirade not me.

So top playing with my words or urs and admit that you are asking silly questions just to get the posts going.

Half your words are spelled incorrectly anyways, your logic is deeply fragmented, you are unable to keep onto a single subject, and you are merely insulting me not dealing with the issue. You are by definition a troll…

Now you will post something else totally out of this world and call it your inteligent post.

I never said my posts are intelligent you said that, so thanks for the compliment you obviously feel quite inferior.

FYI, YOU Is not Equal to Every one, like you tried to implied.

Yes…?

If I don't know what I am saying why don't you enlighten all of us here with the dates of all the planes converted for every country to carry nuclear arms.

I don’t have to because the onus is not on me to prove anything, I didn’t make any assertions you did. So until you can show me substantiation for your assertions, you are continually talking out of a stinky orifice.

Now this is really just getting to the point of being a joke, so continue I need a laugh.

get a life kido, stop posting, post after post of your nonsense I am getting sick of it. I gave you enough links to do ur search. When i said there are no dates and u can never find a date of a fighter plane's conversion to carry nukes but u insist on getting Written proof........there aren't any written proof. Just belive me or shut it. And yes I felt like replying to your silly or stupid post becuase I couldn't resist ;-). I love to annoy the hell out of you.Oh and yes my spelling grammer and everything else is off if it hurts your eyes you shouldn't read. But obviously you are keep reading and replying with the same questions. I am enjoying it too, keep doing what you are doing. I am lovin it. :D


**I never said my posts are intelligent you said that, so thanks for the compliment you obviously feel quite inferior. **

**and troll**

You are cracking me up. lol :p

get a life kido, stop posting, post after post of your nonsense I am getting sick of it.

Firstly, don’t worry about me I’m doing quite fine thank you. Secondly I may post nonsense, but nonsense is only in the eye of the beholder. Unless you can show me this “nonsense” you are nothing but a verge paranoid schizophrenic ok?

I gave you enough links to do ur search.

One source, wow I’m overburdened. You have to show me where the stuff is not the other way around. I never asserted anything you did, and if you have any sense of intelligence you would know you have to substantiate your own arguments, not me.

When i said there are no dates and u can never find a date of a fighter plane's conversion to carry nukes but u insist on getting Written proof........there aren't any written proof.

I am sure it exists, you just have to find it.

And yes I felt like replying to your silly or stupid post becuase I couldn't resist

Yup…ADHD.

get a life kido, stop posting, post after post of your nonsense I am getting sick of it.

Firstly, don’t worry about me I’m doing quite fine thank you. Secondly I may post nonsense, but nonsense is only in the eye of the beholder. Unless you can show me this “nonsense” you are nothing but a verge paranoid schizophrenic ok?

I gave you enough links to do ur search.

One source, wow I’m overburdened. You have to show me where the stuff is not the other way around. I never asserted anything you did, and if you have any sense of intelligence you would know you have to substantiate your own arguments, not me.

When i said there are no dates and u can never find a date of a fighter plane's conversion to carry nukes but u insist on getting Written proof........there aren't any written proof.

I am sure it exists, you just have to find it.

And yes I felt like replying to your silly or stupid post becuase I couldn't resist

Yup…ADHD.


I am loving it. So the information exists all I have to do is break into some secret goverment vaults and get that info to staisfy you. LOL... :D . By the way I love annoying You. Can't you tell by now? :D :p

I am waiting for few paragraphs from you, so do not disapoint me please. I gave you atleast 14 links, did you even look up any of those books online? becuase only one of my link had 10 sub links. I guess you missed all that some how? lol

I suggest you stop digging your hole...

The Israelis are the only ones batshit insane enough to break the seal.

Don't believe Kim Jong Il's bluster for a minute. He just wants attention.

I suggest you stop digging your hole...


Are you afraid that I might find you? :D

Yes...that's why...

The Israelis are the only ones batshit insane enough to break the seal.

Well, I assume you have read the US’ military document about Israel’s nuclear weapons. Yes Israel is indeed a nation to watch out for very closely. What scares me the most about Israel is her triad capability, keeps me up at night.

Don't believe Kim Jong Il's bluster for a minute. He just wants attention.

This is true, I don’t believe Kimmie will use his nukes, no quite frankly Kim (should war arrive) will use his nukes to keep Seoul hostage (ingenious plan). Although the chances of NK using her nukes are moderate, we shouldn’t ignore them, he can still sell his nukes to less then savory characters.

I voted Pakistan, but i think the real threat is from a terrorist group getting hold of an old USSR nuke. Realisticly i think a small dirty nuke is the most likely event. Detonated in the US by a bunch of muslim nutters.

If they (the terrorists) denonate a nuke in Yellowstone Park, the largest Supervolcano in the world which is just about ready to blow it's top off again anyway, then there won't be much left in the U.S. to worry about anymore, especially the infrastructure........No more strong America!

Yob Atta

Wow, and this is what happens when i lose my computer for a week . . . a few points -

- The US Congress has just approved the production of low-yield nuclear arms, an effort spearheaded by Dr. Keith B. Payne. Cheak out his writing at the National Institute for Public Policy's website. He has advocated strikeing civilian populations in the event of a large war for the purposes of a 'quick surrender'.

- Pakistan and India arn't simply trying to get into the 'big boys' club, as someone suggested. Given the conflict between Kashmir, if one has nuclear arms so must the other (Mutual Assured Destruction). Pakistan's program was funded largely by Saudi donations, and as we all heard in the news several months ago Pakistani scientists have been selling technology to buyers around the world (including every single country in the Middle East except Iraq - that's right Bush)

- According to Russian experts, there are between 50 and 80 Soviet era warheads unaccounted for.

Cheers (thanks mod!)

bide its time and impose economic sanctions until such force existed.

Completely irrelevant when you are dealing with Juche NK. Unless of course China imposed sanctions. NK wouldn't have enough oil to last the needed two weeks of war.

I don't see China doing that but if it did I don't think even the Juche NK would last.

If we play our cards right NK should give up her nukes in return for economic assistance, and eventual political reform within the country. How does paying off some thugs with a bit of food and money equate to political reform?

NK wouldn't use it's weapons. If it instigated any sort of conflict with nuclear weapons, that will ensure it's downfall as coalition forces will wipe clean the peninsula. No country is likely to use its nuclear arsenal.

Simply put, the little countries would be afraid of getting squashed and the big countries are too mature to use them.

Micheal

Unless of course China imposed sanctions. NK wouldn't have enough oil to last the needed two weeks of war.

Not true, NK has four months of emergency reserve of food, oil, ammunition, etc. NK is based on the idea of Juche, no reliance on anyone.

I don't see China doing that but if it did I don't think even the Juche NK would last.

China= NK
USA= Israel

Syndrome…

How does paying off some thugs with a bit of food and money equate to political reform?

They will be forced to reform if they turn into China, or Vietnam. You cannot have Juche economics, and politics with an economy that depends on foreign investment. Kim knows this and is wary, he went to China to see how opening up can be done without jeopardizing the position of the communist party. A lot of ppl don’t realize that Kim pretty has given up on Juche, he faces problems from the old ideologues from the times of father.

I think NK would need to carry its weapons by hand over the border to use them. We got nothing to fear there, i feel more sorry or China and SK. The most likely is probably India or Pakistan.

Someday, someone will use nukes again on someone else. It could anyone of the smaller countries like Pakastan or maybe even India who becomes provoked enough to use them. However, I think Osama Bin Laden would not hesitate to use them on the U.S. once he get's his hands on some and he probably will someday!

Yob Atta

Not true, NK has four months of emergency reserve of food, oil, ammunition, etc. NK is based on the idea of Juche, no reliance on anyone. That is assuming that China cuts of oil after the war starts. I'm saying China begins to cut back oil more and more and more over time. That will erode into the measily 4 months of oil supply.

That is assuming that China cuts of oil after the war starts. I'm saying China begins to cut back oil more and more and more over time. That will erode into the measily 4 months of oil supply.

Should war actually happen NK would be lucky if she makes it 4 months, China will not give up on NK anytime soon. The same with the US and Israel, it would take a lot to stop that vital trade. It’s not in China’s best interest to make NK desperate, because desperate times call for desperate measures. ;)

China will not give up on NK anytime soon. The same with the US and Israel, it would take a lot to stop that vital trade. It’s not in China’s best interest to make NK desperate, because desperate times call for desperate measures. ;)True, I agree totally. I was just saying IF China was to put the screws to NK, then NK would be F*cked.