which country having nukes concerns/scares you the most?

[G_j]

Poll question: which country having nukes concerns/scares you the most?

which country having 'nukes' concerns/scares you the most?

[Waya]

1. The U.S. , of course.......

...closely followed by Israel.

[Spinzonner]

2. Everybody should have nukes

Maybe then everyone will be too scared to go to war because he's worried his crazy enemy will use his nukes and they'll both be in deep doo-doo.

And, well, if someone does go ahead and use them then we get the beneficial effects of Darwinian principles on a national, cultural scale: homicidal and suicidal countries take themselves out and leave the world safer for the rest of us.

Now, don't get me started on the 2nd Amendment right to bear nuclear arms ...

[Delphinus]

3. That's my thinking, too.

Mutual Assured Destruction - that's the only thing that's going to keep OTHER countries safe from us.

[Yupster]

12. What about if a nuke is exploded and

no one takes responsibility for it.

Isn't that the loophole in mutually assured destruction.

That's the fear with Iran. It's not that Iran will nuke Washington, it's that a nuke goes of in Tel Aviv and no one can tell where it came from.

MAD doesn't work too well in that case.

[wuushew]

17. All nuclear bombs have nuclear fingerprints

that tell were their fission material originated. Mystery bombs of unknown origin really don't exist. If you believe Tel Aviv was destroyed by an Iranian weapon you could make a fairly air tight case

[Yupster]

18. If that scenario happened, and

Tel Aviv was destroyed by a nuclear bomb, here's what I think would happen.

Israel would announce that its experts have isolated the fissionable fingerprints and are sure the bomb was made in Iran.

The US would start an investigation but agree with Israel's preliminary judgements.

Europe would urge a dplomatic solution and would ask everyone to avoid pointing fingers.

Iran would categorically deny having anything to do with the bomb, and would blame the world Jewish conspiracy with bombing itself to make Muslims look bad.

Even at DU, there would be indecision. Did Bush drop the bomb himself as a MIHOP, or did he let Israel do it as a LIHOP.

Sorry, but the idea that the bomb would be easily traced doesn't seem to make sense in this world of ours.

Evidence wouldn't make the least bit of difference.

Each group of people would see the event through their own distorted views, and there would be no agreement on who did what, much less what to do about it.

That's why the idea of Iran giving a bomb to a terrorist group is so frightening. They could do it with little risk to themselves because they know most of the world would not want to act against them regardless of what they do.

[wuushew]

22. If Israel was wrong in assigning blame they would be extremely evil

I would demand the entire leadership of the country be hung for crimes against humanity.

I thought the rogue bomb idea was explored fairly interestingly in the recent movie The Sum of All Fears.

[liberalpragmatist]

16. So you think it would be safer IF North Korea had nuclear weapons?

Oh, wait it does.

Look, I oppose Bush's military and foreign policies, and I oppose the war in Iraq. But I think that if every country had nukes it WOULD be a far more dangerous world because there are people who would use them and would wield them to prevent any other countries from "interfering" within its boundaries.

Imagine if Hitler threatened the west with nuclear weapons - imagine that we couldn't have stopped the Holocaust for fear of nuclear weapons.

Imagine if the Serbs had nuclear weapons when we were intervening in Bosnia.

Imagine if the Sudanese govt. had nukes and promised to nuke any country than attempted to intervene in Darfur.

I'm not sure what countries should or shouldn't have nuclear weapons. I do think that India, for instance, is large enough and responsible enough to handle them. But I think preventing nuclear proliferation IS a worthy goal.

[Spinzonner]

26. No country has used nuclear weapons in anger since WW II

and, in particular, no country has used them against another country that also has them. (admittedly a rather trivial subcase) Which is why everyone should have them.

And country that had them and used them would likely have a few detonated on them in short order. It's called MAD and it kept the two biggest nuclear powers from obliterating each other for decades.
Any reason why, empirically, it shouldn't continue to work ?

And, in particular, a small country that used them first against a larger one would likely find itself obliterated.

SO your examples are rather unlikely, to say the least.

[Flubadubya]

4. Well, the U. S. is the only country that has used them...

against another country. That's US alright!

[G_j]

6. that might have gone either way

the country might have been shocked and remorseful enough to attempt to outright ban nukes altogether, but it didn't happen that way.

I too am most concerned about the one country who has used nuclear weapons.

[MaineYooper]

5. NSA: the Neocon States of America.

on edit:

by which I mean that nukes scare me in general, but in the hands of the whackos currently in charge of this country, they're terrifying...

[tibbir]

25. You've got that right.

I love Neocon States of America. Too bad it's so true.

[Pow_Wow]

7. my POV, in order

of "scariness"

United States
Israel
China
North Korea
Pakistan
India
Russia
Iran
other
France

[JohnnyBoots]

8. Switzerland scares the shit out of me!

[Just Me]

9. Under the rule of the present cabal, I am especially concerned,...

,...about the development of additional nukes. The BushCo/neoCON regime has engaged in abuse of power against their own people. So, I have no doubt that the regime will abuse power abroad.

[G_j]

10. of course they already are abusing power abroad

& Cheney's little rant about using nukes on Iran doesn't leave much room for comfort.

[Pepperbelly]

11. you left out ... All of the above. nt

[G_j]

13. good point n/t

[johnaries]

14. As long as it's B* "s finger on the trigger, US. n/t

[Wizard777]

15. I'm more worried about Bush and Nukes than I was with Reagan and Nukes.

Bush is looking for an excuse to nuke something, anything. he even ytird to create a reason. That was his first suggested course of action with Iraq. Nuke Em! That idea was quickly shot down. But Bush still rolled with the "Premptive Strike" part. Now I'm wondering if the ever vendictive Bush is clearing out the Pentagon People that wouldn't let him Nuke Iraq so he can Nuke Iran? Jr.'s going to throw a major tantrum if he doesn't get to make a mushroom cloud. That much is for sure.

[VADem11]

19. Hmm...

I would have to say North Korea. They're pretty bad even without nuclear weapons. Kim Jong Il is still crazy. With Bush, the US is probably second or third.

[Cleita]

20. They all scare me. Our country is getting particularly scary. n/t

[Zenlitened]

21. Well, that vote tally was a bit predictable, wasn't it? LOL?

I voted for Iran, because the idea of religious fundamentalists with nukes in their hands terrifies me.

Oh, wait... :scared:

[G_j]

23. I don't know

The US, China and North Korea have all made fairly blunt statements about the possibility of using nukes.

[wuushew]

24. kick

:kick: :nuke: