Who do you think would use their nukes first? North Korea, Iran or the U.S.?

Question

No. I don't think so. People wake up and pay attention. If America was that ambitious to test out their nukes, Iraq wouldn't be right now and probably the region around Iraq. The U.S. has that for last resort. But, you who cry about U.S. Nukes, don't cry about Iran always threatening to blow Isreal off the land, or North Korea's back and forth Nuke development talks, do you? It's because the U.S. has been made into the World's villain. The U.S. has played diplomatically with Iran and North Korea. If we were such a Nuke happy Country, ready to test them out, North Korea and Iran wouldn't exist. We wouldn't of sacrificed our Troops in Iraq and Afhanistan to help build a better life for those people who are interested in a non-Taliban leadership. Isn't it the peaceniks who want to let those people suffering under murderous tyrant leaders to further suffer because the U.S. shouldn't be the World's police?
Is there peace for those people who suffer? It's the Tyrants of the World, remember

Answer 1

Not the US, US will wait for others to fire first....Iran and North korea may be

Answer 2

I am afraid that the North Koreans have the least to lose. I have dealt with Koreans before and found them very resolute. I was tortured by them. I also served with some of the ROK (Republic of Korean Army) forces in Vietnam - South Korean folk but very tough people.

So, if backed into the corner on anything, the North Korean army runs the country. They have bankrupted their country. If provoked anymore, it is very possible that they could set one off.

I know that we have heard that their missile system is not sturdy enough to carry a payload big enough to hold a nuke. A cargo hold on a ship certainly is big enough. That is a delivery vehicle without any advance tracking.

The US has tested all its nukes and they have not failed to go off. Nothing to prove there.

Iran is in the fallout pattern of anything launchable even at Israel. And we know Israel has the bomb. Retribution would be swift. Iran does not have a nuke now and probably is 5-10 years from having it.

Regarding your statement about sacrificing our troops to help Iraq. I am not sure what your point is about that. We are manifestly not wanted in Iraq. Their president and vice-president have asked for us to leave. We won the war when we toppled their government, beat their army, and helped get another government elected. We are now in the position of occupying Iraq.

Answer 3

well the u.s. DID help set up and supply the tyrant regimes in the first place because it was in their best interest, they didn't care about people's freedom then, their lives were expendable, but nmow the situation is different and now we want to liberate them from those bad meanies, god listen to you dumbshit, where you get your news? fox news? North Korea won't launch a nuke a the u.s. their not that retarded, but they know that bragging about having nukes and showing them off to the world, will deter the us. from invading, which worked, they went after iraq which didn't have any nukes, but did have OIL! now iran is basically saying, well iraq didn't have nukes and look what happened to them, and look north korea does have nukes and look what hasn't happened to them yet, don't forget the U.S. is the only country to have ever used a nuke, two in fact. By the way america isn't as abitous to test nukes because they don't have to worry about being invaded by a superpower for possesing them, I'm not just dogging on the u.s. nukes in general are ******* retarded, and should have never been created! As if it wasn't bad enough they were created, we built enough to destroy the planet many times over.

Answer 4

I say North Korea goes first, with the US days after. The US would almost have to nuke them because we don't have the military capacity to wage a war, so we would either nuke them or just air strike every military installation.

Answer 5

Iran

Answer 6

The United States. It is already starting an ambitious program to introduce "mini-nukes" as conventional weapons. You can thank Bush for blurring the line between nuclear weapons being unconventional or conventional weapons.

Answer 7

I think it would be this administration. Both Iran and North Korea know it would be suicide to try to use them first. They would be leveled within minutes. But the chicken hawks in power here would have no problem using one first if they thought it would help them achieve their goals.

Answer 8

The U.S. would not use nuclear weapons, because we actually care about our planet, but if we are forced to, we would release such power to whipe our enemy off the face of the earth. we will not tolerate a nation who threatens our world. In a nuclear war America would dominate any enemy.

Answer 9

Now let me review the players,
The martyrs threatening to wipe israel off the map, the megalomaniac whose foreign policy is for unification with the south, or the country living by the MAD doctrine for the last 60 years, my vote is for the martyrs to use it first, but that's just me...

Answer 10

I seriously doubt that any of them will.... the retribution by the rest of the world as far as geo-politcal and ecomonically being outcast would devestate them. Then look at the retaliatory measures that would or at least could be extracted upon them. I think its called detaunt.