The country with the most nuclear weapons (unofficially or officially) is most likely to use them?

Question

Shouldn't they be stopped now rather than left to eventually wipe out (most of) humanity? And why do people actually believe states should keep nuclear weapons? For defence? or is it really about offence? Discuss....

Answer 1

* You only need one

* Israel.

Answer 2

Neither defence or offence, but rather as a fear tactic.

America dropped the nukes on Japan to show the Russians what they could and would do, without thought for the many thousands murdered in this example.

As long as the West, and their ar se licking allies, hello the UK and others, have nukes, they can control through fear.

Why do you think the Americans do not want Nukes in Korea or Iran. Because they might use them. Oh no, it's because they would have them, and if America tried to steal their oil, see Iraq, then Iran, for example, have exactly the same threat over America.

The bullies in the school yard do not want the little kids have the will or the means to fight back. Sadly for the bullies, some of them are, and with China emerging and Russia now powerful again, America will have to find a new game to play.

Answer 3

No,
I think the next use of nuclear weapons is more likely to come from a re-escalation of the disputes between India and Pakistan. Not terribly likely, but there because Pakistan has no real hope of matching India for conventional weapons, should it come to war.

But the real risk lies elsewhere, and is undermining the possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
As the technology becomes easier, the risk is that an extremist *group* will obtain or make a weapon. They will have no nation state to be held hostage to retaliation, and not be deterred by the thought of it anyway.
They won't need a missile delivery system if a shipping container will do.
(and just how good or bad nuclear detection at ports is, is very much classified)

Answer 4

The short list is:
1) Iran
2) India/Pakistan against each other.
3) North Korea.

Stopping countries from obtaining nuclear weapons is a pipe dream.
From a purely tactical point of view nuclear weapons are supposed to be defencive weapons but so far their only use has been offencive,

Answer 5

Nuclear weapons are more expensive and their effect is more impressive than other WMD. It is much cheaper to produce biological and chemical weapons that could kill comparable numbers of people and it is exactly for that reason that the Great Powers had focused their Deterrence on nuclear weapons. It would be almost impossible to control a ban on the production of these weapons. The ban on these weapons remained universal but uncontrolable.
The fear and mistrust that some countries (or non-state actors) might produce or use biological or chemical weapons lead to the extension of the retaliation-threat to all WMD. This has, along with the threat of preemptive use, lowered the threshold significantly.
I think the country most likely to use nuclear weapons (again) is the USA. The ongoing missile defense build-up and the Nuclear Posture Review show that they are trying to change nuclear weapons into a war-fighting instrument instead of a political tool.
It seems that they have lost confidence in deterrence-stability.

Answer 6

Russia and the US have come close but the thought of self-annihilation has prevented it thus far. Actually I think stateless fanatical regimes like terrorists organizations are much more likely to use nukes because it's very hard to pin the blame on a specific nation. They don't care if they all die because in their eyes it's for a "better" cause.

Answer 7

The two country's with the most amount of nuclear devices would be the US and Russia. The problem with your theory is, who's going to stop them short of being totally annihilated themselves ?

To answer your question, I will answer with the words of Teddy Roosevelt; "Walk softly, but carry a big stick !"

Answer 8

Actually, you're wrong. The country with the most nuclear weapons is the least likely to use them. You're more likely to see some crackpot like the idiot in Teheran, who is aching to get them, use them first.

Answer 9

Definitely not .. the most likely user will be some tin pot government who thinks buy using them it will gain greater influence in the world.. Sadly the only thing that will befall such a state is its own assured total destruction.

Answer 10

im not sure but personally i would think that the only reason some countries do not use nuclear weapons for attacking is that they know the country would retalliate with one of their own.

if the defending country didn't have one, maybe the attacker would go for it

Answer 11

Wrong. The country with the fewest is the most likely to use them. Theirs can be taken out in a first strike leaving them defenseless so the temptation will be to use them or lose them.