Which is the most dangerous country?

Question

The North Korea, although to have if engaged to close its nuclear installations, already detonated an atomic bomb and still it is an isolated country.

The Iran, whose president nails the destruction of the state of Israel, will be in conditions to manufacture a nuclear bomb in few years if the international community not to make nothing.

United States, that withholds the biggest nuclear armory of the world, only country that already used atomic bombs against civilians - when it attacked the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nakasaki, in August of 1945.

which of these countries represents the biggest danger to the security it planet?

Answer 1

A good question. It also shows how many Americans are here on Yahoo Uk!
The USA is the most dangerous country on the planet. They have the power to wipe out anyone they chose and have no real competition (although China are catching them up!) America has a very blinkered view of the rest of the world, and thinks that forcing democracy on the troubled parts of the planet will solve it's problems. But when a country (Palestine) democratically elects a ruling party that the USA thinks of as terrorists, they refuse to talk to them, even though they were elected using western democracy! America thinks the whole world wants to be like America!
And as for the chap who claimed that the US did not use nukes against Japanese civilians, well hes talking rubbish. How can you target industrial areas with a bomb that takes out whole cities in a single blast?? The Japanese were warned about the 2nd nuclear strike, NOT the 1st.
So the greatest threat to world security is the USA! I'll just sit back now and watch all the negative votes come in!!

Answer 2

United states

Answer 3

Countries are no longer the most dangerous entities in the world. Fringe militias and extremist organizations - that are beyond the control of normal governmental spheres - they are and will continue to be the greatest threat. Because of this, the American nuclear arsenal is not quite the deterrant it was in the Soviet days. I cannot foresee any scenario in which we use such weapons, since I don't foresee any nation-state using them against us.

I don't believe any of the three you specify are inherently more dangerous than the other. Recent history has proven none of them to be trustworthy, but dangerous from a nuclear point-of-view - I don't believe so.

I don't see any scenario where a nuclear weapon is used on Israel - largely in part because the land is equally holy to Muslims as it is Jews and Christians. Though I find it ironic that lands labeled as "holy" are usually the ones with the most violence in them. Except, perhaps, the Holy City of Los Angeles.

Answer 4

Blink the sand out of your eyes and reread history. THe US did not just up and attack Japan for hoots and giggles. The use of the ATOMIC (not nuclear) bomb was agonized over and only done after Japan ignored one warning after another. The US only got into that war after an unprovoked attack on US territory by Japan. While you are at it, ask the people of Korea, China, The Phillipines what they think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

North Korea and Iran are the nation-sized equivalents of lunatic asylums which have fallen into the control of the inmates. It is not nukes which makes a nation dangerous, but the insanity of its leaders. The US has had nukes the longest, but only used them against an intractable enemy who had attacked them first and had world domination on their minds. IF the US was dangerous, it would have used nukes since.

Answer 5

Possibly Russia still. They appear to have no control over the whereabouts of nuclear materiel, are happy to support Iran in their attempts to eliminate Israel. Very dangerous.
As regards the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you really need to read the background leading up to the bombing, study the objectives and consider the final result. All is not what it seems at first glance.

Answer 6

Lots of countries engage in political rhetoric for domestic political reasons, but there is only one country in the world right now which used nuclear weapons in war, has a huge arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Refuses to outlaw use of landmines. Is the largest arms dealer in the world. Launched numerous unilatteral military actions on foreign soil. Considers independent countries as areas of vital strategic importance. Plans to militerize space, etc,etc...

Answer 7

I would go with the United States, but not for the reason you gave. I would point out that whether the US did it for ending the war or for scaring the communists, it was done under a political cover (America was trying to save lives by ending a war before invasion that would have ended with millions of dead Americans and the complete destruction of Japan and maybe even the annihilation of its people). Whether that was true or not is irrelevant, they waited until they had the cover to attack.

And that is something America has done repeatedly, which would suggest if the other countries of the world can play things right, they can outpoliticize our government and prevent attack. Its tough to do so, but they have a chance. So the fact that it was done once isn't really proof that America would do it again. On the other hand, the two other countries have said they'd be willing to use it, politically covered to do so or not.

However, I still go with America being the most dangerous of the three. The truth is, while nuclear power is the most destructive weapon on the planet, it is also too slow to make that much of a difference anymore. The fastest delivery system for the weapon (the ICBM--the InterContinental Ballistic Missile) only travels 18,000 miles per hour. Sounds fast, until you find out that the weapon sent to intercept it travels at just under 186,000 miles per second (not per hour, per second--just under the speed of light).

Which means that both countries could launch every nuke they've got, and only one or two would get through at most. Now on a human scale (our moral code), this would be bad. But in a military scale (acceptable losses), this is nothing. A couple of cities; big deal, we've got hundreds. And we would wipe them out soon after (they don't have as many interceptor weapons as we do--nor as many as we have nukes).

Which means to beat us, they would have to invade. To do that, they'll have to go through our navy, army, marines, coast guard, national guard, merchant marines. My guess would be they wouldn't get past our navy, much less everything else. So by the time they get here (assuming they get here), they would be no match for the resistance force that would pop up. They would have no chance of making it past Los Angeles on the west or New York on the East. Because of America's size and military power, it would take multiple countries to get through. There simply isn't enough cooperation among our enemies for that to happen.

On the other hand, America is quite capable of destroying both countries without even leaving home. In fact, with our nuke sub technology, home could no longer exist and we could still take out both countries. And quite a few more as well. The major reason we have so much trouble with other countries (especially Iraq but not limited to Iraq) is that we are trying to maintain moral high ground. And to do that, you cannot hurt innocent people. Which is a weakness militarily speaking, and one most of our enemies exploit.

Answer 8

Iran & N Korea are very close. Iran's leaders want to hasten Armegeddon making them more dangerous than N Korea's, but N Korea has long range missiles & a few nukes.

The United States is mankind's best hope for peace.

Answer 9

Ask yourself which of those countries is a constitutional republic and which are controlled by sadistic madmen. And don't give me the Bush BS, there is a democrat controlled congress to apply balance and the overriding will of the people.

Answer 10

I firmly believe it is the U.S.A' Remember the U.S.A. is a country made up of mostly immigrants who have been persecuted by the rest of the world. Obviously there will always be the oddball,who will be against his own adopted country. This is the homeborn terrorist. The most dangerous of all. BUT the second most dangerous is the THIS IS MY COUNTRY ,DONT GIVE ME ****!!!! attitude. And I,m afraid this is the attitude of most of the Americans. GOD SAVE THE WORLD !!!!!!!