Which country with nuclear weapons frightens you the most?

[Alexander's Horse]

We've heard a lot about weapons of mass destruction recently.

Which nuclear power are you most afraid of and why?

[JohnT]

Oh, let me say it before anybody else!?!?!?!?

USA!!!!

[Skanky Burns]

The US is the only country to actually use them in a hostile act. They are also on the warpath (judging from recent events). Fortunately they use Australia for support, so they aren't really to be feared. They also mainly target the British for friendly fire incidents, so I don't really fear them.

No other country has used nuclear weapons in aggression, so they don't rate.

[TCO]

Russia, reasons:

1. large amount of them. Enough to end the world.
2. Intercontinental delivery mechanisms.
3. Corruption rampant.
4. Potential for slipping back into hostile dictatorship

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by JohnT
Oh, let me say it before anybody else!?!?!?!?

USA!!!!

Now why would you say that John?

[TCO]

In comparison the other nuclear powers:

US: only 1 and 2 (save the trolls, tired Horsie)
UK: half of 1 and 2
France: half of 1 and 2
China: half of 1 and 2, all of 3 and 4
India: 3 and 4 only
Pakistan: Do they have them? Can't remember if that test was verified? In any case, only 3 and 4.
Israel: Do they have them? If so, probably doesn't match any of the numbers.

[Spiffor]

1. The USA, by far.
They are the only ones who threaten to use them in an offensive way, and their current leadership is bigoted enough to actually do so. Besides, they have the power to create international crises, and won't hesitate to do so.

2. North Korea
Nuclear power is their main asset in the current diplomatic crisis. Kim might have entered a suicidial path for his country and the ones surrounding. But their conventional potential is probably more fearsome as their nuclear potential, since their artillery could easily level Seoul

3. Israel
They are fighting for their very survival. They won't hesitate to use their nukes if a conventional war goes badly.

4. Pakistan
About as fearsome as India, but it adds the nice extra touch of being a tame Islamist country that could become radical if Musharraf fails. For some reason, I don't like the idea of a terrorist-supporting regime with nukes.

5. India
Until now, the nuclear ability of these 2 countries has merely been chest-thumping, but the strong hatred between these two countries, and their propension to massacre each other, could lead to a degenrative situation.

Others aren't fearsome IMHO, since they don't intend to use them first, and should show some caution before using their nukes.

[Bereta_Eder]

none

[TCO]

Originally posted by paiktis22
none

That avatar hurts my head. Have pity on people who drank last night.

[Skanky Burns]

This thread has been voted most likely to end up under the moderator's carpet. Wine has nothing to do with this assessment. Especially not the three bottle of German reisling that have mysteriously been used up tonight by myself and my fiance.

[Bereta_Eder]

push "Diakope" (intermission/stop) at your IE! and eat capari

[BeBro]

North Korea, if they really have them. Not because I think they are belonging to the axis of evil, but because I can´t identify a rational policy with WMDs there.

If they really have them, they could negotiate without all the aggressive rhetorics and come to a kind of "quiet" agreement with the US. But they sound sometimes as if they think they have nothing to lose, which makes them most dangerous IMO.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Wine has nothing to do with this assessment. Especially not the three bottle of German reisling that have mysteriously been used up tonight by myself and my fiance.

And your posting here rather than making out?

[SlowwHand]

India, because essentially they have the brains gave a beer can.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
India, because essentially they have the brains gave a beer can.

huh?

[TCO]

Originally posted by BeBro
North Korea, if they really have them. Not because I think they are belonging to the axis of evil, but because I can´t identify a rational policy with WMDs there.

If they really have them, they could negotiate without all the aggressive rhetorics and come to a kind of "quiet" agreement with the US. But they sound sometimes as if they think they have nothing to lose, which makes them most dangerous IMO.

Read some game theory. It can be an effective negotiation strategy to convince your adversary that you are irrational. It affects how he deals with you. Of course, maybe they really are irrational. And the doubt makes that strategy so much more effective...

[SlowwHand]

Huh? Now that's a standard of communication hard to beat.

[Guynemer]

Seriously Sloww, your comment didn't make any sense. What is it supposed to say?

[BeBro]

Originally posted by GP


Read some game theory. It can be an effective negotiation strategy to convince your adversary that you are irrational. It affects how he deals with you.

Yes, maybe. But since I´m from Eastern Germany I´m not convinced that Communist leaders in a crisis are close in touch with reality...

However, hopefully my fears are exaggerated

[Menlas]

USA and Russia

USA: see Spiffor's reasons

Russia : because of the large amount they have and the possible lack of control over some, due to financial reasons and corruption (but maybe i'm too much influenced by Hollywood about it )


NK : not really. Their nukes seem to be essentially a way to obtain what they want.

Others nuclear powers : their nukes are made for defense only, it is higly doubtful they would nuke first.
However, the possibility of a coup d'etat in Pakistan is dangerous.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
And your posting here rather than making out?

Hey, even I get tired of that.
(Not often, but sometimes).

[Rogan Josh]

USA

[Kuciwalker]

Pakistan and India.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Seriously Sloww, your comment didn't make any sense. What is it supposed to say?

I think he meant "Indians are stupid"

[Guynemer]

Well, I thought so too, but I was hoping he'd clarify that. Sadly, it certainly would be in line with the horseshit he's always shooting all over this forums.

[Urban Ranger]

USA.

With its tendency to constantly get into fights with other countries and the refusal to rule out the use of nuclear weapons, it's the one country that's most likely to use nuclear weapons on another country.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
USA.

With its tendency to constantly get into fights with other countries and the refusal to rule out the use of nuclear weapons, it's the one country that's most likely to use nuclear weapons on another country.

Maybe if all you fear is "usage". But if you don't pull what the Japs did in WW2, you should be ok.

[chequita guevara]

It depends on the intent of Horsie's question.

If he means, which country's possession of nukes (of the coutrnies whih have them) frighten you the most, I'd have to say it was a toss up between Russia (for the reasons GP listsed) and Pakistan. I list Pakistan because:
1) It's one coup away from becoming a Taliban state.
2) It gave uranium reprocessing technology to North Korea, i.e., it has exported nuke technology.
3) It's the country in the immediate future that is most likely to be involved in a war in which nukes will be used.

If, however, Horsie's question is, of the list of nuke owning powers, which scares you the most, I'd have to say it's my county. With or without nukes, the peace-loving USA has been involved in nearly a conflict a year since the end of WWII. Nothing holds us in check, not even the will of our own people.

[Drake Tungsten]

Pakistan, by far. The most dangerous country on earth.

[yago]

USA

-Militaristic
-Exspansionist

By far the most dangerous

Russia

I don't fear their nuclear weapons, I fear the state of the nuclear plants

North-Korea, India, Pakistan

Very dangerous when mixed with American diplomats.

(American-diplomat, is that an oxymoron ?)